GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Explorable areas

Suggestions
Darn, I was just about to create this page. :P

Anyway, some things crossed my mind: -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 01:29, 19 December 2006 (CST)
 * For the "Creatures" section, would "Bestiary" (already in use in some older pages) be better considering we have Category:Bestiary?
 * Do we really need the "x" and the levels for the non-combat NPCs? It feels distracting. But that's just me.
 * For exits and points of note, wouldn't it be better to list by the item then put in the direction? So, I'd go I can go out Exit C, which is south, rather than north is Exit A, hmm, northeast is Exit B, nope, south is Exit C, ah ok. :P
 * And for exits, since the list is never long, is it necessary to have subsections? Just a list of exits and directions should be fine rite?
 * No one pays attention to these minute details huh? -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)::Unless you are two people on one account, you knew this page was going to be created since you posted in my sandbox's talk page.
 * Creatures, Bestiary, it doesn't really matter imo. I'll change it to Bestiary, but the argument of what has been done in the past is near irrelevant, since almost all explorable area pages have differences in them, large and small.
 * The symbol was being discussed regarding being changed to something less flamboyant, but no one seriously persued it. Yes, the level should be there because that's what wiki does, document even the most minute details.
 * The direction/exit is personal preference. In any way they are listed, it's the same information meaning the same thing. If someone can't understand directions, I don't think formatting is the problem they should be concerned with :P
 * Subsections was discussed in the talk for the proposal.
 * People pay attention and some of what you brought up above was already discussed about 2 weeks before you mentioned it here. &mdash; Gares 22:56, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Oh... whoops. Guess I didn't bother looking down beyond my comment on your sandbox talk page to see the big "Exits" there :P -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 00:48, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Order of Bestiary

 * Currently, the order in which the professions should appear differs between the general format and the one currently adopted. The general order can be found here: Style_and_formatting They recommend the order to be: # Professions: Warrior, ranger, monk, necromancer, mesmer, elementalist, assassin, ritualist, paragon, dervish. (in the order they appear on the character creation screen)
 * Whereas the explorable area guide recommends, Assassin, Dervish, Elementalist, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Paragon, Ranger, Ritualist, Warrior. Which do you think should be kept or adopted? Baron Diamon 03:47, 27 January 2007 (CST)
 * Not sure why an alternative sorting is adopted for the explorable areas. I'd prefer the normal prof ordering though. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 11:23, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Order of bestiary again, but on another matter. What do people think about the "group by species" part? I've been looking into explorable areas these days and I can't help but notice that the more complete pages are unnecessarily long. Look at the Perdition Rock I just changed to comply with S&F. Rather long isn't it? And it's not exactly a straightforward manner to look for the elite. Look at this previous revision. The list of bosses look better? -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 06:34, 30 January 2007 (CST)

How about something like: "Sort monsters and bosses by profession, and then by name. If there are several different monsters of the same species, consider grouping them by species and subspecies. For bosses, group only by profession and name." -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 21:43, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * I would prefer to keep the grouping of monsters by species, but changing the bosses themselves to sort by profession. --Rainith 21:52, 30 January 2007 (CST)