Category talk:Locations

Is This Page Formatted Properly?
I'm not sure if this category looks right... I think a better way of organising this page would be to have location articles grouped into the six subcategories listed.


 * Cities
 * Outposts
 * Missions
 * Arenas
 * Explorable Areas
 * Hall of Heroes Areas

Just to clarify, I mean we have 6 seperate categories, and each category is part of the locations category

Also, I was thinking about what information a location should contain, such as which continent it belongs to:


 * Ascalon
 * Shiverpeak Mountains
 * Kryta
 * Jungle Area (?)
 * Underworld (?)
 * Desert (?)

But that might be tricky, since it's hard to say exactly where each location is. Some things are fairly obvious, The Breach is obviously part of Ascalon, but what about Yak's Bend? Is that Ascalon or Shiverpeak? And things get more complex when you get to Kryta...

And then I started to think about places like Fort Ranik. It is a location, so it should have information about who's there, what you can buy there and what connections there are etc. but it should also have information on the mission itself. Should there be 2 seperate pages for that? Fort Ranik (Mission) and Fort Ranik (Location)? Since every co-op mission is also a location then you would have to do this for every page. I would have to double check but I'm 90% certain that every mission has the same name as the starting location in the quest log.

Sorry about the long post!!

- LordBiro

Are they called "Explorable Areas" by the game literature? I'm almost positive I've seen them referred to as "Adventure Zones"... Nunix

Also, you can see from how I did the Outposts how I think we should break things up as far as continent/region; that's basically the order you encounter them in, with maybe an "Underworld" or "Elite Instance" tacked on at the end (you can hit them fairly early, but probably aren't ready for them yet at that point). As summary, that's: Pre-, Post-, N. Shiverpeaks, Eastern ("main") Kryta, Jungle, S. Kryta (Riverside, Cay, Fishermen's Haven), S. Shiverpeaks, Desert. You could break Post- up a bit more with "Above the Wall", and Maguuma really has that dry dusty plateau area as it's gateway as well but I'm not sure what I'd call that. Nunix

also-also: yeah, seperate pages for same area is fine, because Fort Ranik (Mission) would really refer to: "The mission map/zone that you access via Fort Ranik". MOST mission zones can only be explored when you're actually in the mission, so I think this is fine. And while you can buy things in Fort Ranik (Post-Searing) from merchants, there are of course no merchants to be seen in Fort Ranik (Mission) Nunix

All of the following are locations, but there is a location tree of the world, it would make a nice cateegory tree of sub-categories:
 * World
 * Regions (pre-searing, Ascalon ... [maps to see Region borders] )
 * Explorable Areas (including pre searing catacombs, underworld and fissure)
 * Missions
 * Outposts
 * Cities
 * Arena types (team,HoH,random)
 * Arena Areas (all maps of the above)


 * Now tere is some categorization that I think people will agree with you on, Ollj! :)


 * Instead of making a category "World" Please use "Location" as your base category, from there let's go this way:
 * Location
 * Regions
 * Ascalon
 * Kryta
 * Cities
 * Ascalon City
 * Yak's Bend
 * Outposts
 * Piken Square
 * Beacon's Perch
 * Mission Locations
 * Fort Ranik
 * Borliss Pass
 * Explorable Areas
 * Mineral Springs
 * The Breach
 * Arenas
 * Tomb of the Primeval Kings
 * Yak's Bend
 * The Breach
 * Arenas
 * Tomb of the Primeval Kings
 * Yak's Bend
 * Yak's Bend


 * The only trick being that every item other than regions will be classified as BOTH an item of that type AND an item of that region. So, for example: Maguuma Stade would have both Category:Maguuma Jungle and Category:Outpot.
 * --Karlos 09:02, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

-

What's going on?
I'm really confused by this page. It seems that all the locations have been filled in in the article part of this category... I don't know why :P hehe. Since this is a category, we don't need to list links of every location do we...? - LordBiro/Talk

To clarify, my point is basically, if a location is in Maguuma Jungle, then should you link to it under the heading Maguuma Jungle, or should you just put that location into the category Maguuma Jungle, and then ptu Maguuma Jungle into Locations? I don't think that we should have both on the same page. Maybe a seperate browse page for the category would be useful, like Wikipedia Browse would be better. - LordBiro/Talk 09:58, 25 May 2005 (EST)

Combination of Category and List
I'm going to seperate the category and list info on this page, and move the list info to Locations. If someone opposes this just say so :) LordBiro/Talk 21:00, 5 Jun 2005 (EST)

Location Categorization
I was trying to remove the Ollj categorization of things that weren't locations when I noticed a couple things about this category. As discussed above, everything is in Category:Locations right now, but maybe they should be in the proper region category instead. As in Beetletun should be in Category:Kryta rather than Locations. I think this is best. The other thing is articles like Arah and Orr are in here. They ARE locations, but not like the others. I don't think they should be categorized as if they were same, but I'm not sure how to make the distinction. --Fyren 14:20, 19 Aug 2005 (EST)

Restructuring of the category tree so it becomes a tree
Note: This is not directly related to the campaign tagging being voted upon on Talk:Locations, though I'll make sure ppl over there are aware of this. What I want to do is organize the category tree into the hierchy::


 * Continents
 * Regions
 * Missions/ExplorableAreas/Outposts/Cities/Arenas

For the purpose of this categorization, "The Rift" (name negeociable, but bacially it's considered neither Cathan nor Tyrian) will be a continent consisting of Fissure of Woe and the Underworld. The Battle Isles is also considered a continent for this purpose.

Too trivial in my mind to be bothered with a vote, so if I don't hear opposition supported by sound rational, I'll ask this changed to be implemented with whichever vote wins for Talk:Locations. -SolaPan 17:00, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

To clarify, as an example, Ettin's Back would be in Category:Maguuma Jungle, which would be a subcategory of Category:Tyria. Also, Ettin's Back would be in category Outposts, Maguuma Jungle would be in category Regions, and Tyria would be in category Continents, probably with campaign tagging. -SolaPan 17:08, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * The big problem with that is ANets naming policy: Tyria is the world we play on, so it needs to include ALL location. At the same time Tyria is the continent that prophecies plays on, so Tyria needed to be a sub-category of Tyria. You will run into the same problem with Cantha and Cantha. --Xeeron 18:42, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
 * So just call them Category:Cantha (continent) vs Category:Cantha (nation) respectively, I don't see it as even a minor problem. -SolaPan 19:01, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok, not a big problem, only ugly category names ;-) --Xeeron 19:04, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Just a note, but I've noticed that Anet seems to consider the FoW as part of the Ring of Fire Islands (this might be true of the UW too, I just haven't noticed it). If you go to your map there it shows them and if you get quests it lists them as Ring of Fire quests in your quest log.  --Rainith 01:11, 4 April 2006 (CDT)


 * The FoW and UW are not on Tyria, there is no question about that. If you look at your map in the UW it shows the Desert, something that has nothing to do with the UW. This is a bug they have with their Map command that whenever you are in an area that is NOT on the map and then press M it has to show you some spot on the world map (it can't say "Map not available" cause then you can't map travel). So, they just show the Ring of Fire for FoW and the desert for UW, it does not mean they are there. --Karlos 12:55, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Categories don't necessarily need to form a tree. There are many categories that necessarily *don't* form trees. Thus, I consider this not a vote at all, but merely you wanting to clean up some messy category structures, which is perfectly okay. Our categorization is pretty haphazard at the moment. However, don't reduce usability just to lust after a tree structure. &mdash;Tanaric 17:31, 6 April 2006 (CDT)