Talk:The Jade Quarry (mission)

I'm a bit confused, doesn't the Jade Quarry fall under the same circumstances as Fort Aspenwood, hence lose the (Mission) designation? I don't see the difference.--Chrono traveller 10:12, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The Fort Aspenwood article is atypical and currently undergoing discussion in its talk page. I believe we should base the pages on the scheme laid out in well established mission articles such as Thunderhead Keep, (redirect to Thunderhead Keep (Mission)) and Thunderhead Keep (Location). Koyashi 10:15, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would hardly consider it under discussion, guidelines that Karlos posted 2 months ago, and which noone disagreed with. I have no problem changing the standard, but shouldn't another discussion be held before changing it? --Chrono traveller 10:22, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The discusson on Talk:Fort Aspenwood had a different conclusion that what you seemed to think it did. Most participants agreed that the mission page should be in the standard "Page (Mission)" format. Koyashi 10:28, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, now you're really confusing me, I see the following guideline being applicable:
 * a) If a mission and alocation share the same name, the mission gets the unparenthesized (is this english?) name. Location gets the (Location) qualifier. The mission gets no parentheses because the name is shared with a location (2 locations actually). Furthermore, it seems that Draygo interpreted the discussion in the same way I did.  How did you interpret this? --Chrono traveller 10:40, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, see the precedent of Thunderhead Keep. The name without a parenthesized suffix is redirected to the (Mission) suffix. This is true for every mission in the game, including PvP missions such as Heroes' Ascent. I don't see a pressing need to make an exception for The Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood. Koyashi 10:44, 1 June 2006 (CDT)