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)

Cutscene dialogue
The decision to add cutscene dialogue were apparently added without changing the s&f. Is it really necessary to add it? Especially since it sports a "spoiler" tag, which just screws up the look of a page when it appears in the middle of it. Some suggestions for this particular section:
 * By only adding the actual dialogue, the block will be inconsistent and out of context. If it's really a consensus to add cutscene dialogue, then any breaks between the lines should be described or explained in parenthesis to keep the dialogue in context.
 * Move the section to the bottom, maybe even below the Notes and Trivia sections due to its spoiler nature.
 * If the move above is discouraged, maybe make it a level 3 heading parked under Description?
 * Remove the spoiler tag unless it's a big spoiler, otherwise a little the-story-up-to-this-point isn't really a spoiler, otherwise ppl wouldn't even be looking at the page... right?
 * Change the term "Team leader" to "Party Leader" in the dialogue, because the term used in the game is "Party" not "Team". -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:11, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh good, the cutscene dialogue section are still very few: Minister Cho's Estate, Zen Daijun. Maybe we should decide if we want to keep them. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:28, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
 * PanSola was the one who wanted those in the 'town' articles. I personally would prefer them with the other dialogues in the respective NPC articles or in the mission articles.  For the life of me I can't figure out where Pan was arguing his point, maybe in one of the talk pages for the articles that you mention have the dialogues?  --Rainith 22:33, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I found this in the Community Portal talk. It doesn't seem like the initiator ever continued with his/her proposal as the Dunes of Despair dialogue is still a stuf after 2 months. The only problem I have of adding cutscene dialogue is the potential that every location page becomes spoiler-tagged, when a town/outpost should only provide details on that location, and not the storyline. I'm now thinking of the possibility of a page that specifically deals with outlining (at the top) and then detailing the entire storyline of a campaign. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 00:30, 19 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I kinda like the idea of starting the Mission articles with the appropriate dialogues as that will set up the mission itself. Also see Mission overviews (Prophecies)/(Factions), it doesn't have the dialogues but seems to be what you're talking about.  --Rainith 00:53, 19 October 2006 (CDT)

"Getting there" or "Getting here"?
I can't help but think that "Getting here" sounds more appropriate than "Getting there". Any objections to changing it? -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:43, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * Getting there sounds better to me personally, but I have no real objections to changing if people feel that Getting here is better. --Rainith 01:06, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * There. The article is not a metaphor for its topic. --Fyren 12:07, 18 December 2006 (CST)