GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Locations

Proposed S&F guide and split
Ok, although most of the location articles follow roughly the same format, we currently have nothing official as to how they should be. I've put my spin on it here (my test page). Take a look at it and let me know what you think. Note that this is for towns / outposts / mission locations only. The second part of this is that I think we should split the S&F article to Style and formatting/Explorable locations and Style and formatting/Urban locations. Now I know those probably aren't the best names but they get the idea accross. Hopefully some people will look at this and give feedback. :) --Rainith 00:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks good, just name it "towns" for short. Also, should have a Notes/Features section where stuff like statues of gods and/or monuments of significance can be mentioned. --Karlos 01:03, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks good :) I like the sound of location boxes! &mdash; Skuld  01:53, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hubs vs Instances? Still get the idea across (i hope) and much shorter.- 02:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks good. Are we going to see an example, or is there one allready? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:32, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Seems ok to me, I added "Getting There" to the example (which was left off for some reason). In the location box do we need to have an attribute to say it's Luxon or Kurzick controlled town (for those that this applies to) or will this be integrated into an existing attribute (presumably either parent = Region or type=Town or Outpost) ? --Xasxas256 08:18, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There is no value to saying that the town is Luxon or Kurzick. We could add a line (or tag or marker or graphic) that says this town is an "alliance controllable" town. Because technically, if the Kurzick/Luxon border moves far enough, Luxons can take over HzH and Kurzicks can take over Cavalon. Those towns that are controllable should also have a note that they have an exclusive area and then the exclusive area can have one, two or three NPCs. --Karlos 08:49, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok, good responses. :) My responses to the responses: --Rainith 10:56, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) There is a notes section at the bottom. All misc info can go in there IMO.  Things like Statues of the Gods, exclusive areas, etc...
 * 2) Naming the S&F articles, I tried for a long time to come up with names that would not lead to possible confusion (Cities/Towns) or be so essoteric that many people might not understand them (Hubs/Instances). I'm not saying that what I came up with was good either, I just think that there is no good way of describing these town/outpost/mission location areas.  I am fully open to suggestion on this.
 * 3) I don't have an example made up using this, but I drew a lot of my work from the Seitung Harbor article (first place I saw PanSola's awesome location box) and from the Ascalon City (Post-Searing) article. (I'll make an example tonight after I get home.)
 * 4) I'm uncertain how helpful a "Getting There" section is. For much of the Prophecies areas this is moot, you can get to most of these by exploring the world and ignoring missions/quests/etc...  In Factions it makes more sense.  If we do have this section, I think if there is no barrier to entering the city (Lion's Arch for example) then the section should be left out completely as this info can be gotten by working back thru the linked areas in the location box.


 * I agree with "Getting There" section being like the "Notes" section (not needed, not added). I like the syntax, its very well organized and to the point. Got two questions I would like to ask.


 * Is alphabetizing an issue in any part of it, say henchman or crafters?


 * Will the profession symbols be used for the henchmen?


 * For the S&Fs for other parts, just use what the game calls them, e.g. Explorable locations = Explorable areas. Everything looks good to me and it seems very general and could be used for any campaign, the present ones and for future expansions. --Gares Redstorm 19:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I think Rainith meant to hve "Explorable locations" meant to encompass explorable areas and "(Mission)"s. At least that's my assumption when I proposed using the term "Instances" instead. - 19:38, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I must have read over your Hub/Instance line. Gotcha now. --Gares Redstorm 19:54, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I think that seperating Locations into Explorable areas and Outposts makes a lot of sense. They are, after all, very different kinds of location.

My only concern at the moment is that the location box seems to use a table inside every cell. Not only does that mean that the box looks different to other boxes used on the GuildWiki (an extra border), but it also means more redundant html in the template. I'd really like to see the extra tables removed.

Other than this 1 minor issue I think this is a great idea, good work Rainith, PanSola and everyone else above :)