Talk:Location

Small to large...
Considering the sub-classification of zones goes from larger set to smaller set, it might be overall less confusing to have everything go from large to small. I live in the US, I HATE how street addresses are written here. Asian style makes way more sense. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * German style, you mean. ;-) Anyway, I would like to question two of your changes:
 * you removed Vortex from below "landmark" with the following reason: " the vortex is technically an object IMO, like buildings or sign posts or statues. They cease to qualify as locations in a very loose way to argue things)". I don't quite get what you mean, statues are certainly landmarks. I can see how "vortex" might not be useful as a location type, though, is that what you meant?
 * you changed "explorable area" as a superclassification to "instance", no reason given. That is a wrong use of the word, I believe. I quote instance: "a new instance—a separate, parallel copy—of the area is created each time a party enters an explorable area". So an instance is a game object that the server creates when you enter certain location types. If you look at Rose of Kali's reasoning on Mission OUtpost, she seems to think of what yo uget when you enter a mission as "explorable" as well, so it is not just I who thinks of these areas as explorables. -- ◄mendel► 07:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Vortex is not a location type. I also feel it unnecessary to mark every single thing that qualifies as landmarks.
 * I don't believe your description of my actions matches the state of the article after my [ last edit]. In other words, I didn't what you think I did. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 04:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. "Instance" was meant by me to be a short and of Instanced areas. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)