Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Missions/Archive 1

Opening up discussion

So I've borrowed a bit from what has been before with the mission formatting stuff and given a rough first draft of a Guild Wars Wiki version. Of possible interest is some of the changes from what was before; A new mission info template(which doesn't exist yet), a mission overview summary, Duration and Skill recommendation sections, the complete drop of Dialogues section and the removal of Follow Up section (replaced with nextquest, nextmission in the template). So... thoughts, suggestions, improvements on what I've outlined so far? --Aspectacle 02:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I would like to see "skill recommendation" merged into "walkthrough", since it does not make sense to me to discuss the two separated. --Xeeron 05:14, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I made a new section because with some of the more difficult missions spawned pages on pages of "This particular skill is needed", "This particular build works" I was hoping to capture this in a more profession and build agnostic fashion. Plus it is something you have to think about before you go into the mission, rather than while you are doing it. :) So I'm happy to move the section around but I think that it provides a place, and an important guideline, for a very common form of tip which existed in GuildWiki. --Aspectacle 12:25, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Some thoughts on this, I'll try to keep it as short as possible :p

'Overview' as stated here = objectives + duration + walkthrough. Also, How do you state the 'toughness' of a mission ? Omit the article if short: see 'toughness'. For now I say: remove the Overview-section.

'Duration' is highly subjective. Are you gonna record the total time with 'recommended' skills or not? Also kinda depends on the article writers' skill as a player in itself. IMO it's sorta like speculative information (see Formatting/General).

Merging the Follow-up section in the template might be a good idea, but we'll have to see how it works out with rather long quest/mission-names, like 'Eliminate the Jade Brotherhood' or 'Grand Court of Sebelkeh'. I fear it's gonna mess up the box. Would be nice to have a working example with some extreme examples.

Not sure if you just forgot it or not, but I think 'Allies' should use the same ordering as for Foes/bosses. Maybe group per species as well ?

The only part that I absolutely don't agree with is the drop of the Dialogue section. We're documenting the game and facts of the game as it is, dialogues are a part of the game so why exclude it ? At least put in cutscene dialogues, although non-CS dialogue that doesn't show up in team-chat is much easier missed. How we should format dialogue (in general) is another thing.

Placing of Notes-section: bottom of the article because of wiki-consistency. NPC-/creature-/quests-/... articles will most likely have their notes-section on the bottom as well. --Erszebet 06:17, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Feedback! Hooray! <3 :)

For the overview I think that you need to know where I'm coming from; If you see for instance GW's Gate of Madness walkthrough this is so very detailed that you have to trawl through a huge article to get even a basic understanding of what you want to do in the mission. If you look at my draft version on this wiki ->Gate of Madness it has the overview which gives you a run down of the mission and basic strategy without having to read all that stuff. It makes sense to me. Estimate of Toughness is something which can come later, on the wiki people complain about the mission difficulty, require specific skill strategies stuff like that, it gets a reputation as a tough mission - you don't have to state that up front in the first creation of the page. Not all missions need to have that sort of info, because there isn't anything particular which distiguishes them difficulty wise. For Nundu Bay the overview notes it is frequently chosen over Jennur's Horde because it is easier to do. I like to know that sort of info up front, not hidden in the notes section.

Yup duration is subjective, but then so is much of the mission guide! Sometimes I'd like an idea of how long this mission is going to take me - taking it at fairly easy pace; perhaps it could be categorised into Short ( < 20 minutes), Medium (< 30-35 minute) or Long (> 35) and even tack it into the template? If it really doesn't work it can be dropped.

Ally list is usually pretty short which make me want to have it short and uncomplicated, but I'm neither here nor there on my formatting choice in this area.

I dropped the dialogue section because so many of the mission articles on guild wiki don't use it. I can re-add it, because I can see how you might want to capture that info; but I'm still not expecting it to be widely seen. As for format - I have no idea.

Notes section came before the monster section because I find that more useful/interesting than all the possible monster variations in the mission. If you look at gate of madness again, you can see that the list is long and the notes section placed underneeth it would be obscured by it. Consistency is good, so if Notes is last, Notes is last - I just rather it wasn't in some cases.  :)

I agree that a concrete example or two would be useful. I'll have a go sometime soon ... I hope. --Aspectacle 20:05, 20 February 2007 (PST)

I like that example page... especially the idea of estimated time as a template :D that's what i've always found missing in the other wiki. Giving a short Overview is a good idea, too. I don't have anything against your style. ;) - Y0 ich halt 01:12, 21 February 2007 (PST)

After seeing your example I'd have to agree about the 'Overview section'. Basically, it's a form of introductory text. Maybe we can keep it on 'section 0', this way keeping Objectives as first header on all pages ? Either way is fine by me.

Also in favor of the categorised duration thingy in the MissionInfo box (if that's what you meant ?).

More about Allies and Dialogue: now and then the nutcase inside me takes the upperhand and starts sprouting ideas like: "Let's do a complete overhaul of those Prophecies missions" - lol. It turned out that (on GuildWiki) nobody really bothered to add/complete those sections. Still I think it's info that has a place in these articles unless somebody has objections ? I must admit that the way I've been formatting dialogues isn't that great so far. I'll start a topic on the General Formatting page here to see if anything comes up. --Erszebet 05:00, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Excellent. It seems that we are in agreement. I've updated Gate of Pain (it has a mission map you see and is mostly written) with the new templates and fixed the style a bit to match what was discussed. Please take a look and let me know if you like it. (The blue/grey in the templates is kind of arbitrary, change it if you think it needs to change!) --Aspectacle 04:51, 22 February 2007 (EST)

(Reset indent) Looks good to me. I noticed you changed the box color to orange (yuck :p ). Dunno if it was already taken, but that blue was nice. I checked the history and noticed some template-changes made by Gordon Ecker without discussing it here first. That's a big 'no-no' as it is, and I don't think those were valid changes as well. Now we have main headers for Allies - NPCs - Foes, with Bosses a sub-section of Foes. I favor the method we used at GuildWiki: one main header 'Creatures' with following subheaders: 'Allies' (merge of Allies and NPCs), 'Foes', 'Bosses'. The reason for this is simple: if it ain't broken, don't fix it :)
As to listing / grouping of creatures; I've given it quite some thought in the past. Check out my Sandbox at GuildWiki for examples, especially the 'Bosses'-parts, 'cause the way it's done in our current template is definitely not what you want, trust me ;) --Erszebet 07:07, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Hehehe. The Blue was ok (possibly ugly but I'm a poor judge of such things), the orange is a bit Meh in my opinion (I didn't change it!). I don't know what sort of overall style they're going to have with the template boxes - so I'm not going to mess around with it too much, it just needs it to exist with the bits we want in it.

As I said before I'm neither here nor there with the Allies/Foes stuff. Can we think of a better term than Creatures I don't particularly like it (I don't like to refer to allies as creatures, just as I don't like to refer to humans as monsters), possibly something like "In the area", "Met in mission" - ok maybe neither of those are very good either. :)

You've put heaps of effort into that boss example page! Most of the the comments there on the page (as in only available xyz) don't apply for missions, but we can request the style be used for zone stuff as well. I really like the boss table at the bottom with the colours, it looks weird without them. How would you see greens fit on a table like that? Do you think it is a good idea to capture greens as well (zone style stuff more than missions). I prefer the other stuff to be without table, so that you don't have to do too much typing/thinking for it. I prefer the grouped by type scheme if there are a lot. Like on the monsters stuff. For Allies I prefer less. Kormir, for instance, is it really necessary to specify that she is a human every time she crops up in a mission, especially if she is the only ally. But for consistency would prefer the group scheme applied across both. --Aspectacle 17:36, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Heh, that colourful table was a little joke actually :p Besides, past discussions on GuildWiki always ended up in tables being too 'advanced' for non-regular contributors. Maybe something we can change later.

I guess we can add greens too, don't care too much about 'em personally but can be nice to have.

We can keep the grouping then ? I can only speak for Proph. missions mostly, not much missions with only 1 ally afaik. I'll update the template/project page and re-add Dialogues (C.S. only for now). If you can review it and make some corrections where needed, so we can remove the 'under construction'-tag and make it official. I'm keeping this in my watchlist anyway, should there be people who see things differently. --Erszebet 08:13, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Well I still like the look of the table, even if it was a bit of a joke. :P

I think that the guidelines are pretty complete and I'd be happy to have them leave the under construction phase. I think if there were any significant objections or suggestions we'd have seen them by now. --Aspectacle 16:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I like the look, and can't think of anything specific to add, which means good deal :P I think if people are going to discuss the mission in depth, they'll use the talk page and probably debate it anyways. It looks like that on a lot of the mission pages as is, and I personally like the format. If I'm having trouble, consult the wiki. If it still isn't working, consult the talk page. So I like what you've got here. Good job. MiraLantis 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Elite skill arrows

I tested out the different characters, and in Firefox, both → (single arrow) and ⇒ (double arrow) appear correctly, but in IE 6, the double arrow is replaced by the generic "uknown symbol" box. Can anyone say if other browsers including later version of IE work properly? --Thervold 02:01, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I had a look at the double arrow at work after you suggested there was a problem. That was probably one of the latest patch versions of IEv6 and it showed up fine. However, I do have the problem you describe at home with my IEv6sp2 (out of date, never used browser). Trying the unicode character code gives the same result. It is possible that the sp2 version of IE simply does not support the character? If its going be a problem we can switch to the single arrow. --Aspectacle 03:14, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I went ahead and changed the template back to the single arrow version. I tested it with IEv6-sp1 (even more out of date :p ) and got the unknown symbol box too. Since Opera is my default browser I never noticed this problem, and I assume most people use IE so... --Erszebet 09:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

A couple ideas

I was looking at the missions today and had a couple ideas on the article structure.

1. On the info-box, rename "Followup" to "Followed by" and add "Preceded by" to note both the mission/quest directly previous to the current one, as well as the one directly following from it. (cf. how Wikipedia does it for movie articles)
2. I suggest a bit of a reshuffling of the factual/informational sections at the beginning:
   • Mission Info
     • Requirements (add this section to note what hero is required, as well as other requirements)
     • Objectives
     • Rewards
3. To me, the "Skill Recommendations" section doesn't make sense where it is: a visitor reading the article straight through wouldn't yet know what is involved in the mission and probably wouldn't understand the reasons for the recommendations. Either make it a subsection of "Walkthrough" as Xeeron suggested or move it after that section.
4. Add a subsection called "Neutrals" to the "Mission NPCs" section for listing non-combatant NPCs (Allies fight with you, Foes fight against you, Neutrals don't fight at all), like Kormir and Shahai in Pogahn Passage.
5. Add a "Trivia" section, also needed for Pogahn Passage.

Okay, so it turned out to be more like a few ideas... :P —Dr Ishmael 15:29, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I agree with 1 - 3 and am indifferent on 4 & 5. --Rainith 15:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Sure. I don't have any objections. I'll make the skill recommendation as the last section of the walkthrough. --Aspectacle 15:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

A thought. Spoiler tags. Walkthroughs by their nature are a huge spoiler for what happens ... in the mission. Someone attached a spoiler tag to the Hells precipice, when it did nothing more than what all other mission walkthroughs do -> spoil the mission (and the game) for you. Where does the line get drawn for adding spoiler tags?

I've updated the formatting guideline, but the neutral NPCs didn't make it because I became confused on the "attacks with you then it is an ally", when I felt that allies could also include those you need to keep alive, or non-assisting tag-alongs (I don't see them as Neutral NPCs they have a vested interest in your success - think Kormir in the later missions) and then I kept on thinking and it was getting dangerous. So I stopped. ;) --Aspectacle 16:27, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I object 4 too: for example: this way any animal can be listed as 'neutral npc'. But that doesn't mean they don't fight at all though; I've seen animals turn hostile to both me and my enemies. Let's keep it plain and simple: any character that actively participates in the mission or PvE storyline that's not hostile to you (in said mission) is an ally...And Trivia should be below Notes lol :p --Erszebet 16:41, 2 March 2007 (EST)

The template looks good to me. I think it holds all information that is needed about the missions. Nice work :-) Greyshade 04:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

If nobody objects or has other ideas he wants to share I'll remove the 'Under construction'-tag on Monday. --Erszebet 08:29, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Looks good to me. Glad I was able to sneak my suggestions in at the last minute. XD —Dr Ishmael 17:28, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Hard Mode

So obviously explorables and missions are going to be the area which see the greatest churn from the introduction of Hard mode. I'm probably being a bit premature, but there isn't much they can change but the enemies - so I'm making some assumptions. :)

I'd like to see the articles stay as one (rather than breaking out a new page for the new mode) because at least the area and locations of interesting things and what you actually have to do is still the same. (You still have to kill Shiro...y'know?) Without seeing the hard mode I'd like to introduce a "hardmode" sub-section of the mission walkthrough section to cover anything of note and then parhaps wrap the 'foes' section of the NPCs section in a simple table like:

Normal mode	Hard mode
30 Kuunavang Afflicted 24 Afflicted Warrior 24 Afflicted Ranger 24 Afflicted Monk 24 Afflicted Necromancer 24 Afflicted Mesmer 24 Afflicted Elementalist 24 Afflicted Assassin 24 Afflicted Ritualist	32 Kuunavang Afflicted 30 Afflicted Warrior 30 Afflicted Ranger 30 Afflicted Monk 30 Afflicted Necromancer 30 Afflicted Mesmer 30 Afflicted Elementalist 30 Afflicted Assassin 30 Afflicted Ritualist

Let me know if you think I'm getting too excited about this and I'll shut up ... for the meantime. ;) --Aspectacle 17:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

We'd need to convey different AI behaviours, different drops, different skill bars for foes, different bosses(?), different elite skill(s) for capping? I'm guessing we'll probably have to go with different pages for hard mode. Vladtheemailer 18:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Two pages is a lot of duplication of content - same allies, goal (although possibly different time taken for timed missions), dialogue, map, in part the walkthrough will be largely similar between the two. If there are different bosses or different elites - a table could be used to show that too like my example above?

The creature pages already have a scheme (I think?) for dealing with creatures which have the same name but different levels and skill bars. The missions articles do not capture the skill bars of the foes, nor do they cover general descriptions of the AI's behaviour, that is assumed knowledge. If anything about skills or AI is captured it is to note something which makes the mission particularly difficult or can be exploited to make the mission easier. --Aspectacle 18:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think we'll be able to tell whether keeping them on the same page is feasible until the details of Hard Mode are released. I certainly think it would be beneficial to do so but not the differences are such that the article becomes unwieldy. BTW if you are being kind of premature, I was thinking what was going to happen for Guild Wars 2. Vladtheemailer 20:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that we won't really know what we are going to need until we see it in action, but I think Aspectacle's table doesn't give enough info, and two articles is too much duplication of data. I would suggest we have a separate section of the article, at the very bottom labeled ==Hard mode== and in it we can put as much data as we need, in whatever format makes the most sense (once we actually see what Hard mode is). It could include the creature table, list Hard mode only drops, new elites offered, etc... --Rainith 23:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough - I'm a little early on this and assuming a bit too much. ;) We'll see what comes and decide then. --Aspectacle 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd prefer to have some kind of rough guidelines in advance in order to keep hard mode info separate, making it easier to reformat the articles after a final decision is reached. -- Gordon Ecker 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

<ri> Right! Unfortunately we know about as much as we did before on the nature of hard mode. But we can speculate. :D Here are the things which I think could be different between HM & EM; Reward, Walkthrough and Monsters.

• Reward. Timed missions in particular are going to have different required times to meet to finish the mission at Expert level. I think this can be integrated into the existing reward template.
• Walkthrough. While I think that the objectives and the best/fastest path through the mission won't change many of the walkthroughs are written with specific groups and tips for EM worked in. Ideally I'd like the path walkthrough and the tips to be seperated out so the straight forward "this is where you go and what you need to do" is the same for both, and have different skill recommendations, monster tips and such for each of the different modes. I don't know how practical that is.
• Monsters. It seems that completely different sections rather than the table was favoured by those above.

So layout

• Mission information
  • (as is with HM in reward)
• Walk through
  • Bonus
  • EM tips
  • HM tips
• EM monsters
• HM monsters

Or

• mission information
  • (as is with HM in reward)
  • Walkthrough
    • Bonus
• EM
  • (Walkthrough here?)
  • Tips
  • Monsters
• HM
  • (Walkthrough here?)
  • Tips
  • Monsters

Thoughts? :D --Aspectacle 00:29, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Since I have no idea what hard mode will do, I'll wait and see and drink tea. --Xeeron 09:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

*pouts* You're no fun.  :) *waits impatiently* --Aspectacle 20:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Tea-time's over. Personally I'd go for Aspectacle's 2nd option. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 04:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

2nd option for me too, so far. I think that there is certainly sufficient difference to merit a HM section separately within the article, although I don't think that a separate article is necessary. *aside* Wow, those Grawl got spunky since I was last at the Wall :D THK anyone? lol Fox (talk|contribs) 05:59, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes I think that the second version looks the tidiest. It seems that it should work fine - although at this stage I've only done one mission. I don't think that many missions would require a second more detailed walkthrough for the different modes but I think that can be added in if necessary. --Aspectacle 09:56, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I like the second one but for monsters i think we should use a table. Also i think that there should be in all explorable areas the hard mode and Normal mode levels for monsters. Also with the new vanguisher title i think we should include how many monsters are in each area on average so in the larger areas players can track there progress.66.225.141.109 10:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I know that I was the one starting to drink tea, but this debate seems to have stopped unfortunately. With HM being around for a bit now (and being known), we should adopt a proposal as policy, so that people can start adding HM content to the mission articles. --Xeeron 08:51, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Bumpage. Anyone still interested in this? If noone objects, I'll implement aspectacle's second idea soon. --Xeeron 14:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like we'll have to try it out, but I assume the 2nd version will do fine. I'm not so sure about the anon user's proposal to include the amount of monsters for the Vanquisher title. Sounds like a difficult task to keep it accurate and synchronized with the Vanquisher article, even if you work with averages - and with data still being gathered and all... --Erszebet 17:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I put in hard mode as discussed here. The numbers in the HM example are still off, they should be replaced by the HM levels of foes. --Xeeron 09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Location disambiguation template

Any objections to using {{Location disambiguation}} instead of the {{Mission outpost link}} and {{Explorable area link}} templates?

The syntax for {{Location disambiguation}} is {{Location disambiguation|The Eternal Grove}}''.

Disadvantages:

• It requires the user to write that extra |The Eternal Grove parameter.

Advantages:

• Only one template, instead of two.
• The same template can be used in the outpost and explorable pages that need a disambiguation note as well, since it'll link back to the mission and the other location automatically. The syntax is still the same regardless of whether the template is used in an outpost, explorable or mission page, it's always {{Location disambiguation|The Eternal Grove}}''.

Thoughts? --Dirigible 03:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

No objections to doing less work. :) Nice that it works with those which only have the outpost and the formatting is much tidier/easier to control with your template. I say yes. --Aspectacle 04:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Looks easy. The description on the page is a bit lacking though, I had to look up eternal grove to see how entering only one parameter affects the result. --Xeeron 09:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I reworded it a bit, hopefully it's clearer now. --Dirigible 04:39, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Hard Mode

Suggest Normal Mode NPCs and Hard Mode NPcs are folded into a single NPC section, as the only thing that differes is creature levels. That's what most editiors do anyway. Backsword 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonus Mission Pack

How should we handle the infobox for these four missions? Currently, Bonus Mission Pack is used for the campaign field and bonus is used for the type field, categorizing them as both "Bonus Mission Pack missions" and "bonus missions". -- Gordon Ecker 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we change "Campaign" to "Product" instead? Or maybe "Package" or something, since both EotN and BMP are technically not campaigns. Once we change that term, the rest falls into place nicely. -- ab.er.rant 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just format it as either a quest or a mission. — ク Eloc 貢 21:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaign = core and type = Bonus or Bonus Mission Pack? poke | talk 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I take responsibility for labeling things as Bonus Mission Pack Mission. At first it made sense, but its too wordy and redundant. Its a pack of Bonus Missions -elviondale (tahlk) 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's also some kind of name for that specific pack.. poke | talk 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

imho, campaign is fine and Bonus would fit just as well without creating headaches. Granted, its not 100% accurate, but if you take a look at how the BMP is presented both on its page and elsewhere, it appears to be a separate "product", which in my mind distinguishes it as its own campaign. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just put core as they are available to every campaign, and at least ONE campaign is required to access them. Then you can put somewhere that you needed to qualify. No need for a new category. We can always change this later if lots of BMP type things happen, otherwise leave it as core. Anon

what are the determinants for qualifying something as a quest vs a mission? is something a mission only if it doesn't have working res shrines? is something a quest only if it is listed in the quest log? the bonus missions are haphazardly organized now b/c some have the quest infobox and some have the mission infobox. some pages mix in both nomenclature. so which is it? since this talk page resides under mission formatting and the pack is actually called "bonus mission pack" i'd prefer calling this a mission or mini-mission even if it gets listed under the questlog. i disagree w/ the suggestion to put it in core b/c it isn't available to everyone and core by definition is available to everyone. eotn would be core too if u use that definition. i like product tho. --VVong|BA 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to official statements from ArenaNet, they're missions, and the repeatable primary quests from Eye of the North aren't, I think that's enough. And missions are listed in the quest log, so that isn't a disqualifier. -- Gordon Ecker 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, should the Fissure of Woe and the Underworld be considered missions now that they have mission objectives in the quest log? -- Gordon Ecker 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No. — ク Eloc 貢 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

i was actually wondering about that specific question earlier. i could see someone making an argument for that. --VVong|BA 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the name is what causes confusion. People see "Bonus Mission Pack" and so gets the expectation that they will technically be implemented as missions too. Backsword 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

They are missions though. — ク Eloc 貢 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

if they are missions they why do they use the quest infobox? --VVong|BA 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the campaign field for these list the campaign you were required to own to be able to play the bonus mission? I understood that you wouldn't have access to Gwen's Story if you didn't own GW:EotN, and so on... Then just list the Type as "Bonus". --Ari  (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you could do all of them regardless of what campaign you used. — ク Eloc 貢 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to own any other campaign specificlly to do any of the quests. Backsword 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have concensus in favor of using the mission infobox? -- Gordon Ecker 10:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather far from it; it dosen't cover the correct formating. Backsword 10:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So far, Ari, Eloc, Elviondale and myself have stated that they are or should be considered missions, you have stated that they are or should be considered quests, Wongba seems to be undecided and Anon and Poke haven't made any statements on the mission vs. quest issue, although I'm the only one who has explicitly stated a preference for a specific infobox. -- Gordon Ecker 11:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems pretty straightforward that these are missions not quests so the mission infobox should be used. It's the Bonus Mission Pack. You click the "Enter Mission" button to start them. Even the official faq states these are missions not quests. It's already been stated that all missions use the quest log to display objectives and information. I also agree with using "Bonus" for the type parameter. Tedium 03:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider them to be anything special, and I don't mind people considering them whatever they like. I don't see it as our job to try to make other peoples think in any special way.

But when it comes to formating, I thought it obvious that we'd implement the data actually in the game, rather than make up our own. Backsword 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I reset the last one now? Backsword 09:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

reviving this issue. i say go w/ mission infobox. if no one disagrees in the next couple days, then i'm going to switch it. --VVong|BA 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Want to agree on this. See also my say on the issue on Talk:The Battle of Jahai#infobox conformity. -- Totte 09:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think being so hung up on a name that we change the formating to exclude valid content would be silly. The formating exists to present the content, not the other way around. Excluding Durmand or the initial text or inventing data to fit mission formating (as was what started this) has a feeling of absurdity over it. Control the tools, don't let the tools control you. Backsword 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Zaishen Challenge and Zaishen Elite

Are these missions considered cooperative missions or challenge missions? The Challenge mission article lists them, but this Template:Locations in the Battle Isles says they are cooperative missions. Tedium 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The author of hte challenge mission article worked hard to include them, but the game dosesn't treat them as such. They're sort of in a class of their own, being meant to train people for PvP. Backsword 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Checked the game; refers to them as "Zaishen Battle"s, vs "PvP Battle"s for areans and such. Don't have any challenge mission NPCs. Guess cooperative is the closest we have. Backsword 09:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just make them their own special category for them. — ク Eloc 貢 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Two small suggestions

I have two small suggestions for changes to this guide. First, bosses section:

====Bosses====
<!-- bosses and any (elite) skills / greens found in this mission. -->
[[Undead]]
*{{w}}28 (28) [[Avah the Crafty]] → [[Soldier's Stance]] ([[unique item]])

Having the elite skill not in ( ), but the unique item instead. → (skill) doesn't really make sense to me. Second, navbars. I just want to change the order, Area mission nav first and then Campaign mission nav. From smaller area to bigger area. :) (Atm it's "Areas of Kourna" in the example, which I haven't even seen used. I've seen "Missions in Kourna") - anja 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anja. Your suggestions sound fine to me. I don't recall there was any special reason for the format of the boss. The area mission nav replaces a previous template ("Areas of X") which listed all outposts, missions and stuff in that area. The new nav bar lists only the missions and links out to the rest. Unfortunately it makes it rather redundant because it was "the rest" we were really interested in. :) Mayhaps if it was a "Locations in Kourna" template and drops listing the missions again it would be a bit less redundant and could stay as the bottom nav? --Aspectacle 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel strongly about this, but Anja's ideas sound good. --Xeeron 11:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean we should create a new nav/remake the old one, Aspectacle? - anja 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that listing all of the locations is especially productive, so recreating the old one is not a great idea. So a new one, because the existing name is no longer right, but exactly the "Missions in X" template without the missions listed, or perhaps an added Missions link. As a player using mission walkthroughs for a campaign I've never found it especially relevant to know other missions in the region, especially if the missions don't track linearly through a particular region.
As an aside, I'm finally set to get back into tidying and finishing the mission project, so if you like I can push the changes through when I start a sanity check on the mission articles. --Aspectacle 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome. I'm not really into the mission articles, so I'm not sure what works best. I just know I dislike two navs, but if it's necessary I'd like them sorted from smaller to bigger area. - anja 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A few more days to sort out my 'net connection and I'll be all over the mission articles. :) I'll continue to think about the navs - there may be a better solution. --Aspectacle 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

— ク Eloc 貢 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Anja's concerns on the elite skill, is it this way because location formatting does it that way, or is it the other way around? If we do change it here, it's probably best to change it there as well. -- ab.er.rant 11:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always wanted to merge the formating. Having one formating for every location type except one... Perhaps I'm the only one who likes consistancy? Backsword 11:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's all right if you can keep them easy to glance through for someone new to the formatting. If it starts getting littered with a lot "omit this section if blah-blah", then it's probably not a good idea. -- ab.er.rant 11:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing that seperates them from other locations are the mission objectives. Since they have those, there is the walkthrough. That's two sections. Of course, there is the infobox, which coudl either stay or be merged, eing fairly similar. So, there would be some of that, but nothing like the NPC formating. Backsword 13:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The only real thing in common between missions and locations is the list of NPCs? If you think that is a good reason to merge them - then go nuts. It doesn't especially make sense to me.

Re: the skill/unique formatting. The missions are pretty consistently on the former format (without uniques for the most part) but the few explorables I've looked at are fairly randomly formatted in this area. That is an aside because I think this format was changed for the format used by locations. --Aspectacle 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not call a mission a location, they have more in common with quests than a town, for example. A mission is not a location, it's a "happening", the mission takes place in a location, just like quests. That's how I see it. - anja 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting Rewards

I request that it be considered by all, that my new template be integrated into this Mission Formatting Guide. Ongoing input is happening here. Example of template here:

Template:Mission_Rewards

No campaign parameter specified. Try entering the name of the campaign first.
Your options are:
•Prophecies
•Factions
•Nightfall

-- RavenJWolfe 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment to your original thread. --Aspectacle 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to cinematics page

I propose removign the cut scene information for the mission pages and using this template. {{Cinematic link}} under a ===Cinematic== header. You could still place this under the lvl 2 dialogue header. — Seru Talk 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to removing cinematic dialogue from mission articles. Cinematic dialogue is part of the mission dialogue, there is no reason to remove a significant portion of a mission's dialogue from its' main article. I'm okay with restricting other cinematic-specific information on the cinematic pages. -- Gordon Ecker 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Same with Gordon. It would seem inconvenient to have full mission dialogue spread out in multiple pages, especially for missions with multiple cutscenes. -- ab.er.rant 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if the mission has 2+cinematic they are all still on the same page. — Seru Talk 14:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See the cinematic project page and guidelines. — Seru Talk 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind whether the dialogue stays, but if it doesn't, I don't think we should use a template. Templates can make things harder for ordinary contributors because most may not understand how they work. Rather than having to look around for the right template, it's just as easy to type it manually -- it's nothing overly largeor confusing. Also, I'm opposed to the spoiler warning... as I said at Template talk:Cinematic infobox. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it does stay there should be a "See mission (cinematic) for more information." or something similar to that. — Seru Talk 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My earlier concern was similar to Gordon's but perhaps I've misunderstood you. I'm reading your suggestion as "deleting the dialogue portions that's seen in cutscenes and replacing it with a link". That's why I didn't agree to it. The sequence of reading the dialogue won't be a natural sequence when there are multiple cutscenes with non-cutscene dialogue interspersed between them. -- ab.er.rant 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Cinematics pages are nearly done, I think we need to come up with a way to integrate the two areas Mission (or Quest) articles and Cinematics articles to make it easier for users to find the more detailed information. I can understand the concern of interrupting the flow of the dialogue, however, I must point out that the dialogue transcriptions on mission and quest pages are in some cases incomplete, in many cases inconsistent, and in other cases non-existent. I think the easiest way might be to make the dialogue sections of the Cinematics pages into subpages (like what is done with collectors and weaponsmiths), and simply include them in the appropriate mission or quest page, and then link the word Cinematic to the corresponding page. That would maintain a consistency in the dialogue transcription across the wiki. -- Wyn 06:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think dialogue should be listed on the mission pages, even if it is in the cutscene, since it sometimes is necessary to understand the mission. Having it on subpages to include on both cinematic and mission pages seems like a good solution to me, it is just one article to edit but the information is visible where it is needed. - anja 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Noting on Pain Inverter

It appears that adding "Bring Pain Inverter" to various mission pages seems to be a knee-jerk reaction with people, to add to "Skill Recommendations".. Does it really need to be mentioned everywhere? I figure after it's introduced a couple times it goes without saying, or is overall unnecessary anyway. Opinions? - Vanguard 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted if it's noteworthy. Either it is more effective in that mission than it is in general, or it is not. Backsword 00:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case we might as well plug it in every mission that has a boss >_> - Vanguard 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well its not as useful against some bosses, the best are huge party wide damage, so ele's. But i agree it is just chucked everywhere with a difficult boss. Iyatos 09:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Boss ele's are optimal yes but Pain Inverter seems to be put on a lot of EoTn missions. I just think something should be done. I don't know what. I just thought I'd through the note out there that it's being flung around as a recommended skill pointlessly.- Vanguard 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well to me it seems that it is genuinely useful in most EoTN missions, by their common design; few levels of reasonable mobs, then a big bad boss. And tbh i dont see any point in removing them, because im sure some people do look at this and pvxwiki and blindly chose the skills that are recommended. So if it helps some people, and is actually effective in that area, i say the notes should stay. Iyatos 10:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to explain that one to me someday. Backsword 10:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewards

The November 13th updated added a variable to the Nightfall mission rewards, with different amounts of Sunspear or Lightbringer points being rewarded in each mission. The current Mission reward template does not handle such variable, but the other template, Mission Rewards has been considered here to include redundant information. I suggest adding a new template like the first one, with only the Reputation points section from the second one. Erasculio 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO we should somehow incorporate Zaishen Mission Quest rewards into the rewards section, perhaps in a subsection. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cinematics

The mission articles do not link to the articles of their own cinematics (for example, Zen Daijun does not link to Zen Daijun cinematic). IMO this is a waste, as the cinematics articles are barely linked to. I think we should add a section in the missions articles for the cinematic links. Erasculio 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just link them in and fix the guidelines later. It's a small enough matter that can be edited in and discussed at the same time. -- ab.er.rant 05:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Silver Edge has been steadily adding them in too, as he goes. --DryHumour 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Storybook page info

→ moved from Template talk:Mission infobox

A sysop contacted me, and thought the mission storybook page info is not significant enough to be included. So what do other people think? Yay or nay for including? Look under all the Young Heroes of Tyria missions to see what has been added. — δ(x) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely no; there is much more information that possibily could be added to the infobox but isn't because it is simply not as important to be added there. The infobox is supposed to quickly show important information; cluttering it won't help that.

Also, when planning such a change that affects a lot of pages, discuss it first please. poke | talk 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed to it as an editor, not as an admin. I just don't feel that the information is important enough to warrant inclusion into the infobox. Party size, location, related quests, etc. are important. Which storybook it fulfills isn't. --JonTheMon 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer infoboxes to be concise. If I am missing a page in my storybook, I will look at the storybook's page. When I'm browsing a mission page, it will not be because I want to know what page a mission is. G R E E N E R 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the making the data easier to find; I don't support including it in the infobox.

I can't tell you how many times I have tried to find synergies with guildies regarding what mish or dungeon to tackle together. He has a z-mish; she has 5 empty pages in the storybook — is there a match? It should be easier to find out. So I (among others) would find it helpful to be able to locate the storybook page number on the mish/dungeon/zm/zb articles.

However, it clutters the otherwise concise infobox at the top of the primary articles. I would prefer to see a consistent way of displaying secondary data in notes (e.g. cartography, storybook, ...).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Greene: I find myself too frequently going backwards to check if today's zmission is in a book I'm missing, and if so, which page. Today, the camel's back broke. I do think there should be a consistent way of displaying this information, like Tennessee said, especially in light of the additional secondary information. — δ(x) 03:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the consensus that the information needs to be on the pages, but not in the infobox? --JonTheMon 17:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I added a note or a box at the bottom of the mission information section? — δ(x) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Delta: before updating dozens of articles, how about if you create a suggested text (perhaps in your Sandbox)? We should also give folks a chance to comment; not everyone visits the wiki daily and there's no particular urgency to adding the page numbers (after all, the wiki has limped through for years without them).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sandbox still seems like a little much. What's so bad about having it in the Notes section? --JonTheMon 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made something on my sandbox Sandbox. Why should it not be in the notes section? Like Tennessee implied, it's the same reason why I wouldn't put reward information in the Notes section. — δ(x) 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll notice TEF's and my comments, he suggests putting the info into the Notes section, not the mission section. --JonTheMon 19:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll notice my comment, it was more focused about the consistency aspect, and not the location aspect. — δ(x) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's a Reward for finishing the mission. Why would it go into Notes? A simple one-liner at the end of the Rewards section would suffice:

"Completing this mission will fill out page 16 of the Night Falls storybook."

(and while we're at it, is anyone opposed to moving the SS/LB-bonuses from the Notes to the Rewards section as well, just like it's done in the factions missions?) Tub 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Like another column in the reward template? I think that's pretty cool. — δ(x) 19:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved, this will get more appropriate attention here. poke | talk 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice this till now and I'm sorry for bumping an old topic, but i think i'd like to see these either in the notes or reward section. Either way, it'd be nice to have them on the mission pages. Kaisha 08:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Navigation Templates

Apparently there's an issue with these templates as per a template talk. It wasn't brought up here, strangely enough, but I am bringing it up here now. It was brought up in a template. Seems to me that many don't look to our formatting guides when complaining about "redundancy" and wanting a "change". It was discussed and implemented as per a consensus when these guides were formed. If changes are to be made, it should get a new consensus. However, we should comment, discuss in the talk, and then change the guideline to fit to the new consensus and not because some people find a problem and refuse to do it the practical way. This is practical, discussing in other areas is not.
So, while I have had my complaint spilled out as to why I have an issue with how it was done in the first plsce and people changing the articles per that discussion and going against the formatting guidelines... I feel it's a need to bring it to the talk of the formatting. My question is . Should we keep the navigation tab of the mission's region? It is apparent to some that are new to the wiki and it's guidelines and others who have forgotten these guidelines... That it is "redundant". I may agree, but I think we should have consensus here and changes, before implementation. Thank you and I hope to hear responses. The main issue/question is, should we keep the region nav or remove it and leave the campaign nav? If we remove it, we'll need to make the changes to the corresponding page of this one. Kaisha 06:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm 100% against including two navbars, one of which carries identical data and only a tiny amount of extra information. I can't imagine more than a tiny number of circumstances where people need to distinguish missions by region — the order of missions is the more critical detail. (In contrast, I don't like double navs for locations, but I can see the value.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, either way which ever or whatever we'd go for. it ought to be reflected on the formatting missions page first, before implementing on the actual mission pages. Kaisha 06:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's completely redundant to have two navigation templates where one contains every individual link of the other. The smaller one should go, as it just adds to scrolling and noise on the page. Also, the delete tags shouldn't have been removed - just the speedy parameter should have, though tbh, a single template was already deleted and removed from articles and there was no complaint then. Konig/talk 07:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm going to have to agree with TEF on this one. I don't see the purpose of the "Missions in REGION XXXXX" navbar when you have the "CAMPAIGN YYYYY missions" navbar. If you want to get fancy, you could rework the campaign navbar so that it's missions in order by region: You would list the missions in order horiziontally like we do now, but each new horizontal line would be the next region in the campaign. --Riddle 07:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Konig, that's that template, but it was part of the formatting which shouldn't have gotten deleted. if the sysop knew the formatting guidelines and knew better. IT wouldn't have been deleted and the discussions would have been moved here already. Not a problem then? Because you and others didn't bother telling that person who obviously didn't know about the formatting guidelines, about them and brought it here in the first place, where it should have been done hours ago. Don't get me wrong. I might agree with the redundance, but that's not practical and it's going against already formed consensus that was made here a long time back and going against the actual formatting guideline. Even your replacement deletions are doing the same thing. Until we get consensus on the changes. Things out to remain the way they were before the implemented changes you made and then changed after complete consensus here. Kaisha 07:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Riddle: That idea wouldn't work for Factions or Nightfall - thanks to post-Boreas Seabed and Nundu Bay missions respectively. Well, it could, but it'd be rather untidy.

@Kiasha: Truth be told, that's bullshit. Formatting guidelines are guidelines not absolute rules that can never be changed. It's redundant, there was a discussion that occurred and the template was deleted thirteen days after the discussion began. As I said on my talk page location of a discussion doesn't matter - all it does is influence traffic and nowadays, formatting guidelines are probably less seen than 7 mission articles being altered. Oh, and consensus; what consensus? There was no discussion to have both - someone, specifically Dr ishmael just added that. I see no previous consensus - just because it has existed doesn't mean it's right. Konig/talk 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a guideline we've used for 5 years with no problems. Most end up with discussions for changes, before implemented. Some, like this one probably were cleaned up to fit along with the missions, templates, etc. that were created back then and already fixed up. Remember, most to all that came here when this wiki was created, was from GuildWiki. No doubt a lot to about everything back then was taken from that wiki, but have similarities still, but both are now different in many ways. Kaisha 08:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My thoughts of the templates is this. Whatever is useful on the regional template, be added to each page that it's used on and that is excluding the redundant that's on the campaign template. I don't think we'd want what's on the regional template to be on the campaign template. We don't need a template to get too big, especially for a few additional information that might be for some missions on a certain region. We keep the campaign template, we remove the regional and delete, but that's my opinion and it's why I brought it here, to get consensus, to fix the guide to reflect it. THEN make the changes, not out right make the changes against a guideline that we've used for over 5 years. That a lot of people went by. You'd think if it was redundant then, it'd been removed and talked about. I did consider it, when I did some edits on the factions missions. However, I didn't discuss, because I thought that the regional ones may be useful to some. It had been for a guild and alliance that I use to be in and for me. I use to use the regional more than the whole campaign. It was smaller in that it didn't have so many links easier to find things for that region and helped me figure out what missions I could do to help boost up my title. So both templates do have their uses, even if they are Redundant. It saddens me that both sides of the coins aren't seen, before removal. I didn't know about the discussions on that one template. I usually have been keeping an eye on the comment page and some what on the formatting pages, never template. Those in the past have hardly ever had any discussions on them, because usually that's brought up on the formatting pages. Aka the Cost changes were discussed on the formatting. first on the template, but mostly the formatting. where the guy was brought to the attention of it on his talk, etc. His changes helped, but they were discussed. That's all that's needed is a discussion on the pages where more are able to go to and comment on. Pages that are more recognizable, especially even by those who have been editing for over a year or so more. Kaisha 08:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that one template is better than two, the only thing you get from regional templates is the links to local outposts/landmarks/explorables list - which i don't find useful at all personally. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 08:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"It's a guideline we've used for 5 years with no problems." The argument of tradition is the worst possible argument you could have. Just because something exists or has been used without complaint doesn't mean it isn't broken or can't be made better. In the end, as I said on the page of the original discussion, either the campaign or the region templates should be deleted - it matters not to me which one, but one of the two because having both is redundant and pointless. Again, just because something has existed and worked fine doesn't mean it can't be improved. I find the campaign one more helpful because, while it currently doesn't specify the region (can easily be changed!), it lists more than the other nav without being too large. "Those in the past have hardly ever had any discussions on them" - the request for comment page (and its history) holds that as a lie, as most discussions (that were) there are either on or began on template talk pages. Fun fact: some discussions, once moved to a more general location - such as the storybook discussion above this section - dies out after being moved to where it "should" get more attention.

Besides this, I've stated my side and hold to it and won't restate it. Konig/talk 09:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Kaisha, it really seems like your argument is just that "it wasn't done properly", which is a pretty annoying reason to revert that whole shitload of changes and make us start over. You even agreed that the regional template should be removed. While it's always good to have consensus and all that jazz, is it really necessary to undo something we all agree on so we can go around the room with the 5 of us that care and all agree on it again?

Anyways, what's done is done and the RC list is finally clear. I favor deletion of the regions template, although I'm not entirely sure about separating the missions by region inside the campaign template. I'm going to say leave it as it is unless someone thinks of a really good way to incorporate it. ~FarloTalk 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not an annoying reason, when the annoying reason is to find that all these templates that are and do get used by people in the game, besides me get s deletion tag without these on here considering that people do use these navigation templates. I do and have used the Echovald Forest‎ template more than I have the "campaign" for my Kurzick title. Same as I know others who do and have used the Jade Sea template more. I do think there is a way to incorporate the regional list inside a campaign, but it's going to be as bad as the tonics navigation and probably longer and bigger to scroll through, considering that we might want to list the elite areas a bit separately from the other actual missions. People do use things as no doubt it was created more so on the ease of the players not because it'd be "redundant", but because it is useful to use areas to farm things including points. So, is it fair to remove templates and edit a lot of mission pages, because they're "redundant? Is it fair to have a small insignificant discussion, not considering the usages, etc. on a template talk be the "consensus" where people can't find the discussion, instead of discussion on a formatting talk, where people can find them? I'm throwing points out here to consider and that imo we should consider, before making such decisions as to the merit of the removals, etc. I wouldn't care either way, but I reverted, because there was no consensus and no one to consider the big picture or the readers, but all it seemed was those that didn't like the fact that it was redundant. No one considered the usages or even why they could be here. Both have their advantages, no matter how redundant. So, I ask you Farlo, is this fair to those that use the region templates for things, including titles? I know that I'm not the only one that has used them over the campaign, despite the annoyance of the redundance. I revert for more than just because I felt there was a lack of consensus, I revert for those that use the templates, I revert until there's a better plan. I can revert myself, no problem. I won't have a problem, because consensus would be reached and decided on what we should do. I do have a problem, because people went for changes without a "consensus" and without trying to get the voice of the people of the wiki involved. It's major changes in some ways and should involve more than a few wikians. Minor? I wouldn't of done anything even if I don't agree. Kaisha 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you're trolling.--File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 15:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm making points. Please refrain from accusations. Thank you. Kaisha 15:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wall of text arguement with same conclusions as quoting other template arguements & we shouldn't change tradition. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For your seemingly sole argument of "consensus" - GWW:BOLD. It's redundant, we had a discussion on one template, we were bold to do the same for the rest. Consensus is not always needed and just because something has been used doesn't mean it should remain as such. TBH, it is annoying with how you did things (could of simply removed the speedy parameter), but what's done is done - what's more annoying is that you're not even really opposed to the change, you're just stating division by region is helpful and that it wasn't done "properly" when in fact there is no proper way to do things on a wiki. Konig/talk 16:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No proper way? There is, discussion. Discussing about the templates and what to do with them, what the purposes of both are, and how to make one work for two, etc. finding a way to co-exist with the already usable guildeline to the new proposals of deletions, etc. that's what a consensus should be for. A way for both disagreeing parties to work together. 1. I do agree they're redundant. 2. I disagree with the deletions, because both are usable and have been used for years. Just because they're redundant doesn't merit for a deletion - a speedy one at that. 3. I do agree there can be away for one template to work for both. 4. I'd like for us to consider updating the pages to reflect some notes that the regional has, to keep from needing to expand the campaign one. 5. Compromising or rather coming up with solutions to replace the regional would have been better than getting rid of part of a wiki that has worked just fine for years. Is that so hard to do or ask? You had a discussion on a template, that should have merit a discussion here, because as far as I am concerned. That discussion was for that template only and did not merit changes to other templates or pages. A discussion here would have and that's why it's here now. I do consider you vandalizing pages and not being bold because you did not get other wikians involved in this "project" that you undertook. I consider it as such, because it is not wise to remove working and useful information on a wiki. Not without a discussion. Now, let's stop attacking each other and work to solve this as it should have been done months ago. Kaisha 16:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary

For	Against	for, but wanting to find solutions to solve the usefulness of both.
Chieftain Alex Farlo Konig Riddle Tennessee Ernie Ford -- Armond Warblade	none?	Kaisha

Disclaimer: I've taken whatever opinion each person seems to be promoting and put it in table, and feel free to move your vote--File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 17:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Voting is not consensus. Voting is only for elections, Please remove this. You do not understand that this is about coming up with a solution for the templates on the mission pages and what to do with the information that's on the regional and not on the campaign. To merit why it should be deleted or not, etc. Get opinions. Not this. I'm sorry, but that's why I reverted you Chieftain. Your "idea" of consensus, is not how things have ever worked. It's not by numbers or amount. it's about trying to find a solution to things that merit changes. I'm against part of it, but not completely against it all. I feel both have their uses and one should not be removed until the information that's on it. finds it's way onto those pages.Kaisha 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like you to use concise answers like your post above ^^. Secondly, in your opinion - what does the second template add to the first? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the additional links like the outposts, etc. listed in the regional templates. The fact that there's not so much "clutter", but I'm thinking of a solution for the campaign templates that might help shorten the length of the pages and can help be less "clutter"... Just wanting to finish one of my other projects first. (like adding ids to missing skill pages or my sandbox armor). However, I will make my suggestions. I'm going to copy each regional template to my userspace to keep, in case they do get deleted as well. Kaisha 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi; stop trolling.

You're not an idiot. Voting is, obviously, not consensus; you're not informing anyone of anything by saying that. Voting can, however, be used as a measure of consensus, as Alex is using it for. Asking him to remove a relevant section because you don't like it is unacceptable.

Your current dramawhoring is also unacceptable. Because you're unable to accept that you are, currently, the only person displaying anything in the area of your views, you've decided to flood the wiki with completely invalid reverts and also to flood two users' talk pages about "policy violations". The irony is that all your wikilawyering about how x or y changes aren't following z guideline or n policy is invalidated by GWW:BOLD, where we encourage users to better the wiki above all else. Please also remember the spirit of Guild Wars Wiki:Ignore all policies: If a policy [or guideline] prevents you from improving or maintaining the official wiki, ignore it.

In short, you are making it look like you're dragging up this whole discussion that no one else wants to have and all but attacking a few users following a course of action that only requires common sense simply because you did not notice an accepted precedent. Trolls have been banned for less.

Most importantly, if you have an idea to improve the templates and mission pages, great; work on that, get it polished and fancy and whatnot, but don't stop others from making an intermediate change.

-- Armond Warblade 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect such nonsense out of you, hence I created this. So, maybe you might want to consider that I'm doing this the "formal" way that's always been done on this wiki. So, stop trolling yourself and stop attacking me as a user. Remember, contribute on content, not contributor. Surely, after your previous outbursts on users and your trolling ban. You'd learn this. Kaisha 18:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but really? You've made a sandbox "template" that demands apologies? We aren't attacking you, we're attacking this useless circle that you started. We're just "against" you because... well... you're the one that did it, nothing personal, if TEF, Konig, or Alex did this, I'd probably react the same way. ~FarloTalk 19:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since most of what I want to say was said by Armond (harshly) and Farlo. "So, maybe you might want to consider that I'm doing this the "formal" way that's always been done on this wiki." There is no formal way. There are guidelines, there are "policies" but these can all be ignored, and policies which say discussions and policies can be ignored was linked by Armond. Everything is variable. Everything is a case by case situation. There was discussion and people followed policy. No one is 'wrong' and no one, not even you, are doing things the 'formal' or 'proper' way because there is no such way. Konig/talk 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Most changes to things relating to formatting, happen via the talk. Not template. Name me one example that shows differently. If I can' counter that, I'll show you the links, if not. Then fine, your way was fine too. However, you missed the fact that there was no challenge mission on the prophecies missions - which I added. There's links to Towns, outposts, Explorable areas, and Landmarks which makes your "Redundant to campaign missions" lame. Tbh, they're similar, but not the same, not enough to be redundant. Now we get to discuss where and what to do with these links that are useful that you and others that's part of the wiki want removed , excluding those readers, etc. that do or may use the valuable links. So, I object to your deletion, until we get those links put on these pages solved. Then, we can have fun removing the regional templates and deleting them. Kaisha 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Glint's Challenge is part of Eye of the North, not Prophecies. 67.180.237.90 20:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, pointed out already by Silver, Asked him to help check things over in the sb. Feel free. Kaisha 21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of summary

At the moment, there are only two suggestions:

1. Remove the regional navbar from all mission articles because it's redundant with the existing campaign-based bar (and therefore makes things harder on readers) or
2. Stick with the status quo because it offers a less cluttered navbar.

Since even the person making the argument for #2 appears ambivalent about it, I think we have already reached a consensus. There's no harm in waiting a few more days to give other people have a chance to weigh in, but short of a compelling new argument (or groundswell of support), we should re-remove the regional navbars before the next weekend.

Finally, there aren't any other issues to discuss in this section. There are plenty of other venues for folks to discuss trolling, dramawhoring, policy, consensus, etc. Please only add a comment here if it directly addresses suggestion (1) or (2), offers an additional idea, or explains why we should wait for a different period of time (e.g. longer or not at all). Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got this done User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Missions_Templates Which is to show all of them together to show the similarities and differences. I added the Glint's challenge to the prophecies one that was missing. I am wondering if we should add these links: Towns and outposts • Arenas • Explorable areas • Landmarks to the notes of each mission of the corresponding region or leave them off. I like them though, because I do use those links and that's the only now difference between the two templates. I think a note might do, but I'm not quite sure how that'd do. I'm still looking into this idea of separating the missions into regions on the corresponding campaign templates, but I think that'd make the templates rather uselessly long. So, my idea is more towards a note with the links as region is usually in the location of the infobox. Oh, and yea campaign template only, just would like to keep the links to these: Towns and outposts • Arenas • Explorable areas • Landmarks of each region (hence, maybe notes?). Thoughts? Kaisha 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

all that is kind of unnecessary imo, just deleting the second template is fine and if you want to know all the outposts and stuff you can look at the page for the region like Crystal Desert lists everything 24.130.140.36 21:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, all three links at the bottom of the "local" mission nav link to the Region page - already linked to at top of every mission. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, true good point. However, linking to exact spots of the towns, outposts, etc. is more helpful than having to go to the page and "scroll" down the long page to these sections. Course one could use the toc on that page, but to a reader, that's more work (and there are lazy people. No telling how many links I've had to send to certain sections on the pages, in game - never the less.) . Questions now to be asking would be How simple would you want to get to help the reader? How much of an ease? None? A lot? 72.148.31.114 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

if they dont know the name of the place already they're probably not going to look for it at the bottom of the missions pages but in the region page 24.130.140.36 23:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose these changes to the Campaign navs. User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Missions_Templates#Prophecies_-_Idea, User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Missions_Templates#Factions_-_Idea, and User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Missions_Templates#Nightfall_-_Idea. I can work on something similar for Eye of the North to make them or have them all be consistent. Thoughts? And btw, I'll be reverting myself via each mission to remove the regional template. Kaisha 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like the show/hide on every region, it's a lot more clicking and clutter for small portions of info. If we're merging both, then they should be separated, but probably not so much, if that makes sense at all, I'm sure others can word it a lot better than me. ~FarloTalk 07:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As Farlo said, too much clicking for such little info. Rather than that set up, may I suggest going off of how this or this is set up? That is, a complete version of this:

Might be bigger than the current version, but it's smaller than the suggested one. An alternative to this matter would be to remove the "Campaign missions" rather than "missions in region" templates - and in turn restore the Kaineng City one. That is, if the whole links to the regions' sections are so demanded (shouldn't be, tbh, a ToC exists for a reason and one click is not that hard).

I still don't see much need to divide by region. Those who are looking for such will either know the name already or are looking for that specific region in which they're more likely to visit the region page, rather than any ol' mission page. Dividing by region also makes it a lot clunkier and unnecessarily so (the elites and challenge missions get divided, adding 3-7 additional lines in the templates). Konig/talk 07:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dividing by region in Prophecies and Factions is misleading, because the order of the missions causes you to bop around. I don't see any reason for including only some missions in the navbar. If storyline order is too confusing for ppls (and I don't think it is in this case), then the simplest way to address that is to alphabetize the missions. (In fact, if it's an issue, then we could add a button to toggle the order...but as I said, I don't think it is.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) True. I'm working on something different in the sb. So, look for a change. Here in a bit, been working on it last night and I fell asleep. ^.^ Okay, check them out now. I changed them up a bit.

Sorry, forgot to do the ri. There's an example from the changes in the sb. Oh I didn't add in mission, because that's already in the article and redundant to mention on a template. It's also in alphabetical order, so I wouldn't mind help in making it in a "Mission order". I'll add in the pre one. Ty. Added to sb. Anyway, Far as size and why? Well, the other sizes seems a bit small at 90% like a font size 8 and that can be hard on the eyes. I've noticed that I had to squint when I had it all in the sb. Decided to try to bring it up to a font size of 10, but in a percentage. Tbh, I can't wear my glasses to read some things (like small font at size 8), because of another who's not of understanding age yet. Kaisha 15:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me, although personally I did like them in mission order, it was easier to find the next/previous/whatever. If we have them in mission order, I'd like to keep the "»" (arrows), at least for those in the same region. If it's alphabetical, does "The" count as part of the proper name in this case? (Looking at The Great Northern Wall being at the end) My 6th grade English fails me at the moment. ~FarloTalk 19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on who the intended audience is. New players won't know the order of the missions, so it's important to have them in mission order for those type of people. Veterans should know the order already, and then it's arguably easier to find an individual mission alphabetically. 67.180.237.90 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

idk about you but I never remembr what order the rpoph missions are in 24.130.140.36 20:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep mission order - "Veterans should know the order already, and then it's arguably easier to find an individual mission alphabetically." Isn't that contradictory? If people know the order, they'd know where in the list to look. I personally don't see a need to divide by region at all. Konig/talk 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

it does have the advantage of making it so you can view a region's page easily but I think mission order is a big advantage 24.130.140.36 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I copied pasted from the others (you can look at my sb history to see that) on the order so... Fix the order to the mission order, but I like keeping in the regional sections. I'm thinking for those that you have to choose between to do like say the ones involving koss. Do like say (koss mission) or (Melonni) mission with the dots on either side. the arrows aren't necessary and I say this, because the fact is that I'm considering in the foreign and local characters. I think the arrows would be more useful towards the local characters, but can confuse the foreign char. So, I opted in and kept with the dots. I do think the and or can be replacing some dots and can help with the mission direction. I know some follow each other and some depend on the char. you choose like Master and that Cosair ranger. 72.148.31.114 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Other ideas for template

(Reset indent) Okay, check out the second option in User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Missions_Templates#Factions_-_Idea. Thoughts? 72.148.31.114 23:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all of those make a simple navbox overly complex. I still don't understand the reason why it's important to change the current version, i.e. I'm not clear what problem it is that these suggestions are meant to resolve. The most important thing a navbar does is make navigation easier; in my view, these variations make it more difficult and/or clutter the page with unnecessary details. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am only adding in the region location of the missions. It'd help those navigate the missions as to which location the next would be it. I think a better example would be the Night fall secondary that I Just did. User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Missions_Templates#Nightfall_-_Idea. I have had people ask where the next mission is and get confused as to where to look. I figured a simple note in the template, would help one to know where to go from one mission to the next (at least what region to look in). Kaisha 23:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your sandboxes are too noisy. That is too many bloody links, this is only exasperated due to the format - pretty much the second reason I and TEF were against using two templates - too many links create too much confusion. It's the same as looking at all of text after wall of text on forums or wiki discussions, it gets mind-boggling. IMO, it's best off how it is (that is, no regional division as it's just shown to be too many links) or if regions are absolutely necessary, go with my example (but expand) - have the regions in their own box. Your templates have no division among the regions at all outside "next line" which isn't even always the case and in turn it causes them to more or less mesh together and just be bleh - more so for your second Factions one which isn't even separated by region anymore, that's just plain ugly tbh. Konig/talk 01:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Konig on this. I actually like the EotN one and the Prophecies one isn't terrible. The Factions and Nightfall ones are just waaay too cluttered however. In their current state, the only one I'd support would be the EotN one, and that's not even 100%. ~FarloTalk 02:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

me too 24.130.140.36 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Rechanged them. Better? or Worse? Cause the ones I see right now? Give me a headache. It's too jumbled up to be useful. Kaisha 05:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to be an ass, but the other ones weren't jumbled? :P. I like them better then before, but I'm still not sure it's any better than the ones we have currently. ~FarloTalk 05:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The ones we are using currently for the campaigns, imo. are jumbled. All the missions seem to run together. Looking at each, non are consistent with each other. In Nf, you've got the challenge spaced a lot then the elite. In Factions, you've got the challenge then the elite (course the cooperative in there too). It is not very well distinguished to spot the linked challenge, elite, and cooperative. Prophecies is just like one right after another and the way it looks here? Messed up and easily can be confusing on all 3. EotN could use a bit of touching up, but it's not bad like the others, imo. Kaisha 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous suggestion was more jumbled than the current ones. I still hold that region is unnecessary. There's a lot one wants to document or link to, but you can't link to everywhere from everything. You need to realize when you need to cut out at times. I also dislike EN's because it divides storyline instead of region, when they can easily be replaced for region (and not even moving the missions themselves!). But it's better than the current version.

Fun thing to note is that there's never been regional templates for EN missions. Proves that regional division is not necessary. Konig/talk 06:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

First off: this is a big talk section for only being alive for 3 or 4 days. I'm in favor of removing the regional mission box (which it looks like already happened). Kaisha, the problem with your sandboxes is that they attempt to sort some missions by location and others by type. You get things like a Kaineng City section and it doesn't have Dragon's Throat in it. Sorting missions by campaign makes sense, but sorting them by region has no obvious relevance. -- Kirbman 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)