Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs/Archive 6

Proposed change for consistency

I propose taking out the "mission only" clause. To retain consistency across all NPC pages, which all are located in a location, this location section should be retained on all NPC pages. If the particular NPC only appears when under a quest or mission, it can be noted, as many pages are already.

Not all these pages need to have a mission section, but all should at least have a location. 69.182.192.195 06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If a boss is only in a mission/missions then no location is needed. There is a link to the mission/missions page that has the location there. All your going to do is show the exact same location that is already listed somewhere else, we have a word for that "redundant". Drogo Boffin 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between the mission section and other locations appears to be just for clarity purposes, for what i gathered from the previous discussions. I wouldn't really oppose changing it, but i don't see a reason for doing so really. Reader clarity should probably precede consistency for editors here.--Fighterdoken 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If a boss is only in a mission, there is no reason to not have a location section. It is for listing the location or locations that particular boss/NPC shows up in. Nothing more. This also makes a distinction between a map location and a mission location, if there is one.

This does not affect clarity negatively having the location section in, but it does more than potentially cause a negative impact on that clarity. 42 - talk 13:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Er no thanks, this'll just introduce redundancy. It's unnecessary, the information is already listed on the page, and there's no need for a section header that heads redundant information. I'm not sure how your proposal makes anything more consistent, or makes anything better at all. -- pling 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not redundant. The consistency part is having a location section (which is always applicable) on all NPC pages. Not all NPC pages need a mission section. Having a mission section could be considered redundant, because you could have every NPC page have a location section, and tag the locations with something like (only during X quest, or Y mission). 42 - talk 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think it is silly to have a l2 section for locations and the a second l2 section for yet more locations (of a specific type). We should either have just on section, or l3 subsections for all types. Backsword 07:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what 42 was talking about. Not sure if others are seeing it or not. You have an NPC, that individual, monster, whatever, is going to be in X location. So post it on their page. Even if they are only in that spot because of a quest or mission, they are still at X location. The ones that are needed can have the mission or quest or whatever section explaining they are only there for Y quest. 69.182.134.81 05:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Armor ratings

The armor rating project has most of the enemies one sees during the main storyline now, and I would like to start adding that data to creature pages. But first I'd like to know how people would like this data formatted.

• Relative or absolute armor ratings. For example, a Stone Soul is a level 24 caster, so it is expected to have 72 armor. However, it has +40 armor to everything except cold and blunt damage.

A relative format would look like this:

Damage type	Cold	Earth	Fire	Lightning	Blunt	Piercing	Slashing
Stone Soul	0	+40	+40	+40	0	+40	+40

This format would require a wordier explanation of what's being displayed, and may not mean much to someone with little knowledge of how armor rating effects damage.

and an absolute format:

Damage type	Cold	Earth	Fire	Lightning	Blunt	Piercing	Slashing
Stone Soul	72	112	112	112	72	112	112

One issue with absolute armor ratings are enemies that appear at several levels. Enemies gain 3 armor rating per level, so there would either need to be a set of data for each level or a note of which level the data is for. It's also less apparent at a glance what types of damage it is strong or weak against.

• Many enemies have plus or minus 1 or 2 armor rating because of an apparent bug in how the game calculates damage. It could be confusing for users to see that Stone Summit Heretics, for example, have -1 armor from expected against all forms of armor-sensitive damage. I'm sure in the game code these armor ratings are listed correctly, but it doesn't make any practical difference since in-game the effective armor rating is always a bit off.

• There are some potentially important notes attached to several enemies on the armor ratings page. Namely, some creature's classes are only being guessed, and most Warriors and Paragons don't wield shields. Also, all of the data collected so far is in Normal Mode. Preliminary testing shows Hard Mode is erratic with armor changes.

As for how it appears on the page, there could be a "linear" table as seen above or a "pyramidal" table to distinguish physical from elemental:

Armor ratings
Cold	Earth	Fire	Lightning
0	+40	+40	+40
Blunt	Piercing	Slashing
0	+40	+40

Except without those empty boxes, I couldn't figure out how to make the physical damage columns fill the whole horizontal space, sorry. This table could maybe be added to Template:NPC_infobox, or as a separate section in the main body of the article. I think a table is the most sensible way to display it, though perhaps has another idea. Perhaps color coded in some way to make it easier to tell strengths and weaknesses at a glance. Manifold 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

TBH, i don't know if I'd want a table of the armor rating on every monster page. Since it's kinda detailed information, it seems to me that it would be better just to have a master table and link to parts of it from each monster page. --JonTheMon 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it also be possible to use one of them tango-like icons to replace the names? (I don't know why I wrote possible, I meant better.) Perhaps clicking on the table, or any tango, would redirect you to a master page, or show a legend, or something. | 72 (UTC) 15:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would rather have absolute ratings. It would be hard to explain with a quick glance how an enemy with -1 armor in the table has actually a higher armor rating than an enemy with +20 but lower level and different profession. Erasculio 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon - I think it's pretty fundamental information about a creature, like skills used. Is there a format other than a table you'd prefer?

72 - Sorry, but tango icons to replace the names of what, exactly? Manifold 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of the damage types. A small flame instead of "Fire damage" and so on, probably to list the ratings in a list instead of in a table. Could work, but we don't currently have tango icons for that kind of thing, and I'm not sure there's anyone currently here who knows how to make those icons. Erasculio 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Since apathy is setting in, how about:

Armor rating
	60		42		X
	55		66		X		X

? I like the first row, but I think the second one isn't clear enough. Erasculio 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Ice Spear, Stone Daggers, Flare, and let's say Lightning Strike? Also, is there a way to make the tooltips say the damage type? Manifold 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid people would take it too literally if we used the "raw" skill icons, so I tried to edit the red background and replace it with a white one. The result is incredibly ugly, though >.>:

Armor rating
	60		42		X
	55	Earth damage	66	Fire damage	X		X

The tooltips are stating the damage type, at least. But IMO we need better images for the elemental damages.

How about...

Armor rating
	60		42		X
	55		66		X		X

Or...

Armor rating
	60		42		X
	55		66		X		X

? Erasculio 01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do like the Elementalist headpieces, especially , , , and although I don't know how widely recognized they would be. Then again, I'm fine with text too.Manifold 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A little butt-in, but you might want to produce proper Image:Fire_Damage.png etc icons, with redirects to the wiki pages for those types of damage, so that should a viewer click on the icon, they will be sent to details on how to inflict each kind of damage. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be only two people interested in this issue after an extended length of time, despite even a request for comment, I'm going to start adding armor ratings to creature pages in a day or two in the following manner barring some dramatic upsweep of opposition: Absolute armor ratings, +/- 1 bug displayed as tested, "Armor ratings" subsection between "Skills" and "Armor", color codings to distinguish deviations from expected (if I can figure out a nice way of doing it), relevant notes in small text below the table. Example for Snarling Driftwood:

Armor ratings
	115		115		75
	115		115		75		115

Data assumes creature does not wield a shield. Manifold 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll chime in. First, where on a page should this table go? If it's in the body text (and I don't know what "armor" section you're talking about), I think it might benefit from being collapsible; if it's part of the infobox/under the infobox, then it could go either way. Second, why aren't you including a shield in the value? or can the same creature spawn w/ and w/o a shield? Third, why don't you, when you're making your changes, do a small batch first and get some more feedback before going full-scale? --JonTheMon 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon, I don't think we (as in, those involved in this discussion so far) know how to add the table to the infobox (I don't) or how to make the table collapsible. I like Manifold's idea of beginning implementation as a way to actually get more feedback on this (since no one appears to be opposing implementation, and we could really use the help of people with more technical expertise); considering how long it would take to add that table to every enemy, I think what will happen is that Manifold will only have done a small batch before people chime in with more opinions.

Also, notice how the "Data assumes creature does not wield a shield" comment is just an example of how relevant notes would be displayed; it actually makes no difference if we assume the creature uses a shield or not, given how we're displaying the absolute armor rating, not the relative (in which assuming there's or not a shield would make a difference).

A few enemies do have an "Armor" section, although they are very few, and I don't remember a specific example; but I'm not against creating a new section at the NPC articles, since one day we could increase it to add not only armor ratings, but also maximum health and maximum energy.

The only thing I'm worried about is the elemental icons; I don't think the common elementalist headpieces would be widely recognized (especially the earth and air pieces). How about we use the elementalist headpieces from Vabbian armor: , , and ?

Regardless of which images we choose, I think it would be better for the table to have the following format:

Armor ratings
	115		115		75
	115		115		75		115

We would then uploaded the desired images to each name, and redirect from said images to the articles about each damage type, so someone who clicked on the Cold damage icon would be redirected to the Cold damage article. It would also make it easier for us to replace the icons for each damage type, if we find something better in the future. Erasculio 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I have no objections either way I thought I would comment while I have the chance. Anyway if this goes into a separate section; this would be better than the infobox I think; are you going to make the table into a template and just have something like this:

{{NPC Armor rating|Blunt=115|piercing=115|slashing=75|cold=115|earth=115|fire=115|lightning=115}}

As to making it collapsible add class="expandable" to the start of the table to make it look like the following (exact duplicate of Manifolds example above except I replaced the <br>'s with {{clear}}):

Armor ratings
	115		115		75
	115		115		75		115

Data assumes creature does not wield a shield.

Hopefully this is what you are looking for Erasculio for the collapsible part. --Kakarot 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, thanks : ) Also, thank you for the clear template, I didn't know about it and it's a very useful thing. Erasculio 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(May as well shorten the template though by {{NPC Armor rating|bl=115|pi=115|sl=75|co=115|ea=115|fi=115|li=115}} or similar before we implement it all over). | 72 (UTC) 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be that short. The parameters should be clear enough for most people to edit. --JonTheMon 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said "between skills and armor" the armor I was referring to was the hero armor section, which I know isn't relevant to any of the pages, but I wanted to give the precise location I wanted to place it in regards to the formatting policy.

Erasculio is correct that the shield note isn't necessary with absolute armor ratings, I actually forgot about that. The only notes that would be needed are the "assumes creature is [class]".

The Vabbian headpieces are fine with me if you think they're more visually descriptive.

A template would make things much easier, Kakarot, I don't know how to make templates yet, however. One little thing I didn't mention was I changed border color to reflect the profession, so it would need a parameter for that too. Manifold 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So how about (those are templates)... {{User:Erasculio/Sandbox }} {{User:Erasculio/Sandbox }} Erasculio 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Manifold 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Prof will be primary prof for multiprof foes I assume? | 72 (UTC) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohey, quick question: how are you gonna treat the armor ratings for NM vs HM? --JonTheMon 04:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 72. Jon - I was planning on adding a little note below the table indicating that these values are for NM (all of the data so far is NM), and the level it applies to, if it varies, but maybe that could be put in the table header? Manifold 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One potential option would be to put it into () like when listing levels. --JonTheMon 05:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

lol, I looked at this again and realized prof only decides the colour, making my question quite irrelevant. Carry on! :P | 72 (UTC) 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The proper template:

Armor ratings
	60		60		60
	100		120		100		120

I have chosen "NPC statistics" as the template's name since we may want to expand it in the future to include more data about the monsters (maximum health and maximum energy, for example). Erasculio 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see two issues. One, which readers are this info directed to? It should be tailored to suit the target audience. Two, presenting set values are problematic for compound values. What would be included, what would not, and how would a reader know?

Jon, Yes, Shields spawn somewhat erraticly, and there are reported cases of creatures that normally have shield spawning without one. In addition, Shields don't always spawn with max AR, so two otherwise identical creatures could take different damage. Backsword 12:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in the fourth spot in the top row could be an icon determined by a variable shield = 0 or 1. It's true that creatures with shields spawn erratically with or without them, but it's also true that some creatures can't have them and others can, right? If so, a shield = 1 puts the icon there, shield = 0 hides it, and it would indicate that this creature is shield-eligible. I don't know, it's just a thought for the empty space. | 72 (UTC) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Most Paragons and Warriors don't have shields, and even fewer seem to have the variable armor rating issue, all of them level 20 or lower, I think. I was going to put the range of armor ratings I'd found into the table with a note that the discrepancy is due a variable shield spawn. I've only found a couple of enemies with invisible shields. As far as totally random appearance of a shield, I only remember seeing one Necromancer boss in Prophecies, once.

If the space is bothering you it could be filled with Holy damage. The page claims that "Some Demons, such as Margonites and Onis, take about 140% of inflicted holy damage." which I've been meaning to test precisely some time, and if it really is variable among Demons, it might be worth adding at least to those creature's tables. Manifold 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering how no one has opposed any of this in one month, I think it's ok to continue adding the armor rating box to the articles. Erasculio 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I got caught up while standing on the Rings last weekend, actually. Manifold 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission section

Kinda going back to #Proposed_change_for_consistency, it seems that there is a proposal to merge the Missions section into the Locations section. While both are technically "locations", I feel that missions are sufficiently different from standard locations that it merits its own heading. I do recognize that for normal monsters, having to list locations in both Locations and Missions might be a tad redundant, but for Bosses and other NPCs, I think it certainly has merit. --JonTheMon 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Two different subsections may not be the way I would choose to do it, but I do agree that they should clearly separated. Manifold 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Any special reason you started a section of your own, rather than responing to people in the existing one? I don't particularly feel like repeating myself. Backsword 23:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it's easier to find/participate in discussions at the end of a mission, and the above section also dealt with 42's issue of "it has to have a Location section" --JonTheMon 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're on a mission then, Jon? I'llputa question here then; you say Missios are specia t yu, but don't say why. Howre theymeaninfully dierent from, say, Dungeons, in a way Dungens aren't dffrent frm Towns? And why does this differenc need to be documnted on NPC pages, rather than, y'know, locaton pages? Adn e level 2 header style, that mismatches with the rest of the wiki, should that spread? If we flip and reverse it: How about the NPC section in location articles, sould that be all level 2 headres? Backsword 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to respond, please at least make it clear and legible. I can interpret it, but I don't want my brain to bleed out while doing so. --JonTheMon 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I'll interpret your brain problems as 'no objections'. Backsword 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I want you to restate your position in clear, legible english. --JonTheMon 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

well, if your problems prevents you from reading it, then you have no objections, right? Backsword 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have an objection to it, since I cannot understand it either. Backsword, I think you've been here long enough to know how discussion works - you can't enact a change when no one can understand you. -- pling 17:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

you have an objection? Same goes for you as for Jon; you have to present an actual arguemnt, not just trolling. You should have been here long enough to know that's how concensus actually works. Backsword 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will repost it here, since it seems this discussion has been continued further on, and basically saying the same thing as above.

I think I see what 42 meant before. All NPCs will be in location X (whatever one they are in) even if they are only in location X because of quest Y, so they should have a location section. Then, if needed, they can also have a mission/quest section as well explaining they are only in X because of Y. 69.182.134.81 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One exception for keys

Currently this guide restricts inclusion of keys to the drop list (not by the same reason as Gold, though). I agree that it's right in almost all cases, but I suggest to make an exception: allow to include a key to the list, if this key is unusual. This means that key is different from the keys to chests which can be found in current area.

For example, if a Frigid Kuskale in Marga Coast drops the Kournan Key, it's a usual drop because Kournan Chests spawn in that area, so it should not be listed. But when the Warrior's Construct in Sunjiang District (explorable area) drops the Forbidden Key, it's unusual drop because only Canthan Chests can be found around. Would this boss also have another location somewhere in Raisu Palace (an area with Forbidden Chests), this key should be counted as usual drop in that location; but this boss spawns only in Sunjiang District (mission and explorable area). --Slavic 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Better noted as an {{anomaly}}. - Tanetris 04:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue formatting- Accept, Decline, etc.

The guidelines aren't exactly clear of dialogue in terms of NPCs who had several dialogue paths (choose one answer, leads onto another set of text, etc.). In terms of formatting dialogue, how is it done? There's a few methods out there right now, such as:

• Specifically states Question: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", Accept: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", etc. (example is Lumo the Mime)
• Uses symbols ( "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet") and arrows (⇒ "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet") (example is the Master of Magic and Norn bounty givers)
• Uses symbols and images ( "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet",) (example is Jejumba)
• Some use bolding to emphasise and show the main dialogue paths, others don't.

So...thoughts for consistency? ~Celestia 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't have a complete answer for you, but the princimple of documenting the game as it is, not as someone wants it to be should be a fundamnet. Backsword 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some of the icons used at the time were what was available, and need to be updated if the actual in-game icon is now available? 69.182.134.81 06:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of skills

The guideline states:

"Sort the skills by profession, then alphabetically within each profession. Punctuation marks are sorted first (i.e. all the shouts). Common skills and monster skills are sorted below profession-specific skills. See also the profession formatting guidelines."

I've taken this to mean that for creatures with skills from more than one profession, profession order should be used. It's somewhat ambiguous, but the statement "See also the profession formatting guidelines" seems to say that this is case, or else why would it be mentioned? I've gotten every relevant creature page to adhere to this standard, reverting people when they occasionally change them.

Backsword has recently started going through all of these pages, changing it to primary class skills first. I don't see anything that says this method should be used, and I've repeated my argument in edit summaries on other occasions that have been ignored.

How should multi-profession NPCs have their skills listed? Manifold 14:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would personally prefer to have primary above secondary, just 'cause that's how you read the NPC's profession. --JonTheMon 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

War in Kryta notation

→ moved from User talk:Konig Des Todes

So, how do you think we should distinguish areas exclusive to WiK for purposes of NPC locations? Something like this:  ?

• Prophecies
  • Kryta
    • D'Alessio Seaboard (explorable area) (during Temple of the Intolerable)
  • War in Kryta
    • Lion's Arch (War in Kryta)

or does it work better like this:  ?

• Prophecies
  • Kryta
    • D'Alessio Seaboard (explorable area) (during Temple of the Intolerable)
• Guild Wars Beyond
  • Kryta
    • Lion's Arch (War in Kryta)

--Musha 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am Konig, but "War in Kryta" already implies that we're in Kryta. So I'd say the former for all bits that are in Kryta and then the latter for parts that aren't in Kryta (Evennia?) --Riddle 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this proposal:

• Guild Wars Prophecies
  • Kryta
    • Lion's Arch
• Guild Wars Beyond
  • War in Kryta
    • D'Alessio Seaboard (explorable area) (during Temple of the Intolerable)
    • Lion's Arch (War in Kryta)

This way, we can 1) denote which part of GWBeyond it is in, we can 2) note that it isn't part of Prophecies (for those who don't know what the War in Kryta is), and we can 3) actually call a new campaign as its own campaign instead of calling it all either GW:P or GW:EN. A second benefit to doing this (which coincides with the first point) is that if GW:B returns to Kryta for non-WiK stuff, then we can list that place under a new section for further organization and fewer confusion. -- Konig/talk 18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I like konigs one <3 --Neil2250 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like that, too. However, shouldn't we also list the "country" it's in? For example, some WiK stuff happened in EotN areas, and some in Ascalon. --Musha 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think there's a need to list areas as GW:B unless they have a separate GW:B area (which in thus far is WiK areas). For instance, the Hall of Monuments and Ice Cliff Chasms only have one page, due to the minimal changes (only dialogue), and Old Ascalon still has one version since it was one temporary NPC (Evennia). So, how I see it, there are three ways to do this - let's use Evennia as an example for ease. Version One:

• Guild Wars Prophecies
  • Maguuma Jungle
    • Tangle Root (only during quest Defend Denravi)
  • Southern Shiverpeaks
    • Iron Mines of Moladune (outpost) (level 20)
    • Droknar's Forge (explorable area) (level 15)
• Guild Wars Beyond
  • War in Kryta
    • Talmark Wilderness (War in Kryta) (level 15)
  • Ascalon
    • Old Ascalon (after scene in Ice Cliff Chasms and before Temple of the Intolerable, level 15)
  • Far Shiverpeaks
    • Ice Cliff Chasm (only during dialogue)

Version two:

• Guild Wars Prophecies
  • Maguuma Jungle
    • Tangle Root (only during quest Defend Denravi)
  • Southern Shiverpeaks
    • Iron Mines of Moladune (outpost) (level 20)
    • Droknar's Forge (explorable area) (level 15)
• Guild Wars Beyond
  • War in Kryta
    • Talmark Wilderness (War in Kryta) (level 15)
    • Old Ascalon (after scene in Ice Cliff Chasms and before Temple of the Intolerable, level 15)
    • Ice Cliff Chasm (only during dialogue)

Version three:

• Guild Wars Prophecies
  • Kryta
    • Sanctum Cay
  • Maguuma Jungle
    • Tangle Root (only during quest Defend Denravi)
  • Southern Shiverpeaks
    • Iron Mines of Moladune (outpost) (level 20)
    • Droknar's Forge (explorable area) (level 15)
• Guild Wars Beyond
  • Kryta
    • Talmark Wilderness (War in Kryta) (level 15)
  • Ascalon
    • Old Ascalon (after scene in Ice Cliff Chasms and before Temple of the Intolerable, level 15)
  • Far Shiverpeaks
    • Ice Cliff Chasm (only during dialogue)

Version one denotes important regions by events (e.g., War in Kryta) and uses the unimportant regions/explorables by the region's name. The second one ignores regions all-together and puts everything under their events. Version three ignores the region but continues to link to the region even though it may be previously linked (not clearly shown here), much like what is done in the various "List of hostile NPCs" sections on pages - there are multiple linking to the same page within the list in order to make it look nice. I vote for either the first or third. -- Konig/talk 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There we go. Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I like all 3 versions, including version 2, because her appearance in the other areas IS PART of the WiK, not just the more general GWB. In contrast, the trial of zinn and the gwen & thack story are part of GWB, but not part of the WiK. --Musha 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticed a typo in the last version. Considering how large GW:B will eventually become, and that not everything will be officially named like the War in Kryta, I suggest going with version three. (altered version three a bit to make it more clear that if a region is shown twice, it gets linked twice). -- Konig/talk 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Well, now, versions one and three are exactly the same. --Musha 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, version one notes by event when there is one (e.g., War in Kryta and not Kryta) while version three notes by regions and never events. -- Konig/talk 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. Anyway, I vote for 2 or 3. Version 1 makes it look like the Ascalon and Ice Chasms appearances AREN'T part of the WiK. --Musha 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If GW:B is going to be treated like chapters in a story (e.g. WiK, Tales of Ascalon (?) etc.), then my vote is for Version 2. It's succinct, and documents the locations of the NPC's as the story progresses. I do see that the Trial of Zinn could be a bit stranger to incorporate, but they could be handled as branching directly off the WiK, or as a "prologue" section. G R E E N E R 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue templates

I notice that a lot of NPC's use templates such as Template:merchant dialogue and Template:trader dialogue. While I'm editing the pages, would it be preferable for me to use "subst:" on them, since these dialogues are unlikely to change? G R E E N E R 09:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope I'm not butting in, but "unlikely to change" is not the same as "will never change". You should probably not subst the templates, but include them as normal. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 13:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)