Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Locations/Archive2

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Should we split this formatting guide into one "towns and outposts" part and one "explorable" part, instead of trying to keep them in the same formatting guide? I have a feeling it will get really huge and confusing once all the formatting about explorables is added and outposts are finalised. - anja talk 18:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they're better off merged. They shouldn't be much different from each other right? -- sig 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, maybe not, but there's alot of "omit this if" and "omit that if" that makes the example very big. I prefer examples you can copy and paste into a new article and then just fill in the right info, because I thought that was the purpose of them. But maybe you're right, they wouldn't be all too different. - anja talk 08:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I know the "omit this" and "omit that" are not very elegant, but I'm thinking the only big difference between them would be the in-game description and the list of enemies and bosses. Stuffs like statues and bounties can be worded in such a way as to fit in to the a landmarks section. -- sig 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


How about a field in the infobox that points out the type of chest, if any, that one might find in the location. This could link to the article detailing that particular chest. Just a thought.Rangerjherek 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


What is the current status of this article? Are there still issues undecided? I ask this, because this page is still mentioned on GWW:RFC, but it kinda looks ok to me... -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

People use it as if finalised, so might as well. Backsword 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd prefer landmarks to be listed under description, as they are effectivly a part of it. ANd would tend would tend to disapear under long monster lists. Backsword

Any objections on moveing up the landmark header? Wouldn't affect many articles, but I'd be useful in a few cases, with long lists of other things in them. Backsword

Notes and Trivia -sections

There were three of them, one inside the box and two outside of it. Removed the ones outside. If that </nowiki> -tag was there for a reason, better to put it back but I didn't notice it having an effect on the display. - IH 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a bad paste. It's a strange bug problem or something caused the pre and nowiki, sections get duplicated when saving the page. -- sig 09:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In Game Description

I propose that we change that to just Description. In Game just doesn't sound as good.--§ Eloc § 00:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the rare times I actually agree with Eloc. -- sig 14:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer "In game description", to differentiate it from a description written by us. - anja talk 16:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Anja on this. The overview, just above this section, is also a sort of description. Backsword 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Aberrant for once agrees with me XD...I just think In Game Description sounds, kinda tacky.--§ Eloc § 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What about simply put the ingame description in quotation marks and italic style with and indent? poke | talk 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Still sounds tacky, how about Outpost Information or Town Information?--§ Eloc § 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The introductory text or section 0 is meant to be an overview or a summary of the article, not a description of the location. Since we put it in italics, it should be obvious enough that it's quoted from somewhere else. We don't say "In-game quotes" or "In-game dialogue". The "in-game" part just looks inelegant. -- sig 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Example: Shing Jea Monastery. How could we make it clear and obvious the italic part (in game description) is a quote from game, without the heading?
Indentation and italics might work, and then the header isn't needed at all. I would prefer such a solution rather than changing the header to "Decription". As there already is a description above the header, it would be a bit confusing, imo. - anja talk 08:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, to me, the part above the table of contents isn't a description. It's a summary or explanation of what Shing Jea Monastery is about. And that's exactly how I think locations should be. An introductory text section that gives an introduction/summary/explanation/overview of what a location is about, followed by "Description", a little paragraph of flavor text. Does it matter if people don't immediately realise that it's in-game description as opposed to a general description? -- sig 08:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps no section title, and located at top of page with quotes and italics, followed by user edited info, would look more "official-centered" and would likely attract the user to keep reading through location pages. ArenaNet's writers did a good job on all in-game descriptions, imo. Why not feature them first, directly under the article title. That's just a thought :) (EDIT) And it would happen to fall right beside the Infobox IMAGE, just like ingame. Thus the illusion that it is indeed intended as a Ingame Description. Laura Brinklow LB 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I was thinking of that too or something along those lines.--§ Eloc § 05:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Something like this, perhaps, if what I said is not possible? Laura Brinklow LB 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I edited previous post to relocate the link. The info is now in a subpage of my sandbox.Laura Brinklow LB 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't really like it. It feels a little messy with unequal white space on both sides of the description. Also, it's highly influenced by the size of the table of contents. It'll look weirder when there's a long table of contents but short description. And if you hide the table of contents, the section header's hr will go on top of the description. -- sig 08:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like Laura's first suggestion, to put the official description at the top with italics and the article summary right below it, without headers at all. But I understand that is still against the "main design" of wiki. Reading wise though, I'd like it. - anja talk 09:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Same here actually. I was kinda thinking that the in-game description would appear right at the top too. But I suppose Laura also agrees that the intro text is the more commonly accepted thing at the start of an article. Rather than having to put in CSS (which will just confuse casual users), what about indenting the in-game description? So we start with our intro text, then indent the in-game description on the next paragraph. Not too sure about the right margin though. -- sig 09:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just this?--§ Eloc § 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How will readers/editors be able to tell that the description is copied from the game, rather than from another official source? --Rezyk 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bcause it will be the only thing going there.--§ Eloc § 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What Rezyk means is that what happens if there's another official write-up for a particular location, such as the game manual. How do you plan on differentiating these two sources? -- sig 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
javascript:toggleOfficial? :P Laura Brinklow LB 04:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Put the one that's not ingame, but rather the manual as == Manual == ?--§ Eloc § 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should explicitly name the source somewhere, to keep things clear with respect to the GFDL, much less for our own benefit in maintenance. Here's some ideas that don't use a header:


As the ancient Canthan name implies, Shing Jea is the jewel of Cantha. Headed by the legendary Ritualist, Master Togo, the monastery provides training to students of all heroic professions, including the Ritualist and Assassin professions native to Cantha. Graduates of the Shing Jea Monastery are recognized worldwide as masters of their chosen arts. –In-game description


Blasted and battered, the current landscape of Ascalon holds only the ghost of its former glory. Skeletons of grand cathedrals and remnants of whole cities lie broken on the shifted, displaced ground. The protective Great Northern Wall is perhaps the most intact structure in the entire kingdom, but the destruction that surrounds it lies in testament to its ultimate failure.

Before the Charr invasion and the Searing, Ascalon was a fertile land, full of wheat fields and blossoming flowers. Now though, little grows here in this wasteland. The once-loamy earth is now dry and arid. The riverbeds have dried up, and the mudflats have turned into a patchwork of cracked plates and jagged scars in the ground.

The Ruins of Ascalon,


Djinn are spirits with deep ties to the Elonian continent, usually bound to spiritually strong areas. In some Elonian legends, they have the power to act unseen. Like humans, they’re allegedly capable of choosing a path of good or evil. In a sense, djinn really can act unseen—many are shapeshifters, capable of assuming a human form when interacting with human beings and other species. Some Vabbian myths describe the djinn as protectors of the natural world, making them enemies of unnatural demons from other dimensions.

Most djinn are bound to the locations and places they protect, most commonly rivers, lakes, and stretches of desert. When humans first came to Elona, truly powerful wizards attempted to bind djinn to estates, caves, vaults, or other places where wealth was hidden. Djinn guardians who outlive their masters may forget their original commands, or they may become powerful enough to find their own motives.

Djinn are relentless when defending the items, places, and causes they protect, but they may also bestow their favor on people who aid them in those tasks. Vabbi legends hint at djinn granting wishes and bestowing powers. In more recent accounts, adventurers have shared stories of djinn who offered them magical knowledge and powerful magical items... including some salvaged from mighty heroes who dared to disturb the djinn.

Djinn, Guild Wars Nightfall manual

--Rezyk 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I only like the B one, as long as it stays in or or w/e it ends in. No fan site descriptions please.--§ Eloc § 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer A or C. C has a nicer way of doing the source reference, but I really like the italics. They make it seem cited, imo. - anja talk 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
All three look bad when used in combination with the location infobox and a normal description... poke | talk 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean normal desciption? Shouldn't we just be putting in the ingame description and anything else can go too notes?--§ Eloc § 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. The in-game description is in addition to our own summary of the place. The description is just a piece of flavor text. What's important is to summarise what a particular location is for. -- sig 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that far from all places have an ingame desription, and somettimes it's unclear if an ingame description is for the outpost or the mission. Backsword

This formatting decision can extend beyond locations, too. The examples above include one location, one region, and one creature type. In general, we might also cite sources in the middle of an article, to inject tidbits of relevant lore. --Rezyk 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
=S, all I wanted was for ingame description to have a better name.--§ Eloc § 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's call it "On the client." Do people know what client means? WIth this, you can elaborate other info such as: "In the manual" or "From the website" Laura Brinklow LB 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC) what Wikipedia does and have those reference tags where the links where they're at are at the bottom of the page and at the top just have little numbers .--§ Eloc § 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say quoting sources to be rather troublesome for something so trivial. I think Rezyk's example A is the best way to do it. Just put our own description right at the top, then throw in the indented, italicized in-game description and append a little source remark at the end and done. Only slightly different from what we have now. -- sig 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As long as the In game description thing is gone, I'm fine.--§ Eloc § 18:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're fine with Rezyk's option A? "In-game description" is not exactly gone (just made smaller), only the header is gone. -- sig 01:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I created Template:Game description, and applied it to Shing Jea Monastery and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Locations. We can modify the template to reflect whatever we settle on (I tried to leave it as a hybrid of the qualities which seemed to be liked above). --Rezyk 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a Template:Manual description in the same vein as your template. Would apply for descriptions like Morgahn's. -- sig 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


This is a subject that began to be discussed some time ago, but was then forgotten. Hopefully the new surge of discussion on this page will help us to move it forward. Right now there are many ways to display bounties available in an area, and this is a kind of formatting I wish were defined before GW:EN is released (as we may expect more bounties there). One proposed system has been...


The system I like more is the one seen here, as I think that system is more detailed while having more room for information - it isn't as cluttered as the option above, at least to me. What do you people think? Erasculio 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the ones on all the Istani explorable areas :P which, incidentally were added by me :D But on a more serious note, there are several things I dislike about the one you linked:
  • I don't think it's necessary for the "promotion points" to be as a section header. It just makes it big and inelegant. And don't link the section headers (I removed the link and applied ulc to the headers).
  • The "Shrine of x" prefix is rather repetitive and, well, not nice. :P If we're planning on combining the types of shrines that are available, I think a different section name would be good, to allow for it the same structure be used on areas with no bounties for the shrines. Otherwise, keep shrine and bouty separate.
  • There's really no need to bold the direction. Don't see a point of making the direction stand out so much when you still have to read the following text to find out exactly where it is anyway. I find "outside the Crystal Overlook portal" much more useful than "West", so I would say the bold is emphasising the wrong thing. (and I find "exit" a much better term than "portal", since flavor-wise, it's not a portal per se)
Is say, Zehlon Reach#Bounties, not "better"? Better in terms of readability, because you don't have so many bolded and larger text and links distracting the actual details on the exact locations. Of course, the best solution is actually to go and photoshop-up a nice map indicating all the bounties :) Or at least format it nicely into a table. -- sig 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually like having everything bigger, with more clearly marked titles (when playing GW, I have set the yellow, blue and red numbers to be at the maximum size possible : D), I think it makes them easier to read and find. However that's a minor (or not so "minor" : D) aesthetic change, if you want to change it doesn't really bother me. What does bother me in the example you pointed is how it does not list "West", "Center" and whatever. While I understand that you think "outside x portal/exit" is more descritive, the problem with saying just that is that you need to look at a map to understand where that is - without a map showing you where said exit is, you won't be saying anything about the location of the bounty. Saying "west", "south" and etc is the opposite - you don't need to see a map to understand that, no matter how the area looks like, a bounty at the south will be at the bottom of the area, a bounty to the north will be at the top of the area, and so on. It creates a more "unversally understood" code that I think is easier to understand (and just better, really) than using different points of reference for each bounty in each map. Erasculio 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, leave the directions but drop the bold:
I have a (irrational?) dislike for using bold as emphasis when it is not necessary to so. Too many bolds spoils my focus :P -- sig 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this one, now? I have removed the bolding from the directions, changed "portal" to "exit", lowered the placement of the "X promotion points" statements so they're smaller, and removed the link from Bounties (as Quests, Henchmen and etc are not links either). Is this good? Erasculio 15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

I was going to try suggesting those one by one, but given the short time between now and GW:EN, and how I would like this page to be finished by then, I would like to propose all those changes together:


I propose bounties to follow the format:

====[[Title]] promotion points====
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).

...And to be placed above Quests, below Landmarks. One current example of this may be seen here.


I propose tamable animals to follow the format:

===Other allied NPCs===
*[[Other NPC 1]]
*[[Other NPC 2]]
**[[Animal 1]]
**[[Animal 2]]


In order to have consistency between what are the defined enemy groups, I propose changing this...

===Foes=== <!-- omit for outposts -->
[[foe type 1]]s <!-- "species", i.e. [[Dragon]]s, [[Elemental]]s, [[Human]]s, [[Plant]]s, [[Dwarf|Dwarves]] -->


===Foes=== <!-- omit for outposts -->
[[foe type 1]]s <!-- "species", i.e. [[Elemental]]s, [[Human]]s, and etc as defined on the Creature article -->

...As said article lists the enemies as they have been currently classified (Margonites as Demons, Djinns as Elementals, and so on). Erasculio 00:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll compile my comments too then:
  1. I don't like the section header for the promotion points, mostly because of the linked header (which I feel headers shouldn't be wiki-linked), but this is trivial I suppose. How do ppl feel about using a table for the bounties? A template even? Too needlessly complex? If so, forget the table and stick with the list then.
  2. Above quests I can accept, because it's more likely that someone would be searching more often for bounties than quests. But I'm not sure why the landmarks are placed so high. It doesn't feel very important. How about landmarks going to the bottom above notes?
  3. I'd like to see "Other allied NPCs" be renamed to "Others" (since it's already under an "NPCs" section) or at least to "Other friendly NPCs" (because being an "ally" has a specific meaning in GW).
  4. I'm not too sure what you mean by the "Foes" part but I'd support the one adopted in the Ruptured Heart, with a minor change; and that's to bold (not section header) the "top-level" species like "Demon", and "Human", and such. -- sig 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea to number things, makes them easier to discuss.
  1. I think the lists look better, actually, but then again I'm not fond of how most tables look like here. I agree in removing the link from the headers, though. If someone complains, we can change it later.
  2. Fine by me. I'm not that interested in landmarks myself.
  3. I think it should be kept as it is ("Other allied NPCs"), because they do fit the description of ally we have here. If they did not fit I would agree with you on changing it, but as far as I can see they do.
  4. The problem I have with the current Foes section is that I think it's not obvious to which groups the enemies belong. For example, my first impulse would be to add Margonites to their own group, instead of listing them as Demons. So I would like that part of the formatting guideline to have a link to a list of creatures, listing what belong on what group. The creatures page has one of those lists, so I would like to link to it. I cannot figure out how to add a link to the page, inside the pre and nowiki parameters, though >.> Erasculio 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No problems with 1, 2, and 4. For 3 though, I'd go with "Other allies". -- sig 01:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, that's the perfect choice. Erasculio 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to implement the changes listed here, and flesh out the guide a bit. Comments? - anja talk 11:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Very very nice, thank you Anja : ) Erasculio 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a doubt here. Should profession/levels be stated for animals/allied npcs? The current formating guideline doesn't state it i think, but i have seen several pages with info as "X(profession) ##(level) NPC_Name" (ie. Salt Flats). --Fighterdoken 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think we should not, since it's not really relevant (you are mostly not fighting them, and most of them have no profession shown). The only case where it could be good to state level is if there are pets around, but maybe that's unnecessary too. But that's just my opinion. - anja talk 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Location infobox

I suggest we change the

{{Location infobox
| name = Location name   <!-- optional -->
| image = [[Image:Location image.jpg|196px]] 
| campaign = Campaign name
| region = Region name
| type = Outpost         <!-- use one: "Port", "Town", "Outpost", "Mission outpost", "Explorable area" -->
| exits = [[Exit 1]]<br>[[Exit 2]]<br>[[Exit 3]]
| hasCollector = y
| hasHenchman = y
| hasMerchant = y
| hasSkillTrainer = y
| hasStorage = y


{{Location infobox
| name = Location name   <!-- optional -->
| image = [[Image:Location image.jpg|196px]] 
| campaign = Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall or Eye of the North
| region = Region name
| type = Outpost         <!-- use one: "Port", "Town", "Outpost", "Mission outpost", "Explorable area", "Landmark" -->
| partysize = 
| exits = [[Exit 1]]<br>[[Exit 2]]<br>[[Exit 3]]
| pic1 = 
| pic1-text = 
| pic2 = 
| pic2-text = 
| pic3 = 
| pic3-text = 
| pic4 = 
| pic4-text = 
| pic5 = 
| pic5-text = 
| noServices =
| hasAllianceServices = y
| hasArenaGuard =
| hasArmorer =
| hasArtisan =
| hasCollector = y
| hasDyeTrader =
| hasFactionAmbassador = y
| hasFactionRewards =
| hasFactionScribe = y
| hasFestivalHatMaker =
| hasGuildAmbassador =
| hasGuildEmblemer =
| hasGuildRegistrar =
| hasHenchman = y
| hasHeroSkillTrainer =
| hasMaterialTrader =
| hasMerchant = y
| hasPetTamer =
| hasProfessionChanger =
| hasRareMaterialTrader =
| hasRareScrollTrader =
| hasRuneTrader =
| hasSkillTrainer = y
| hasStorage = y
| hasStorageUpgrades =
| hasWeaponsmith =
--§ Eloc § 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the infobox is explained better on the template page. It would make the example unnecessary long, imo. - anja talk 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
imo? Also, we could shorten it down a bit. Like remove all the
| pic1 = 
| pic1-text = 
| pic2 = 
| pic2-text = 
| pic3 = 
| pic3-text = 
| pic4 = 
| pic4-text = 
| pic5 = 
| pic5-text = 
's.--§ Eloc § 09:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a need to change actually. The location infobox is linked twice, asking users to read it for more details. I feel that the more important thing for this guideline page are the sections that are needed. Since the infobox already has a place where it can be much better explained, why not let the sections be more visible and not have the infobox clutter up the example? -- sig 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Are we going to treat them here on the wiki as explorable areas, missions, or a completely new and separate location type? --Dirigible 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say new location type. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. - anja talk 08:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We've always followed ingame naming before; don't see why we shouldn't do that in this case. Backsword 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Dungeons, do we follow the technical distinction and make one article per level, or do we treat them as one? We've kept a one map zone->one article rule before, but it seems the new Dungeon article we have now differs. Backsword 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One article per dungeon. --Xeeron 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


I just noticed there's no section on exits. There should be one to detailing the direction of the exit as well as things like exit types and access conditions. -- sig 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exit types and conditions? If you explain those, I might agree with you, but at this time I'd prefer if we hade no list except the infobox and the portals named in the map. - anja talk 08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Exit type", I was remembering to grouping the exits by location type, outposts, explorable areas, etc. Trivial I suppose. Directions is a useful thing, especially for locations that have a lot of exits. A suitably "legend-ed" map can supplement it, but should not replace it. And for access conditions, I was referring to things like "cannot go out here until you have done so-and-so". Most notably locations in Factions and certain parts of Nightfall. -- sig 08:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm just thinking, why do we have exits in the infobox, the section you talk about provided so much better info :P want info on one place only, to avoid redundancy. But I think this section could be really helpful... Can we remove exits from infobox, or do they serve a purpose there? - anja talk 09:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really agree, though. I think the "exits" section on the infobar, together with the map of the area showing the respective exits, already displays that information in a somewhat better looking way. An exit section (many of our pages had one - I deleted all of them I could find weeks ago) has the same information, in an uglier way, and just makes the page longer without really adding anything. Erasculio 12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So that's why the "Exits" have all gone missing... I strongly disagree with what you did then, because it means removing valid content. The one thing the exit section differs from the infobox is the directions. Almost every single location does not have a clearly labeled map telling people which exit is to where. So why do you find it necessary to remove the directions altogether? The exits on the infobox is a summary of all the locations that a location is directly connected to. The "Exits" section details additional information like what direction it is, to where it leads to, what do I need to fulfill to get there, etc. Removing the entire section without a properly labeled map is reducing the usefulness of a page. Even if there is such a map, I'd say the map and the text complement each other, rather than making each other redundant. Some people grasp text better, others images. -- sig 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned (somewhere, I don't remember where) that I was removing the exits, as the only information they had beyond the infobox are the directions, and those I think are better showed in the maps for each area. I think we're just going to disagree on this - I really don't like the exit sections, as I think they're not only, well, messy, but that they add too much content to the pages, making them needlessly cluttered. I like the pages as they are now. Erasculio 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As the exits part wasn't in this formatting, and you never mentioned it before Aberrant, I simply believed you also thought it shouldn't be there and only added it since you confused it with guildwiki or something. I don't mind having the section in the article, but then I'd like the infobox section removed, since the infobox already is big. But I think only having it in the infobox + a map can work too. I'm simply against too much repeated information. (Don't even get me started on the "Services" part :P) - anja talk 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right - I thought it was a result of people copying and pasting the content from GuildWiki here, without looking at the formatting guide here. I removed that entry just like I changed the headers from "Creatures" to "Foes". Still, I was glad to remove that section as I didn't like it then, and still don't like it now. Erasculio 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... in that case, I suppose if we put the "Exits" further up the page and remove it from the infobox, it would fine. I'd rather have a section describing the exits than a list of links in the infobox, simply because it allows for additional information when necessary. The "conditions" at which I would see map + infobox to be sufficient for exits is when we actually have a project for producing maps with exit labelling, and a clear guideline on how to tie the exits list to the map. The thing about not needing a section for exits, I can actually also argue for not needing a bounty section, since we can also supply a map that shows the location of each bounty and their shrine and bounty type.
As for the services, if you're referring to the hasXXX stuff, well, it felt like a good idea at that time :P, but do raise your concerns in a separate section to hammer things out (after all, we're trying to get this guideline fleshed out more anyway). -- sig 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I wish we could use a map for the Bounties, as opposed to using a text section. I don't think this would work with the Elonian bounties given how the ammount of text required for a map would have to be too big, not to mention the trouble of making said maps, so raw text it is. But for the GW:EN bounties...Assuming the bounties are the same for the entire map everywhere (like they were on the zones we could during the preview), I'm considering proposing to remove the bounty section and instead add a note on the infobox stating what is that map's bounty. There are compatibility problems with that and etc, but I'll wait until the game is released, and we see the rest of the world, before going in details about this.
I would still rather have just the exit information on the infobox - many (if not most) outposts, for example, have a single exit, so creating a new section to say where the only exit there is located, as opposed to just showing it on the map, would IMO make the pages uglier. But if people disagree, so be it. Erasculio 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just want to mention the little guideline "Content over presentation" on this matter. Yes, the infobox looks nicer. But, the article section provides much better info (imo). As I'm not a fan of huge infoboxes, I'm leaning towards the article section with more explanations. (I'll take that services part later Aberrant, there so many discussions now :P) - anja talk 09:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
For outposts with single locations, yes it's true that an exit section may seem totally unnecessary, but I would also say there's no harm in listing it. As for a map clearly labelling the exit, while it might look okay for a location with 1 or 2 exits, it might look messy for areas with 5 or more exits, especially exits with long names. It would also mean that we need to enlarge the size of images on location pages so that users don't have to click on the image to see the labels. How does everyone feel about an optional exit section? Add it only if it's necessary to explain or clarify? That, of course, might cause potential conflicts as to what the threshold should be. -- sig 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would agree on moving exits (and services) out of the infobox to the article. The infoboxes get too big and the article itself allows more information. Names on maps do not allow hot-linking so it's not an option.. poke | talk 11:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Propose listing bounties the same way as all other services, rather than giving them their own section. Backsword 12:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If we don't include res shrine information with the bounties, I can agree. But then we would need a asection for res shrine info? - anja talk 12:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I confused myself, you meant listing bounties in the infobox? I read it as listing them as we do with the service NPCs under the NPC heading... - anja talk 15:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that it's your first interpretation that he meant. I also don't see how it might be better than a separate section, given that bounties can include the type, the shrine type, the NPC, and the directions/location. -- sig 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm against any more info going into the infobox. It is huge already for many locations.
Yes, not the infobox. I agree, partly, with Anja there. It is not really useful to have a long visible listing of sevices there.Backsword 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Anja, I'm not really clear on what information you think would be lost. Could you give an example? Backsword 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost regarding this issue, thanks to how bounties are very different between Nightfall and GW:EN. I think the bounties are important enough in NF to earn a different section, given how a player aiming to make the most out of them has to consider what path to make between them, what enemies to avoid and what enemies to kill while he has not obtained all bounties on the map, and so on. But in GW:EN, if the other maps follow the current trend (only one bounty per map), I think the information is simple enough to fit within the Services section of the article (especially if we want to display the name of the shrine NPCs, something not necessary on the NF maps as they don't have names). However, two different formats for the same thing, bounties, would not work, IMO. I don't know how to solve this. Erasculio 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


I want to suggest a big change to the services part of the infobox. Take a look at the infobox for Kamadan. It is huge. A big part is the exits, which is at discussed if it's going away or staying. The other huge part of it is services listing, which is just listing links to articles which will be linked again further down in the article, together with the relevant NPC name. I think it's redundant, ugly, and doesn't really present the information in a great way. If each of those links in the infobox would link to the relevant NPC for the location, that would be another thing. But that would require so much of the infobox, and make the NPC section kind of redundant... I want to suggest:

  • Remove the visible services section from the infobox
  • Keep the categorization, but clean it up a bit
  • Rename the service parameters to more intuitive names. "hasMerchant" <- alternating between lower and upper case is confusing. "has merchant" would be better, but we can hammer that out.
    • Possibly move the categorization for services into a subtemplate, to make the infobox main page a bit easier to navigate and tweak.

- anja talk 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I think that having only category links to services would be good enough. I'd say remove them from the infobox itself. (Not out of the code of course.)
Regarding the "hasMerchant" vs "hasmerchant" or "has merchant", I'd say definitely go with lower case, but perhaps just "merchant = yes" would suffice?
I think I also asked poke once if he had any good ideas on making the services more user friendly, but I think that has slipped in the process. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that services really shouldn't be displayed in the infobox, there's far too many of them and it's redundant with the page. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"merchant = yes" would be a good solution too. Even easier. - anja talk 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for release as official?

Can we release this formatting guide as a proper guide? What points are still open? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Services, bounties and exits I think.. poke | talk 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see three big things still open. Exits (article or infobox + formatting), services (see my above section, no one has even said no to it :P) and bounties, I'm not sure the last bounties topic was solved. - anja astor talk 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it all works for Landmarks, not sure about the other things it's used for.--§ Eloc § 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

New section

I propose we add a ==Interactive Objects== header just above "Notes". Currently we don't list chests, special signposts or even statues of the gods, but that info seems as important as NPCs to me. Backsword 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Statues of the gods are being added to the bounties section. -- sig 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Chests are obvious (since it's region based). God statues is included in bouties, as Aberrant said. I think the rest is so uncommon or few things it can aswell go into notes. Like, special signposts, treasure chests and stuff. - anja talk 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I felt that the notes secon was enough too, but I've been doing some of the areas of EotN and interactive objects are far more common. Most map zones have a variety of them. More so than quests, and we don't list them in notes. Backsword 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I propose we use an icon for Primary and Repeatable quests. For Primary we could use something like an exclamation mark or something like that (but tango to match everything else here ;P), and for Repeatable Quests, I suggest we use Tango-recharge-darker.png, or Tango-recharge.png. Maybe the last one as it's not used anywhere except on talk/user pages. See Ronjok for an example of my repeatable quests idea.--§ Eloc § 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It's not cluttering the page, and it's providing nice info. - anja talk 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Woot :P. I don't think we need any kind of icon for secondary quests as the majority of them are secondary. I also suggest that we make a {{Repeatable}} and {{Primary}} templates.--§ Eloc § 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Great idea with the icon for repeatable quests. --Xeeron 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty, now all we really need is someone to make a tano "!" then we can get started?--§ Eloc § 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we're at it, how about icons for solo quests and master difficulty quests? -- sig 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be good too. The same location seldom has a multitude of quests, or different kinds of quests, so it wont go all blinky and cluttered. - anja talk 06:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ya, make sure their tango since everyone here seems to love tango ;P.--§ Eloc § 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's simply because we have lots of tango icons so we should not use non-tango icons for things like that :P poke | talk 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a Repeatable template.--§ Eloc § 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone mind making a Primary, Solo and Hard picture for quests?--§ Eloc § 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I will try to do something.. poke | talk 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ty. I would but I'm not that good with computer editing since my tablet broke.--§ Eloc § 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See {{Quest icon}}; more icons coming soon ;) poke | talk 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I saw that. Looks pretty sweet. Keep in mind me need Master and Solo.--§ Eloc § 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Light of Deldrimor

Seems people are not including things fouind with this skill. I'd think they are as valid as any other. Perhaps because there is no mentioning of them in the formating, or because people expect them to be listed on the skill page? I don't see any reason not to list them in the relevant location, as long as they are tagged as hidden. Backsword 08:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But do they always appear in the same place? Or is it a random location when you spawn, sort of like chests?--§ Eloc § 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
99% sure it's same each time. Calor - talk 17:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Then people could easily farm the hidden items?--§ Eloc § 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Getting 100+ gold from those hidden treasure isn't exactly a fast way of earning money. -- sig 09:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


A short summary of proposed changes so far:

  • Removing service and exit listing from the infobox
  • Icons for repeatable, primary, etc, quests. (Mostly accepted and implemented, waiting for icons)

Needs adressing:

  • Formatting of exits and bounties, I suggest merging those two sections. There are very few cases where this section can get very long.
  • Light of Deldrimor stuff in EotN. Go into notes senction?
  • Interactive objects in EotN. Apparently there can be quite a few. Do these need a section or go into notes?

Anything I've forgotten? - anja talk 11:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(I split the comments following this into subsections to better facillitate discussion) -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Light of Deldrimor

Light of Deldrimor stuff should really be on a map. Very hard to describe an exact location in words, very easy to draw a marker. --Xeeron 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. So the putting the directions in the notes section is a temporary measure until someone comes up with a good map. When a map is provided, we can take out the detailed directions. But you'll might still need a spot where you can explain what is revealed by the Light of Deldrimor. -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, maps are the way to go for pinpointing locations. But as aberrant writes, we still need to list them, and as links, if people need further information.
However, they're all either NPCs or Interactive Objects, so listing them as such is preferable to me, rather than a section fo their own. Just mark them with something like: ([[Light of Deldrimor]]|hidden)
Backsword 04:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing services and exits

I can see why you would remove the services, they are a bit pointless, but I really like the exits personally. I find it useful for easy navigation through zones without having to check in the article itself. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 19:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the services thing is still handy as it lets you quickly go to a page and see what services you need right away. As for exits, I can never recall even using that one before.--§ Eloc § 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the services are not particularly useful I suppose, but it did look nice, and made it look much different from GuildWiki :P Anyway, I won't opppose removing them. For exits, like Lemming64, I like it actually. Sometimes when I'm looking to write directions for certain collectors or NPCs, or just trying to find my way to a certain place, I know the general location of it, but I just could not remember the name. So I go to a neighboring location that I do remember, and then look for the thing I want on the exits list. That's why I'm in favor of having them both in the infobox and as a section. I view the infobox as a summary of what in here (same with services, but I won't argue the removal of that), and the section as a more detailed explanation. If I know where all the exits are, I look at the infobox and go where I want. If I don't know where the exits are, I look for the directions in the Exits section (also see the next section). A section also allows us to say "You cannot enter here without completing/having X and/or Y). And I would also be in favor of keeping an Exits section in addition to a map. -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"I think the services thing is still handy..."--§ Eloc § 03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The services part might be handy in a few cases, but to me the negative is outweighing the positive. The infobox gets huge and cluttered, imo. - anja talk 07:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if we don't do a __NOTOC__ for the location articles and as long as the NPC subsections are properly used and named, the table of contents itself can show what services there are. Except for the more obscure ones I suppose. -- sig 10:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
TOC and properly named sections should work great as a replacement, imo. - anja talk 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need to list services, but now that we do have it, would it not be preferable to simply have this part of the infobox hidden? The data may be useful for futute automated tasks. Backsword 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrivial and exits

As an extension to my thoughts on exits above, I would like to suggest that we merge "Getting there" and "Exits" into one section. It might give it a stronger reason to have both in the article. The lack of directions to getting to a certain location is bad. I've already seen and answered questions on how to get to a certain location. -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging them is good, getting there can be an important note. I also think we shoudn't call it exits, but rather portals or neighbours. You may want to use them when going into an area, not just when going out. Then, I also think a "getting there" section fits even more. - anja talk 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm against this, on the basis of what Xeeron brought up; maps are better for showing positions. Backsword 04:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And in the absence of maps? -- sig 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's really the same situation as for any other missing information. It's preferable if it's there, and we hope people will add it if not. I guess you're thinking about a situation where it is missing, and someone has the skill and or inclination to write down a text description, but not make a map? I don't think it would be a good idea to intoduce temporary sections for that, but I wouldn't mind a mention in notes. Backsword 07:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, personally, I'd rather type out a long paragraph of text (because I'm much better with text than pictures) from memory than take the trouble of going into a particular place, take a screenshot, and then to beautify the screenshot with additonal icons and notes. It's much much faster to just type. The one thing I feel maps don't address is enter/exit conditions. Some exits don't work until you've completed a certain thing, and some exits don't work after a certain other thing. They just aren't nicely conveyed in a map and you'll be forced to place them in "Notes". And if that happens, and someone looks at the map, they don't see such info. And for "Getting there", showing a map of the current location isn't very helpful when they don't know how to get there in the first place. Sure, they can check the maps of neighboring locations but it's so much simpler to tell them "travel in blah direction from blahblah" than having them navigate several pages to find and determine a good starting point. -- sig 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As for cases where there are special requirements for going somewhere, or just a nonobvious route, I'd say that those are rare enough to be a good match for what the notes section is for. I think there might be ~4 per campaign. They also tend to be special enough to defy standarisation in formanting. Backsword 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Interactive objects

What interactive objects are we talking about? Things like Taro Plant and Bleached Bones? Do signposts count? I don't think this is necessary. They are few enough to easily into the "Notes" section. But if you consider shrines and their blessing, this might be necessary. -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we change Landmarks to Points of Interest or something like that, and merge landmarks and interactive objects there? They are "mini" landmarks anyway. Of course, that would be ignoring signposts and shrines (the former don't really matter, IMO, and the later have their own section already). Erasculio 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If signposts don't matter, things like Bleached Bones don't really matter enough to need a section when Notes will work just fine. I change "Points of interest" to "Landmarks" specifically because shrines got moved out of it. Interactive objects that are not landmarks are quite few right? -- sig 05:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
To say the truth, I'm not fond of the "Landmarks" section itself, I think it should be under Notes : P The criteria I used for saying that, say, Bleached Bones matter but sign posts do not is that the Bleached Bones actually "say" something - when we click on them we get a bit of text that is too big (and kinda irrelevant) to be placed on the articles about each location, but that should be displayed somewhere (hence the current article about Bleached Bones). Sign posts, in other hand, don't say anything other than "that exit right in front of you is leading to outpost/explorable area X", and I don't think that kind of thing needs to be noted in the location article (nor anywhere else - as far as I know we don't have an article about those sign posts, and I don't think we should have). What I would really like is for landmarks to be within notes, but failing that, I'm ok with the interactive objects to be left within notes, as long as we only list the important things. Dungeons should use a different format, IMO, given how interactive objects are important there (like the switches to open a few doors in one of the dungeons), but that's a discussion for another talk page. Erasculio 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't mind pushing landmarks to notes either :) And for dungeons, it's actually relevant, so dungeons are also considered locations. Rather than having a specific place to put a "Landmarks", why not just make sure they are all mentioned in a walkthrough section? -- sig 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see most of landmarks under notes, but places like Grooble's Gulch, Rin, Miki Lake, etc. are "Landmarks" in a technical sense, but deserve their own article (All do so far). But there's the difference between "notes landmarks" and "article landmarks". How do we differentiate from one to another, considering were not going to be sitting around calling landmarks either "article landmarks" or "notes landmarks"? Calling the "notes landmarks" landmarks, and calling the "article landmarks" Points of Interest seems the right thing to do, at least in my mind. Calor - talk 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
All our landmarks should be "article landmarks" and not a "notes landmark". At least, that's how I've always considered them. But I see your point, especially when you consider dungeons, they're not landmarks anymore. I just don't like "Point of interest" for some reason. I just feel it's too generic -- Here's a "Point of interest". Why is it interesting? Err... I donno... you can look at it and... take a screenshot if you want, so... yea, it's interesting :P -- sig 06:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
xD Would "Points of interest" be better if we put a short description of each item? - anja talk 07:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I really like's idea above (adding landmarks in "common" areas to Notes, interactive objects in dungeons to the walkthrough section). I think one way of marking the difference between "article landmarks" and "notes landmarks" is, well, by creating an article for the former but not for the later : D Readers would then see that the "article landmarks" have more to be known about them (and may just click on the links to see the articles), while "notes landmarks" would be left as things that are just mentioned, without deeper information available. But I agree with regarding this, too - I can't think of something worth calling a landmark that would not deserve its own article. Erasculio 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"How about we change Landmarks to Points of Interest or something like that, and merge landmarks and interactive objects there? They are "mini" landmarks anyway. Of course, that would be ignoring signposts and shrines (the former don't really matter, IMO, and the later have their own section already)." No, keep them as Landmarks, we already changed Points of Interest to Landmarks, so why change it back?--§ Eloc § 16:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Landmarks are used to refer to distinct locations without their own map zones, at least that's how we use them. It's not an official term. Interactive Objects are something else; they are specific technical game objects that work in a certain way. The closest thing to them are NPCs, not landmarks, so should we combine locations, that's where they should go. Backsword 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


The only thing I don't like about the bounties is the long subsection names, otherwise I'm fine. For the directions, as per the hidden objects, we can remove the detailed directions whenever a good map is supplied. A good way of merging bounties and shrine blessings is that we can rename "Bounties" to "Blessings" instead, which will include all the spots where you can get blessings and possibly environmental effects. -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any blessing shrine that isn't a bounty shrine? I'm somewhat confused now o.O Erasculio 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Section ordering

I would to like propose the ordering of the sections (in terms of what's important to a location) to be:

  1. Getting there/Exits
  2. NPCs
  3. Landmarks
  4. Bounties/Blessings
  5. Objects?
  6. Notes
  7. Trivia

Are bounties really that important that have to go at the top? Most of the time, you already know what bounty is available based on the creatures in it. -- sig 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the bounties are important enough to go at the top, but as I suggested above I think that section should be merged with exits, since a lot of bounty givers are located at portals already. - anja talk 07:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not really true. The bounty givers are located at rez shrines; and shrines are located at the portals. But if we merge blessings and exists we would have a lot shrines/blessings without an exit. poke | talk 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you feel that bounties can be merged with exits. Could you provide an example? If the headers stays as "Exits", it would hardly be an intuitive place to look for a bounties listing, right? -- sig 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean the sections should be named just "exits", but rather "Exits and blessings" or similar. If there's only one or two exits, and maybe one bounty in an area, two different sections seems redundant. Maybe an option to merge them if there is very little information, but keep them separate if there is many ecists and/or bounties? Not a huge thing for me though, I wont stop this guide just because of that. It was an idea :)
Although I still feel bounties is important enough to be placed above npcs. It's one of the first things I want to know when reading about an area. - anja talk 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anja, I think bounties should be above NPCs as well. When going through an area, if you are aiming to get as many points as possible, the location of the bounties will set what path you'll take around the map. The order I would like to see is: Exits - Bounties - NPCs - Landmarks and Objects - Notes - Trivia. Erasculio 11:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Professions on Allied NPCS

Could we add professions on the NPC section. If you don't understand what I mean, here's an would change...

===Other allies=== <!--Change to "Allies" if there are no service NPCs -->
*[[Other NPC 1]]
*[[Other NPC 2]]
**[[Animal 1]]
**[[Animal 2]]


===Other allies=== <!--Change to "Allies" if there are no service NPCs -->
*{{X}} 20[[Other NPC 1]]
*{{W}} 30[[Other NPC 2]]
*{{r}} 5[[Animal]]s
**{{A}} 10[[Animal 1]]
**{{E}}{{Mo}} 16[[Animal 2]]

Also, see here for another example of what it used to looks like before Devos removed it.--§ Eloc § 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Given how the profession of most allies doesn't really matter, IMO, and the pages look much "cleaner" without all those icons (at least IMO), I don't see the reason for such change. Erasculio 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well why not have them? Just makes the page look better & if they aren't matter, then why do we even have their profession on their main page?--§ Eloc § 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the allies section looks alot cleaner without the profession icons. The profession of them doesn't matter in a location, it's more like trivia information, imo. - anja talk 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Except for the henchmen. No profession is fine for me too, since most of the time, it's {{x}} anyway. -- sig 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Under the foe section, which is currently

'''[[foe type 1]]s''' <!-- "species", i.e. [[Dragon]]s, [[Human]]s, [[Plant]]s -->
*{{x}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]] <!-- normal mode level, hard mode level in paranthesis -->
*{{r}}{{mo}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]] <!-- two professions, no "/" or space between icons -->
*[[foe subtype]] <!-- "affiliation" or "subspecies", i.e. [[Drake]]s, [[Corsair]]s, [[Sprout]]s -->
**{{e}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]]
'''[[foe type 2]]'''
*{{w}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]]

Could we change it to something like

==== [[foe type 1]]s ==== <!-- "species", i.e. [[Dragon]]s, [[Human]]s, [[Plant]]s -->
*{{x}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]] <!-- normal mode level, hard mode level in paranthesis -->
*{{r}}{{mo}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]] <!-- two professions, no "/" or space between icons -->
===== [[foe subtype]] ===== <!-- "affiliation" or "subspecies", i.e. [[Drake]]s, [[Corsair]]s, [[Sprout]]s -->
*{{e}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]]
==== [[foe type 2]] ====
*{{w}} ## (##) [[Example Foe]]

In short, add lvl 4 headers to foe type and lvl 5 headers for foe subtype.--§ Eloc § 15:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it no one is against this change? — Eloc 01:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would better or worse, so if you think it's good, try it. :) - anja talk 10:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want this, use level five, not four. It allows inserting another level on a per case basis, if it turns out to be needed. It also formats better; fairly close to what is currently used. Backsword 11:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't like this idea. We don't need to have that small sections.. I think the existing is better. poke | talk 18:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
But it adds the races to the Table of Contents while before, the bold would just, well, bold it. — Eloc 22:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That is one reason why I don't want it to be displayed as headings.. poke | talk 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer not making the ToC longer as well. In fact, I don't like the subsections in NPCs too, but that's just me. -- sig 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not just you. I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced to just allies and foes, as in the mission location formating. Backsword 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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? — Eloc 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 talk 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 talk 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Bounties section still needs to be finished to compensate for Eye of the North. — Eloc 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 talk 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 talk 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? -- sig 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 talk 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). -- sig 12:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea, ok. Better now? - anja talk 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. -- sig 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 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 talk 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).


== 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? — Eloc 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "I'm using Revival of Discussion". Seriously, we should get this finished :P - anja talk 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 talk 11:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Eloc 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 talk 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. — Eloc 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. -- sig 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? — Eloc 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. -- sig 04:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
By all means, yes, but like the maps which show the bosses could be combined with collector maps. — Eloc 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. — Eloc 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. — Eloc 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 — Eloc 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. -- sig 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. — Eloc 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. — Eloc 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


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. — Eloc 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 ==
* White Mantle
** #1
** #2

== Foes ==
* White Mantle
** #1
** #2

Similar to that. — Eloc 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. — Eloc 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No objections? — Eloc 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


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:
* NPC (merchant)
* NPC (rare material trader)
* Random NPC
* {{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 talk 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.--Go to Wynthyst's Talk page 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 talk 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. --Go to Wynthyst's Talk page 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. -- sig 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 talk 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I still have to say for the wiki purpose, I think the <NPC Name> (Service) looks better. --Go to Wynthyst's Talk page 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. -- sig 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.--Go to Wynthyst's Talk page Wynthyst 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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 talk 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 talk 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How many exceptions are there to the general rules, and in how many areas?--Go to Wynthyst's Talk page Wynthyst 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)