Talk:Fort Aspenwood (mission)

Planning Competitive Missions
Okay, we need to figure out how we are going to page Competitive Missions. Right now we have this page, which seems to be a mission overview for both of the sides. We should have a location page. And then there is a quest page. IMO, Fort Aspenwood should be the strategy mission overview page as it is now. Fort Aspenwood (Luxon) and Fort Aspenwood (Kurzick) should be the location pages, because in-game that's what their names are. Otherwise we would have Fort Aspenwood (Luxon)(Location). The quests to get there, if the name of the quest is just Fort Aspenwood, should be Fort Aspenwood (Luxon Quest). What are others' thoughts? --Ravious 22:33, 28 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'm in favour of moving this page to Fort Aspenwood (Mission), putting both the quest and the location in the Fort Aspenwood (Luxon) and Fort Aspenwood (Kurzick) pages as different sections and making Fort Aspenwood a disambiguation page. -- Gordon Ecker 08:01, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Here are the policies we've followed before:
 * a) If a mission and alocation share the same name, the mission gets the unparenthesized (is this english?) name. Location gets the (Location) qualifier.
 * b) If two things have the same name, in this case, the quest and the location since they both have (Luxon) or (Kurzick), then we could eithe qualify both, or just qualify one and leave the other unqualified. This is what I did, I left the location unqualified (because I think it's what players will look for more often) while I qualified the quest. I don't care if people wish to qualify both.
 * c) With regards to the mission, it is an issue because this mission is greatly different than Jade Quarry where both sides are essentially doing the same thing. Here, each side is doing their own thing (attacking vs defending). But I thikn just having the article split into two major sections one for each side is enough.
 * --Karlos 11:15, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure what, if anything, the article naming guidelines say, but nearly every article in has the (Mission) qualifier. Anyway, I'm in favour of keeping both sides of a competetive mission on the same page, since most of the information, particularly strategic information, is relevant to players on both sides. -- Gordon Ecker 13:20, 6 April 2006 (CDT)