Talk:The Falls (NPC)

Name?

Why does it have (creature) added to it? wouldnt something like (landmark) be more fitting? Such as Mourning Veil Falls (landmark) C4K3 Talk 11:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

I agree with moving: The Falls (NPC) is more consistent with our naming convention. If we are going to bother renaming, should we have two articles, one for "The Falls (NPC)" (i.e. the interactive object) and "The Falls (landmark)" (i.e. the entire gravitationally-aided body of water)? Parties have to end up in the same place to observe either, so there's little difference in data between the two, but one is interactive and the other is not.

I'm ambivalent about which choice (both or only one) is better; I just want us to be sure we somehow acknowledge the distinction. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered making an article for the landmark, but I figured it's unnecessary because: 1) Drakkar Lake and Anvil Rock is used for a link to both explorable and landmark, despite the landmark being a part of the explorable and sharing the same name; 2) Healing Spring and Mourning Veil Falls (landmark) act as an interactive object and landmark. We can do the same as the later for this and perhaps Enter the Mausoleum (which is also at the same location as a landmark), instead of a brand new page. Konig/talk 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with case (2); it's not that burdensome on a reader if the interactive and landmark share an article. However, case (1) can be a problem for someone trying to find a route to the landmark within an explorable (fortunately, such cases are rare and the landmark locations are nearly unambiguous).

tl;dr Now that we've considered the options, I'm okay with the current plan (rename this article; don't create a new one). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary issue with some of those landmark/explorable area stuff, especially Drakkar Lake, is that sometimes there are landmarks within landmarks (and that's not the only one). Would we really need multiple pages of the same and/or similar name for a location which holds the same focal point (but some holding a bigger diameter than others)? Tough call, truth be told.

Anyways, a question on this: should we name it The Falls (NPC) or The Falls (landmark) - the former makes more sense, since it is first and foremost an NPC, but the latter matches the Mourning Veil Falls page. Konig/talk 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's only one "The Falls" article (for this location), I think we probably ought to emphasize the NPC-mechanics (it might not matter a lot for this one, but it does for e.g. the Mausoleum entrance). (It's also easy enough to create a redirect tagged as a landmark, if some of the wiki's automagic engines require it.)

re: landmarks-within-landmarks — The primary reason for adding another article is to make things easier for the reader, not to follow a naming/categorization convention. If readers can easily find landmarks (and/or landmarks) on the wiki, find an efficient route, and learn what little lore there is... then I'm not fussed about whether that data is located on an article about the explorable or separate. Sometimes, we can make things easier with a simple redirect, but sometimes not. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)