GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Towns

Standardise
I'm starting to branch out of NPCs and my eyes fell on Towns :P since there's a whole lot of inconsistencies between the location pages. I drafted out some changes to the S&F so I'm looking for feedback before changing anything: -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 21:45, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) Rename the "Getting There" section to "Getting there".
 * 2) Enforce change on the quest template to prevent the multiple appearance of the town name (see Cavalon).
 * 3) Change the NPC list to something like Kaineng Center:
 * 4) *Do we want to make the henchmen list into the table PanSola (I think) did where appropriate? (see Cavalon).
 * 5) *Rather than leaving the other type-tagged NPCs (like Xunlai and guild services) together at the top, create a new grouping called Others below the henchmen grouping. Separating out these special NPCs will make the ordering of the generic NPCs look less messy.
 * 6) Look at Lion's Arch. It has a bunch of extra sections. Do we keep them? Trivia can be moved below Notes; Seasonal Changes can be merged with Notes; and the objects/points of interest can also be merged with either Description or Notes.


 * It should definitely be a lowercase "there." If you change all the quest subpages, you'll have to add headings to other pages which need them, like Quests (Factions).  Maybe make the NPC lists two columns for really long lists like Kaineng.  I don't really like the henchman table.  I personally thing the distinction is irrelevant.  Dunno about the rest.  --Fyren 00:20, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * After some more looking around, the NPC list looks best in the ports: Lion's Arch, Kaineng Center, Kamadan. I think it just looks better to divide the whole list into separate groups, rather than having some of them grouped and some ungrouped. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 01:24, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I think ordering the groups alphabetically would make things easier to search, so like: Collectors, Crafters, Faction, Guild services, Henchmen, Merchants and Traders, Storage, Trainers, and Various. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 00:31, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmm... seeing that we have a specific definition of a Vendor, merging "Merchants and Traders" with "Crafters" should be considered... -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 20:37, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Nah the merging of crafters and merchants/traders is likely a bad idea. I'm going back to my original proposal:
 * Collectors:
 * (all collectors; ordered by name)
 * Crafters:
 * (all weaponsmiths, armor crafters, and artisans; ordered by type then name)
 * Faction:
 * (all faction-point related npcs; ordered by type)
 * Guild services:
 * (all guild or guildhall related NPCs; ordered by type)
 * Henchmen:
 * (all henchmen; ordered by profession)
 * Merchants and traders:
 * (all merchants and traders; ordered by type then name)
 * Storage:
 * (agents and representatives; ordered by type)
 * Trainers:
 * (skill trainer; ordered by type then name) maybe there'll be other types of trainers in the future
 * Various:
 * (all other NPCs) include arena guards?
 * -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 01:16, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll make an edit without the "minor edit" flag. Keep forgetting to remove it :P -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Description removal
Again, why remove the "Description" header? Reverting both until an explanation is given. --Rainith 11:16, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
 * GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting. I also added GW:S%26F.  --Fyren 17:36, 10 October 2006 (CDT)