GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Missions

Section 0
I think most sections that we use under Explorable Areas apply to missions too: Should we add some or all of these to the mission template? --Tetris L 18:51, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * How about a section "NPCs"?
 * How about a section "Mobs" or "Monsters"?
 * How about a section "Bosses"?
 * I'd rather rename the section "Elite Skill Captures" to "Bosses". The missions up to the Crystal Desert have lots of bosses, but none with elite skills. And we don't want to leave this section blank for these missions, do we?
 * I'd suggest to use the profession icons for the listing of bosses, like I have done in Divinity Coast (mission). What do you think?
 * How about a section "Locations/Items/Objects of Interest"?


 * I agree on "Monsters" and "Bosses". But I don't think we need sections for NPCs or Stuff of Interest. Those topics should be covered sufficiently in the walkthrough. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 19:46, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I like the icons, though it is not a priority for me. I think we are starting to OD on icons. :)
 * With regards to Sections. I disagree. A mission overview is a description of how to do the mission. It is not a desciption of the explorable area where the mission is done. Now, a mission area article could include those sections. But in 99% of the time, it's useless because the description of how to interact with them is in the overview.
 * For now, I suggest we use the "Notes" section in each overview to mention interesting info like the quest by Grun to his wife in Fort Ranik.
 * With regards to boss listing (vs elite) in missions, it maybe cool for completeness, but it is not that useful. Before the Crystal Desert, no one cares about bosses. And before Lion's Arch, no one has Capture Signets. --Karlos 20:39, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Karlos, three things:
 * "OD" on icons? What do you mean with "OD". Please translate to plain English for a non-native speaker. :)
 * Are you suggesting to split the mission articles yet again, into an article with the mission overview and an article about the area that the mission takes place in? I think it is confusing enough that we have the separation into  (Mission) and  (Location). But (Location) is about the starting outpost, not the explorable area. Should we add?  (Area)? Please, no! This should remain in the mission overview.
 * I for one do care about bosses in missions before the Crystal Desert! Some of them offer some nice non-elite skills to capture that would otherwise not be available until you reach the skill trainers in the Southern Shiverpeaks. --Tetris L 21:10, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Bump! Karlos? --Tetris L 17:48, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * OD - Overdose (noun) - An excessive dose, especially of a narcotic. --Rainith 01:00, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * In that case: Nah, you can never overdose on icons! They are simply the best way to display information. You get all the info at a glimpse, without having to read through any text. I'm all for using the profession icons anywhere where professions are shown in lists or tables. Much more than we currently do. --Tetris L 04:24, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * No, I was not suggesting that. I was saying that's how it would be done, if we were that desparate for the info, but as I said, there is hardly anything in an explorable mission area that won't be related to the mission. No God's statues, no NPC quest givers (except a few). Nothin that requires anything more than the Notes section.
 * Icons are cool, I am just saying we are starting to OD on those 6 profession icons, we are putting them everywhere. --Karlos 15:03, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * The profession icons make looking through a list which isn't sorted by profession much easier. It's simply the way the human brain works. 148.177.129.213 21:39, 10 Oct 2005 (EST)

I, um, agree that there should be a section on "Mobs", and that "Elite Skill Captures" should be replaced by "Bosses". I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to edit the Project Page though. -PanSola 00:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Bump, my position on this issue remains the same. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 16:59, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with you. I think the mission pages should be split into two sections.  Top section containing the mission specific info, goals, walkthru, etc...  Second section something like a mini location entry, with mob info, npcs, etc...  --Rainith 20:07, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Leads To..
An anonymous user edited the Ice Caves of Sorrow mission to point out that it leads to the Iron Mines. I think this is good useful info. I suggest we add a section at the bottom of each mission page that says something like:

Leads To: (Location name) For a diagram showing the flow from one mission to the next, click here. (and we link to Tetris L's diagram in Mission Overviews).

How is that? --Karlos 08:28, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * While I'm at it, I might as well bump this old discussion item as well.
 * Currently the "final destination" is listed under "additional notes". Actually, it is almost always the only information found under that heading. I think we should make this a separate section named self-explanary ("Leads to" or "Destination upon Completion" or similar). --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]]  10:07, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * °BUMP° One more idea: What about listing the follow-up Primary Quest, like we do for quests? This could probably go into the same section as the "Destination upon completion". I'd go as far as suggesting "Follow-up" as the name for the whole section. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:21, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Unless anybody objects by Monday next week I'll take it as an approval and will go for it, adding a "Follow-up" section to each mission article, with the follow-up location and primary quest. Veto coundown started. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:42, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Nobody seems to care. I'll go ahead. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:56, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Make sure to add it to this S&F page too. :)  --Rainith 15:16, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Please check what I've done to Minister Cho's Estate (mission). This is one possible format, as a plain list. Personally I prefer table format, but it's a lot more code, and less newbie-friendly. -- 08:24, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, let's see.
 * I think Final mission location is misleading, it doesn't say to me that that is where you end up after you finish the mission. At a quick glance I would assume that that was the next mission.
 * I would personally prefer to just list the one next thing that you are supposed to do storyline wise, if that is a mission list that mission, if it is a quest, list the quest. Those missions/quests would then in their articles list the next thing that you have to do.  If the next storyline thing to do isn't a mission, don't list the next mission, just list the next storyline quest.
 * Here is how I would put it:
 * Upon completion of this mission the characters find themselves in XXX.
 * To continue the storyline see  quest/mission XXX 
 * --Rainith 11:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Good points. I've simplified the formatting in Minister Cho's Estate (mission). Have another look before I apply this new formatting to all other missions. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:04, 7 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I like it, simple, clear, to the point. I didn't mean you had to take my words exactly, but I won't argue against them.  ;)  --Rainith 11:13, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Campaign Setting
Where would we fit the data describing which campaign a mission is located in? It seems silly to have a 'Campaign' top-level heading, since there would be a sentence fragment at most under it. Perhaps a line like... Name of Mission is a mission found in the Prophecies Campaign. ...as a sort of definition at the start of a mission article would suffice.

Factions Mission Rewards /Objectives
I really dislike the way the mission objectives and rewards are currently displayed in most Factions mission articles. See Vizunah Square for an example: -- 09:55, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) The reward levels are named "objectives", for example "Master Objectives". But ingame, it's called "Master's Reward". We should use the ingame wording!
 * 2) The three Reward types are level 2 heading, just like the "Mission Objectives" level. Instead, this should be a tree, with a level 2 heading "Rewards" and the three levels as sub-headings.
 * 3) The Standard Reward is always 1000xp + 100g + 1 skill point. The Expert's Reward is always 1500xp + 150g + 1 skill point. The Master's Reward is always 2000xp + 200g + 1 skill point. Do we have to repeat that info in every mission article? If yes, we should put it in a template!


 * I've created a draft for a template:
 * Thoughts? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 10:15, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thoughts? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 10:15, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I like it, especially since it allows flexibility for anomolies like the eternal grove mission that isn't based on time. --Chrono traveller 10:57, 1 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I like it! I had been thinking of trying to create one myself for much the same reason; but had been intimidated as my skills are still pretty basic for this sort of thing.
 * But, before implementing, we should resolve the 'Move' tag that was placed on the template by PanSola. I would hate to apply this then have to change the template names shortly afterwards (luckilly, not that many, but still a step I would rather avoid). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 19:17, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I haven't paid that much attention in game, but don't you get 1 skill point for each "reward level"? The way the table is now, it looks like you only get 1 point, even if you achieve the Master reward.
 * Beyond that, I like the table idea, and agree that the name of the template should be changed. --Rainith 20:02, 9 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The template name is a minor issue to me. Personaly I guess that it's ANet's plan to use the Factions reward scheme for future campaigns too, this is something that is to be confirmed, so for now we can add the "(Factions)" suffix to the template name. If we decide to change it later it's only 12 articles to fix the link. Not a big deal.
 * Unless somebody objects by next week Monday I'll feel free to rename the template and apply it to all Factions mission articles. Veto countdown started.
 * As for the rewards for the three levels stacking or not, that's something I've been wanting to clarify for a while. The next time I finish a mission I'll pay close attention, checking my XP, gold and skill point numbers right before and right after completion of the mission. According to the findings the template can be adapted or notes can be added. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:50, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * All 3 stack. 4500 XP, 450 gold and 3 skill points. --Karlos 14:19, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I changed the template accordingly. And I'll start to use it. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:03, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Blah (Location) vs Blah (Mission)
That naming convention actually is rather awkward, because the Location is the actual place you enter the mission from, and the Mission itself is a location. I propose renaming the suffix to something else. Current brainstorm returns: (Mission outpost) vs (Mission area). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:38, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, the in-game Blue-Box tips treats mission areas as also a subset of Explorable areas. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:39, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

bump. Any other ideas? or do ppl wish to argue in favor of the current naming scheme? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 04:54, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The current scheme is well established in this wiki and I don't see any major problems with it. Sure the naming scheme can be optimized, but is it worth it to do a big crusade for some minor pollishing? "Don't fix it if it ain't broken!" Anyway ... if we decide to rename, then we must include the "Blah (Explorable Area)" articles added with the factions campaign in the picture. The explorable area that you may re-enter after completion of the mission is considerably different from the explorable area that you've been in during the mission.
 * If anything, I'd only rename the "Blah (Location)" articles to "Blah (Outpost)". I wouldn't touch the "Blah (Mission)" and "Blah (Explorable Area)" articles. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:29, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I still consider "(Mission)" to be unclear. When I think/hear "going to the blah blah mission", I assume it's the mission location.  I don't think the Explorables need to be touched, they are disambiguated in-game already so they are fine.  It is the outpost though, that give me all the mission breifing and such.  "Mission outpost" vs "Mission instance"? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 06:56, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm against the "Mission outpost" vs "Mission instance", overly wordy and not incredibly clear. Changing "Location" to "Outpost" would work for me, but I don't think that's what you're going for PanSola, you're saying that when you enter the outpost it says on the screen, "XXX (Mission)" so we should do it that way too, correct?  --Rainith 11:02, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think "Location" and "Mission" are perfect. I'm probably biased though.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:38, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Um, cloase enough Rainith. I'm saying "Mission" (technically "Cooperative Mission", which is getting long already) encompasses both the outpost area and the fighting area.  So it wouldn't be fair/clear if only the fighting area gets to be designated as "(Mission)". -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 13:48, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think each location on the world map deserves its own article. I think every mission (i.e. a specific series of tasks within an instance) deserves its own article. I don't think that the two articles should be merged. In my opinion The Great Northern Wall (location) should have the same sort of information as Ascalon City (Post-Searing), they are, after all, both outposts.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:28, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No one is talking about merging here... I'm talking about clearer / fairer disambiguation. Right now ("Mission" vs "Location") it's like having two people, one is disambiguated as "boy" the other as "human", when they are both humans, and one is a 6 yr old male and the other is a 18 yr old male. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 16:45, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I like it just fine. Bla (Mission) is the mission walkthrough and possible cap info. Blah (Location) is the outpost of the mission. We chose to have it this way. I don't think there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" but this is "the way" it is implemented. More technical wording does not mean clearer wording. Blah (Mission outpost) and Blah (Mission explorable) will only work in Prophecies, because in Cantha you have Blah (Mission Outpost), Blah (Mission Explorable) and Blah (Mission Explorable during the mission). I think ANet itself is following our naming convention by naming the mission explorable areas "Explorable" even though the mission explorable area DURING the mission is also explorable. When I want to tell someone to look for something inside a mission I say "Look in the mission" not "look in the mission explorable area during the mission." --Karlos 03:03, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't want to name what is currently "(Mission)" as "(Mission explorable)" either, but I wonder do you think "(Mission instance)" might work or not? Also, my major beef with "(Location)" is because there are a number of missions that are named after a location, which happens to not be where the mission outpost is at.  For example, the "Thunderhead Keep" is the last siege area that players have to defend.  The article Thunderhead Keep (location) is not about the actual Thunderhead Keep poi location.  I want to at least change "(Location)" into "(mission hub)" or "(mission outpost)" (right now I'm preferring the term hub). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:39, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Nope, that's not our fault, that's ArenaNet's fault. Thunderhead Keep (Location) should have a note stating that it's not the actual Thunderhead Keep and that the keep is at the very end of the mission. Same thing for the Frost Gate. Right now, when someone says "go to Frost Gate" they do not mean go the gate at the very end of the mission, they mean go to them mission outpost named "Frost Gate" which is actually Grooble's Gulch.
 * So, for the locations that are not really the locations, place a note at the bottom of the article. But we need to keep the places named what people call them. Simplify. Don't break dozens of articles. --Karlos 05:37, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree the "Simplify" part. And to me, simplification means naming the articles in less confusing ways, such as "Thunderhead Keep (mission hub)" or "Thunderhead Keep (mission outpost)" to reduce potential for confusion in the first place.  Calling that place "Thunderhead Keep (Location)" is what complicates things, and even if it's Anet's fault to begin with, they'll probably be repeating this fault in future campaigns too, whereas we on our end have the ability to make things less bad.  There are only about three dozon articles that will get renamed by this if we make adjustments now.  Besides, now that Factions is in, explorables are a type of location too, so using "(Location)" is really a bad idea to disambiguate it form other types of locations with the same name. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 07:01, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Would changing it from "xxx (Location)" to "xxx (Outpost)" make you feel better? :)  I personally haven't really been fond of any of the other naming schemes come up with in this discussion, but changing location to outpost would be ok with me.  As for your Thunderhead Keep thing, we already have precident for that with The Great Northern Wall (Building).  --Rainith 10:49, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

Maps
Not sure if this is the place to put it but... Having looked at such files as Image:Dunes of Despair.JPG I think we should have a drive on making a better description on the image file. The description is there for a reason. --Jamie  06:02, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The newest version of the map is mine, but the description was not mine. I am going to do a nice map for al lof the Prophecies missions and I might do something for the descriptions at the same time. It depends on my feeling at that time. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 06:08, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Overhaul
I plan to work through all the Factions missions to put in the new "Follow-up" section and to put in the rewards table. But looking at the current state of most Factions missions and comparing it against the S&F guide I see that they are not in line at all. The missions S&F guide obviously hasn't been written with Factions missions in mind, and IMO it lacks a few sections that have been more or less agreed to in this talk page, like a list of creatures and the follow-up.

Hence, may I propose a new, slightly different structure for mission articles:

Objectives
Mission description, copied verbatim from ingame
 * Objective 1
 * Objective 2
 * ADDED Objective 1.
 * BONUS Objective 1.

Rewards
List the criteria and the rewards for the different objectives. Preferrably make use of the Mission_rewards template like this:

Primary
A thorough description of the steps needed for completing the mission.

Bonus
OR === Master's === Tips and tactics for completing the mission at max reward level, in order to collect a point for the "Protector" title.

NPCs
A list of NPCs that can be found in the mission:
 * 20 Master Togo
 * 20 Headmaster Vhang
 * 20 Zunraa
 * etc.

Monsters
A list of regular foes (not bosses) that will be encountered in the mission:
 * Afflicted:
 * 14 Afflicted Warrior
 * 14 Afflicted Ranger
 * etc.

Bosses (Elite Skill Captures)
A list of possible bosses and elite skills that can be captured in this mission.
 * 20 The Afflicted Maaka (Enraged Smash)
 * etc.

Follow-up
List the location that players end up in after completing the mission and how to proceed (usually with a Primary Quest):
 * Upon completion of the mission players will find themselves in: Ran Musu Gardens
 * To continue the storyline, take on the following Primary Quest: Warning the Tengu

Objectives
Mission description, copied verbatim from ingame
 * Objective 1
 * Objective 2
 * ADDED Objective 1.
 * BONUS Objective 1.

Rewards
(IF FACTIONS) List the criteria and the rewards for the different objectives. Preferrably make use of the Mission_rewards template like this:

Primary
A thorough description of the steps needed for completing the mission.

Bonus
OR === Master's === Tips and tactics for completing the mission at max reward level, in order to collect a point for the "Protector" title.

NPCs
A list of NPCs that can be found in the mission:
 * 20 Master Togo
 * 20 Headmaster Vhang
 * 20 Zunraa
 * etc.

Monsters
A list of regular foes (not bosses) that will be encountered in the mission:
 * Afflicted:
 * 14 Afflicted Warrior
 * 14 Afflicted Ranger
 * etc.

Bosses (Elite Skill Captures)
A list of possible bosses and elite skills that can be captured in this mission.
 * 20 The Afflicted Maaka (Enraged Smash)
 * etc.

Follow-up
List the location that players end up in after completing the mission and how to proceed (usually with a Primary Quest):
 * Upon completion of the mission players will find themselves in: Ran Musu Gardens
 * To continue the storyline, take on the following Primary Quest: Warning the Tengu

Objectives

 * Objective 1
 * Objective 2
 * ADDED Objective 1.
 * BONUS Objective 1.

Bonus
OR ===Master's===

NPCs

 * Humans
 * 18 Headmaster Vhang
 * 18 Hero
 * 20 Cynn
 * 20 Master Togo
 * Kirins:
 * 20 Zunraa
 * etc...

Monsters

 * Afflicted
 * 14,15 Afflicted Warrior
 * 14 Afflicted Ranger
 * etc...

Bosses ((elite) skill captures)

 * Afflicted
 * 20 The Afflicted Maaka &rarr; (Enraged Smash)
 * etc...

Dialogues
See NPC name for mission debriefing.

Cutscene 1
etc...

Follow-up

 * Upon completion of the mission players will find themselves in: Ran Musu Gardens
 * To continue the storyline, take on the following Primary Quest: Warning the Tengu

Hard mode
I propose that we split the monsters and bosses sections into normal mode and hard mode subsections, and that we add hard mode subsections for the primary and bonus / master's sections. -- Gordon Ecker 23:05, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yea, splitting the information in the article into two subsections, normal and hard mode, is better than splitting the article into two separate pages. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 06:08, 17 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I suggest we wait and see what new catergorys and species of foes and released with hard mode before the spilt it taken. Probaly better to view hard mode first hand rather than relie on first impressions. Solus  [[Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg|19px]] 06:12, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

new dialogue style
We now have a new way to format dialogue which does away with the need for tables to make multi-line dialogue text flow pleasantly. It requires a  and a final   inside each section. The page would display ok with just a single div around all of the dialogue sections, but then the edit section previews would not show up correctly. The speaker names are automatically bold, but you still need to use  to mark the spoken text. Do not use quotation marks (") to mark spoken text.

It may be decided at a future date that quotation marks should be added or that the speaker names should indent some (as they did in the example that was on this page previously). In that event it is not necessary to edit the dialogues again: the addition of quotes and indents can be done via small changes to the dialogue class in Mediawiki:common.css. --◄mendel► 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mission cleanup principles
Quizzical has recently cleaned up and extended many missions in Nightfall, Prophecies and Factions. He posted an extensive comments on the principles guiding his editorial work at User_talk:Quizzical, which I am quoting here in full: I mostly deal with missions, not quests. I wasn't aware that such a style formatting guide existed. I mostly just followed examples for a while, until I had a good idea of what the guides ought to look like.

I mainly deal with the Walkthrough, Dialogues, and Notes sections, only messing with other sections if something seems flagrantly "wrong" to me there. I typically label the "Bonus" subsection as "Master's Reward" in Factions, as there, it doesn't really require doing anything different or extra, but only a smoother (typically meaning faster) run of the same basic approach. I call it "Bonus" in Prophecies because that's what the game does. I also call it "Bonus" in Nightfall, because it usually requires going and doing something extra for the mission, as in Prophecies. I haven't messed with GWEN mission pages.

Also in the walkthrough, sub-subsections are kind of as makes sense in the structure of the mission. I'm less inclined to use them than some other wiki editors, and I've probably removed more such headings than I've added. Other subsections in the walkthrough are only as dictated by the structure of the mission, and usually avoided. The only such sections I've put in are a Spectral Agony one in Ice Caves of Sorrow, an Infusion Run one in Iron Mines of Moladune, and a Two Party Missions one in Vizunah Square.

For the Dialogues section, my standard is that anything that NPCs say that goes shows up in your chat goes in, and anything that they just idly say without it being recorded in your chat does not. I don't necessarily delete the latter, but just don't add them. I put everything outside of cutscenes in an "Inside the mission" subsection at the top, followed by subsections for each cutscene with dialogues. I label them "Intermediate cutscene" and "Ending cutscene", except in the case of multiple intermediate cutscenes, in which case, they're "Intermediate cutscene 1" and "Intermediate cutscene 2". I think this is more descriptive than just calling them cutscenes 1, 2, and maybe 3. This is not the way they were labeled before I changed them, so it doesn't match the standard listed.

Some people like a "tips" section. I delete such sections, and move any useful tips elsewhere. Some people like to put lots of random things in a "notes" section. If it's significantly useful in beating the mission, I move it into the walkthruogh. Other comments that might be useful for other purposes or merely interesting can go in the notes section.

There's also an optional trivia section that most missions don't have, for things that might be interesting but certainly not of use to anyone who only cares about gameplay advantage. See, for example, the many Star Wars references in Pogahn Passage.

While the missions section doesn't state this, it seems to be standard to put the hard mode levels of mobs in parentheses. It's useful information, though not something I add. It's worth noting given the easy mode level of mobs, one could guess at the hard mode level and often get it right--and very rarely be off by more than 2, so listing hard mode levels may not be that important.

One thing that many players seem to favor is offering build advice. The official wiki openly sanctions build advice for missions, but I typically frown on this practice. My view is that build advice is only worth adding if it's significantly better than what an average player unfamiliar with the mission might randomly bring. In particular, it should be advice that works far better for that particular mission than for most others.

Many players seem to believe that builds are somehow sacred combinations of skills that must be copied from somewhere and can't be readily tweaked. This, I think, is nonsense. I should write an article about that sometime. You get eight skill slots, so bring eight skills useful for that mission. While there are sometimes synergies between two or three particular skills, it very rarely (possibly never?) extends to a particular combination of eight skills.

As such, when I do add or leave build advice in an article, I generally make it just a couple of skills. For example, Broad Head Arrow for Rilohn Refuge works really well against The Drought, almost completely incapacitating a dangerous boss even in hard mode. The complete build could be Broad Head Arrow and a bunch of other bow attacks, Broad Head Arrow and a bunch of traps, Broad Head Arrow and a bunch of pet skills, Broad Head Arrow and a bunch of skills from a secondary profession, or whatever. The only places that I recall ever advocating particular complete builds are solo content, and even then, only when it's rather tricky to come up with anything that works.

I also take the view that in skill suggestions for easy mode, it should never be assumed that the player is of any particular class, has peculiar specialty gear not suitable for general pve (e.g., a 55 monk or necro), has any campaigns other than the one containing the mission at hand, or has other players in the group, unless this is absolutely unavoidable. For example, for the Rilohn Refuge article, while Broad Head Arrow is the most effective way to kill The Drought, it isn't available in Nightfall. As such, alternative recommendations must be made using only skills available in Nightfall.

An important corollary of that view is that in Prophecies and Factions, it should not be assumed that the player has heroes. I wasn't quite able to carry this all the way, unfortunately. For the Dunes of Despair bonus, you kind of need either a necro primary or secondary profession, or else heroes or other players. For master's reward in The Eternal Gtove, you kind of need either heroes or other players. I think those were the only exceptions I had to make.

For hard mode, I assume that the player has all of the campaigns and has all (pvp-useable) skills available, but again make no assumption about the player's class or require specialty gear. This will be true if you do all of easy mode first, and then hard mode later, which I think is the sensible way to do things. I try to avoid assuming the use of pve-only skills (take several hours grinding rank and come back is not helpful advice) or other players, though I gave up on finding a henchmen/heroes strategy for The Eternal Grove with just heroes and henchmen. I'm confident that that is the only exception I'll have to make, though I'm implicitly assuming some lightbringer points in the latter half of Nightfall. I've got rank 4 myself, which is what you get by clearing the entire campaign (excluding the Domain of Anguish) in easy mode--so it doesn't require any grinding for rank.

Whoa, this ended up long. Well, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. I just explained the guidelines I use that aren't already on the mission style page. Quizzical 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC) --◄mendel► 00:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mission "Outpost"
However, the wiki does refer to Mission locations rather than Mission Outposts...and, until the discussion, I didn't understand what was/was not similar about the one from the other. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always thought of them as outposts and was surprised to see that that's not the "official" terminology. O_o But then again, neither is "Mission Location," I think it was just chosen by wikians. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like Mission Outpost better; sounds like an Outpost with a Mission (instead of a Location that's part of a Mission). I read the new phrasing again &mdash; it looks good &amp; reads well.
 * And does that mean that I wasn't confused by NCSoft? Never mind ;-) --Tennessee Ernie Ford 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So do we want to put it up for discussion on the Community Portal? I can easily rebot those three categories again, those are only 70 edits. ;-) -- ◄mendel► 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The terminology was decided before Nightfall came out. When there was only Prophecies, many people felt Outposts and those-places-where-you-enter-missions are two different types of locations.  Calling the latter "Mission Outpost" risked ambiguity/confusion when some people get lazy and abbreviate.  It isn't until the last Guild Wars campaign when the lines blurred.  At least that was the history of how why it was not named Mission Outpost.  "Mission Location" ended up being the most neutral alternative (by being bland). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea of calling them "Mission outpost" instead of location, I think it makes the most sense, all things considered. An "outpost" is a more specific subset of "location" and I do think it is accurate to call them outposts, which makes it absolutely clear that it is a "staging area" that you can map travel to, and that it's not referring to the actual mission, but rather the place where it can be started.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 18:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) so, let's go all the way: -- ◄mendel► 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Outpost
 * Mission outpost
 * Town outpost (?)
 * Re: "Town outpost". Eh, that'd cause people like me to wonder "What's the difference between a regular Town versus a Town outpost"?  You might as well call the first one "Outpost outpost"... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I encourage everyone to check out the "Blah (Location) vs Blah (Mission)" discussion from three years ago (several sections up). I was favoring "Mission hub" at that time to avoid the confusion with Outposts.  Mendel's proposed scheme above would equate Staging area with Outpost, as the other two types of staging areas become specializations of Outposts.  I would consider that as a fundamental shift in our classification schema (instead of being just an exercise of renaming). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how I think of them - everything is an "outpost". "Towns" are big outposts with a full set of services available.  "Ports" are towns from which you can travel to other continents.  "Mission outposts" (which only needs the "outpost" part because there's no single word for it) are outposts from which you can enter missions.  Anything that isn't big or have an associated mission is simply an "outpost".  As a tree diagram:
 * Outpost
 * Town
 * Port
 * Mission outpost
 * &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading "Blah ... vs Blah ...," I feel better - sounds like the same conversation I was having with myself before I made my original post :-) (I especially like PanSola's comment about using boy:human to compare a 6 yr old male to an 18 yr old male.)
 * I think Outpost as a synonym for staging area is fine; I could also see using Town; anything that sounds like it appears on the travel map as an icon.
 * I see "Mission" as a prefix applied to any iconable map location -- a Mission Outpost is an Outpost from which a Mission begins. A "Mission Outpost" belongs to two categories: :Outposts: and :Mission Locations:, but maybe doesn't need a separate template.
 * I agree that Port is some subset, it's a full-service location that adds the continent travel service.
 * --Tennessee Ernie Ford 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea because then we can classify Ascalon Academy and Dynastic Tombs as Mission Explorable; we don't really have a type that fits them right now. Dasha Vestibule could also be one. -- ◄mendel► 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ish, that is precisely what I call a fundamental shift in our classification scheme. Currently we have things as
 * Staging area
 * Town
 * Port
 * Outpost
 * Mission hub/outpost/location/place-you-can-map-travel-to-except-for-the-elite-missions
 * I believe there will be quite a population of players who get confused and/or think somebody made a mistake when they hear Lion's Arch classified as an Outpost. It is one thing to use terms that people have to look up to know what it means, it is another thing to have ambiguous vocabulary that lets people argue over things they agree about just because the same words mean different things to them even after looking up what they looked up.  ArenaNet's manuals/tutorials use the term "outpost" in a way that clearly implies it is not a superset of towns.  Expanding the meaning of "outpost" beyond what Anet uses it for is begging to get players confused.
 * Anet's vocabulary is inadequate for our needs of documentation/classification. Let's not counter the inadequacy with ambiguity; complement it with a vocabulary optimized for classification/distinguishably instead.
 * If somebody doesn't read the manual and doesn't pay attention to the tutorials before playing the game, and gets confused, that's fine. The wiki is here as a supplemental help.  But if the wiki causes confusion with players who pay attention to the manual and tutorials, because what the wiki states contradicts with what the official definition is, then we are no longer documentation things, but rather reinterpreting the Guild Wars world as we see fit.  I personally find the latter very troublesome.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what exactly is the official organization? What is the superset that we know as "things you can click on the map to teleport to them?" And I still don't see a problem with "Mission Outpost," I don't think it would confuse anyone, but I'm not sure about classifying Town under Outpost, Outpost is NOT the superset to me. If anything, it would be a "map object" of some kind, and all towns/ports/outposts/mission outposts/vortex/asura portals/ship can be classified as such. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 01:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The official organization is that town and outposts are distinct types of staging areas. The set we currently call "Mission location" has no official name.  What we currently call Mission location is a set containing staging areas with in-game labels of "Cooperative Mission", "Competitive Mission", "Challenge Mission", and "Elite Mission".  However as players actually Enter Mission from those locations, there is inadequacy in the official Guild Wars vocabulary to distinguish the staging areas labeled as XXX Mission, versus the part of the game when the players "Enter (the) Mission".  In 2006 I had preferred referring those staging areas as "Mission hub" over "Mission outpost" to avoid confusion with outposts.  In the end it was stuck as "Mission location" partly because the status quo disambiguation from the Prophecies era was "(location)".  It was only after Factions came out when the fact that the areas after "Enter Mission" are also considered "locations" and caused the whole 2006 discussion.
 * Well, official kinda fluctuates. When in town, double-click to eat means you can use it in any staging area. -- ◄mendel► 18:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With Map Objects, not all staging areas are Map Objects (staging areas for elite missions are not "objects" on the map), and not all Map Objects are locations. Thus it's an intersecting classification system that I think we can leave out in this particular discussion. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so leave Town as Town, but I do think we should rename Mission locations into Mission Outposts, as I still don't see any source of confusion there from new or veteran players alike. Especially since in Elona most Mission "locations" actually appear as an outpost on the map until you unlock the mission itself by doing a required quest or whatnot. RoseOfKali 02:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the renaming of "Mission location" to something else. I still prefer to not use the word "outpost" in the term it gets renamed to though, for previously stated reasons.  With the knowledge that there will be no more new campaigns, Nightfall seems to be the standing exception instead of the norm.  My 2 cents at least. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, by calling it "Mission outpost", we loses the clarity on the question "Is Fort Ranik an outpost?", something we wouldn't need to debate about under the existing classification system. Under the current system, Fort Ranik (location) is a mission location, not an outpost.  If we rename Mission locations to Mission outposts, then we lose that clarity (I'm not sure if Mission outposts is a subset of Outposts, or if it is an independent non-mutually-exclusive set). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with calling it an outpost for all intents and purposes? Also, does anyone have a better suggestion? I don't like "hub" as it is not something used in the game or by the players at all, and doesn't make much sense on its own. To me, a mission location is just a special type of outpost that allows you to enter a mission and progress the story and the guardian titles.  It has a special map icon that tells you your level of completeness, and that is the only difference from a general outpost.  They have a similar set of NPCs, and the idea is further reinforced in Nightfall where one turns into the other.  It also seems very intuitive to me.  And yes, Fort Ranik IS an outpost, a mission outpost in Post, and a simple outpost in Pre.  I really fail to see any confusion this could create, and all "mission outposts" can be included in the broader "outpost" category, and thus have two categories, just as we have a "screenshot" category, and an "armor gallery screenshot" category, and all armor images are included in both.  In fact, this is already the case with Nightfall missions, where they are in the "outpost" and "mission location" categories at once.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 03:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have Alliance Battle outpost as location type. With the Mission outpost system, we could split Zaishen Challenge into Zaishen Challenge (location) (this would we a Challenge outpost) and Zaishen Challenge (Mission) and have these conform to the respective formatting guides. We also can use Mission explorable (for Ascalon Academy and Dynastic Tombs, see above). An additional argument in favor is that the mission locations were actually categorized as outposts until I changed that yesterday. -- ◄mendel► 08:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the system we use makes any difference in the Zaishen case. Can't we already do it under the current system? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 09:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok... why does there need to be a "Mission explorable?" It's just an explorable, same as any other with monsters and bosses and chests, only reused for mission events when you enter it differently. The "Mission explorable" part is already described in the "Mission" article.  Also, sometimes not all parts of the explorable area are accessible if you enter it as a mission (Gandara) and not all missions can be explored outside of the mission itself (think Dunes... and all Prophecies missions).  Also, when you enter the Factions "explorable" version of the mission, it simply says "Explorable area." Don't confuse people by splitting them up when it's not necessary.  All that's needed for the "overlapping" ones is a simple statement that "This map/area is also used during the BlaBla mission" or something like that.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that [quote] It's just an explorable, same as any other ..., ...reused for mission events when you enter it differently.  [/quote] . There's explorables and staging areas/outposts/towns/map-icons/iDunnos... and each of these might also be part of a mission (and might/might not be accessible outside the mission)
 * I can't tell if you're making fun of me or agreeing with me... O_o RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreeing with you :-) (Sorry about that - I try to add emoticons or  or something if I'm teasing.)
 * (Rephrasing my point for clarity:...) IMO, the game only has three types of places: portal-able, mappable, and must-walk.
 * Everyone seems to be ok with Explorable Area for places you portal through to.
 * The must-walk places seem likely to end up as POIs.
 * There isn't, as yet a consensus name for the places that end up as icons on the world map.
 * In addition (as RoK points out), explorables and mappables get re-used for Missions. The fact that you can't necessarily reach some places without first doing a mission doesn't make them IMO a different type of location. Northlands is no less an Explorable Area because it requires a GM to enter.
 * So, I support any solution which treats "Mission ___" more as a modifier of the location, rather than as a subset.
 * Example: Great Northern Wall
 * Outpost: I can reach an Outpost named GWN by walking (or mapping, after it's on my map). <-- this is an Outpost which has Mission services, belonging in the same category as Sardelac Sanitarium with an extra flag denoting the extra feature.
 * Mission: In the Outpost, I can enter a mission of the same name.
 * Explorable: Within the mission, I am taken to an explorable with the same name <-- this is a Mission Explorable Area which belongs in the same category as Old Ascalon and also would be flagged as only accessible during missions.
 * --Tennessee Ernie Ford 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * btw: I notice that Mission Locations are not currently in the category :Category:Outpost only in :Category:Mission location <--regardless of how this particular discussion turns out, would it be sensible to add MLs to the Outpost category (via the ML template) ? That way, when trying to find a location from the travel map, both types show up. (Part of my earlier confusion was not being able to find Borlis Pass on a list of Category:Outposts_(Prophecies).)
 * --Tennessee Ernie Ford 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let the discussion finish before doing any of that, and we would have to go through and clean up all the location categories anyway, since I ran into some funky stuff when fixing the whatever page mendel asked me to fix. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense - thanks for the quick reply. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Borlis Pass (location) was in Category:Outposts (Prophecies) until 2 days ago when I changed it using Marvin, so if that was part of your original confusion, you didn't look hard enough?
 * I like to think that anything that is an "explorable area" can be entered whenever, and that a "mission explorable" can only be entered by entering the mission (or that this is, mosters and all, what you get when you do). -- ◄mendel► 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually disagree with Ernie on the explorable. GNW is NOT just an explorable, as you must enter the mission instance to go there, it puts a set of objectives in your quest log, and reaching certain points will make certain things happen related to the plot of that mission.  An Explorable area is a place you can enter through a portal or NPC that is not at all related to your quest log, and does not make "Mission objectives" appear in it.  Thus, the GNW is 3 things: Mission Outpost that you can map to, Mission Instance that you can enter and complete, and a Landmark referring to the Wall itself as a structure.  Minister Cho's Estate is a Mission Outpost, a Landmark (maybe? not sure if there are signs for it), a Mission Instance that you can enter and complete by killing the Diseased Minister while only certain parts of the Estate are open to you for travel due to closed gates, AND an Explorable Area that you can enter from Ran Musu Gardens, at which point you can travel to 100% of this area.  An Explorable area is a place where you get its name followed by "Explorable area" appear on your screen briefly after you enter, and there are no Mission objectives to complete (or avoid if you are mapping).  Since when entering a Mission outpost you get the word (Mission) under its name, it is somewhat necessary to differentiate the outpost part from the mission instance, the articles must have different names, and "Mission outpost" makes the most sense to me, since it is called "Mission" in-game, but is also behaves like an outpost with storage, henchmen, and a map travel symbol, while "Mission instance" is in all technicality an instance that your party enters to complete objectives.  GW is all about "instances" as opposed to a persistent world like in other MMOs, and this is a prime example where this term can be used to full effect.

In the end, here's my take at this mess: I may have missed something, but this is the bulk of it. Things like Challenge/competitive missions can be treated like other missions, having an outpost and an instance. I'm not sure if Elite mission staging areas count as an outpost, but I don't really care either, call it what you want. GoA is an actual outpost that you can map travel to, while Urgoz/Deep are not, and I don't remember what either of them are called by the game when you first enter them, but they can be treated like any other mission and I don't think anyone would care. RoseOfKali 00:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Staging area - a place you can meet other random players
 * Town
 * Port
 * Outpost
 * Mission Outpost (yes, on the same level as Outpost, not under it, same argument as the difference between outpost and town)
 * Guild Hall
 * Arena, and whatever other PvP crap there is, I'm not too familiar with PvP structure
 * Instanced area - a place where your party gets a unique instance of the game
 * Explorable area - a map instance where you can kill monsters, vanquish, or complete quests
 * Mission instance - can only be reached by entering a Mission and has its own Mission Objectives that automatically appear in your quest log. Some areas, such as Minister Cho's Estate will be both an Explorable area AND a Mission instance in two separate articles, while others will only appear as Mission instance (all Prophecies missions).  "Mission instance" as opposed to just Mission as we currently have it will remove any and all confusion possible, and will match Mission outpost format (since technically the word Mission appears when you enter a Mission outpost)
 * Quest instance - includes EotN quest instances, such as Jora's Homestead or Tracking the Nornbear, which do not offer access to the full explorable areas they are staged in (this may or may not be implemented, or may be merged with Mission instance, since it's technically the same thing)
 * Dungeon - refers to EotN dungeons that can only be explored all the way if you have an appropriate dungeon quest active
 * Landmark - a notable point within any instanced area (not only explorable, but any of the above instances) that may be a village, structure, tree, etc.


 * I'm good with this hierarchy as IMO it meets the most important requirements: separates staging from explorable from POIs. IIRC, the game has a specific use for, Landmark, so perhaps POI could replace the last item in the above list (Landmark being a specific Point of Interest). --Tennessee Ernie Ford 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much exactly the hierarchy we have currently (and if some isn't explictly stated on the wiki, at least nothing in the main wiki articles should conflict with it). However, this hierarchy is exactly why I prefer not to use the word "outpost" for the staging area for missions -- "Mission outposts" are not "Outposts", that is a source of unnecessary potential confusion IMO.  I would only quibble about "Landmark" (not just the terminology).  First of all, it is not a subtype of the other stuff listed in the hierchary.  Second, both Staging area and Instances fall under Zones.  Also, "Landmarks" are possible in staging area]]s as well.  "Landmarks" should be listed in another hierarchy system, of containment (as opposed to sub-type/classification) :
 * The Mists
 * Worlds
 * Continents
 * Regions (some "continents" only have one region, and so the region is the continent)
 * Zones (some zones might be "inside" other zones, typical examples are outposts in the middle of an explorable area)
 * "POI"/"Landmarks" (can be found in any zone, though as instances are significantly larger, "POI"s tend to be found in instances as a matter of statistical probability)
 * -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, check out SemanticGuildWiki. It's a sandbox using outdated GuildWiki data to test out various data-structure stuff. Due to its sandboxy nature, not everything works or is correct, but you can check out the various concepts on categorization/classification. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it seems like there are two problems with the list I made above. One is that the word "landmark" is somehow not fit for it for reasons I don't know, but PoI is fine instead.  They also appear in Staging areas, not just Instanced, which is true.  The second is to use another word for mission outpost.  I'm also fine with that, but "location" is not fine by me, it's too generic, a location can be anything on the map, including the location of where the said mission takes place, which is the opposite of what we were trying to convey.  It needs to imply that it is a city of some sort that can be mapped to.  If nothing better is proposed, I would go with "Mission staging area" as that is the most technically correct term.  I'm still in favor of "mission instance" as it is also the technically correct term for it and will clearly state exactly what the article is about.  If the reader does not know the meaning of "staging area" and "instance" they can look them up easily, and there can be no confusion about it, since those are the game terms (albeit rarely used by players) and they are clearly defined.  So, revised version is:


 * Zone
 * Staging area - a place you can meet other random players and form a party
 * Town
 * Port
 * Outpost
 * Mission staging area - including PvP mission staging areas
 * Guild Hall
 * Arena, and whatever other PvP SA's there are
 * Instanced area (or simply Instance if you prefer) - a place where your party gets a unique instance of the game
 * Explorable area
 * Mission instance - including PvP mission instances
 * Quest instance - (most EotN primary quests occur in these, may be merged with Mission instance, since it's technically the same thing)
 * Dungeon
 * *Point of Interest - it is not a zone, so it's neither staging nor instanced area, but can be part of either, so it wouldn't be on the same level as them, but one under for purposes of this tree. It is its own category and I'm not sure if it would fall under any other.  If it does, it would be one of the above two, but then there would be two types of PoIs, instanced and not, which is not likely to be a problem, especially since instanced PoIs would have the notice to "finish all your business before you leave" and the staging area ones won't.

Any further concerns/objections/ideas? RoseOfKali 05:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * POI belongs in the structure seen in Location, where as we are mostly taking about structure of the type in Zone.
 * I agree with you about "Mission location" being bad.
 * "Mission instance" is the technically correct label for the type of location being discussed. On the other hand, I would argue we don't actually have articles on that type of location.  Our articles are about the actual/overall mission.  So while in the scheme of classifications we would have "Mission instance" as a type of Instanced area, we would only have Mission articles (like Quest articles) and not have separate articles for the Mission instances or quest instances.
 * "Mission staging area", while technically correct, is also a bit overly wordy. "Mission hub" is shorter and to the point.  It is also part of the official terminology, see GWF manual page 78 (44th "page" of the pdf).  As long as it has an article explaining what it is, I am not too worried about ppl who never saw the manual (or forgot about it) aren't familiar with the term.  What do you think? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine with the PoI taxonomy on the same level as Zone, it's a rather open topic, so there's no need to change it if it's not broken (other than the fact that most PoIs are not yet templated and catted properly).


 * To me a "hub" is a sort of central connection between many things and seems actually a bit too modern for a GW world, as weird as that may sound. I do realize that "staging area" is a bit long, but it's not like you have to type it often or anything, you just click the link, so I don't think the length would particularly annoy people.  Either way, I wouldn't have much of a problem using hub, though I do prefer the longer version simply for its absolute clarity and unambiguity, which is exactly the kind of problem we're dealing with right now.  I guess ultimately it's the community's decision, but I want to hear some more opinions on this.


 * Only a very small number of quests get their own instance in a specific explorable, and that should be noted both in the quest article, and the explorable area involved. Since no quest instance offers unique access to an area not otherwise accessible, it does not really need its own article.


 * I think Mission instance is still superior to Mission explorable even in the context that you described, because "explorable" makes it sound too much like "explorable area" which it is not, as was already beaten to death above. And I also feel that Mission by itself is not quite adequate, as it leaves room for ambiguity between the instance and the staging area, since the latter is what actually gets called "Mission" when you enter it in the game. It would also complement the two-part "Mission ___" format used for the staging area, whatever is the final decision on that.  As opposed to a quest article, these usually have much more information (especially in the Prophecies case) than simply following the objectives #1,2,3... so there is no direct need to match their naming convention.  Most new players quickly learn the profound difference between the two soon after they complete their first mission.  Besides, what's keeping us from adding more information to completely describe the mission instance?  The story plot and the special instance of the area it happens in are inseparable.  For Prophecies, it would be useful for Cartographer or Skill Hunter as the mission is the only way to access that part of the map and the bosses in it, and most of those articles are already more like a complete instance article than just the mission objectives.  For the other campaigns a little bit of additional info would clarify the difference between the mission instance and the explorable itself, as usually the perimeter changes (shrinks) and the monsters/NPCs are often different.  In either case, most of the information is already there to justify it as an "instance" article as opposed to a simple mission walkthrough.


 * So, I still think that "instance" is not a bad term to use for the area, since entering it automatically subjects you to the "terms and conditions" of the mission plot, they are inseparable. So, even if you don't give two shits about completing the objectives themselves and you want to simply explore, you need to be aware of the effect your actions have in the story plot, or your exploration will be cut short.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 07:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to "explorable", I completely agree with you from the start. The point I raised was not "explorable" vs "instance", but rather "Mission" vs "Mission instance".  In terms of location classification, a "Mission instance" is a subtype of Instanced areas.  However, on GuildWiki, we don't have articles for such locations, we only have locations for the Mission itself. <- that is my entire point related to instances. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure I have mentioned at least twice that the articles we currently have "for such locations" are Ascalon Academy and Dynastic Tombs. -- ◄mendel► 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "Mission hub" vs "Mission staging area", I preference for brevity and conciseness is a relatively slight one (vs other issues at hand), and I can live with either. I have a much bigger dislike for "Mission location", and a medium reservation about "Mission outpost" (reasons previously stated, just trying to express the degree of my feelings with respect to each here). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll?
If we can agree on a set of potential names, we can prepare a poll for the community portal, and each of us could post a short paragraph with support for our preferences to get public discussion (if any) going. -- ◄mendel► 10:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested list (alphabetical): Feel free to add to this list right in my comment. -- ◄mendel► 10:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mission hub
 * Pro: short and to the point. Part of the official terminology used by the manual. easy to look up the definition.
 * Con: not used by the game or the players.
 * Mission location
 * Pro: current convention.
 * Con: not specific enough, a location can be many types of things.
 * Mission outpost
 * Pro: specific and descriptive of the location.
 * Con: not entirely accurate.
 * Mission staging area
 * Pro: official terminology, meaning intuitively clear.
 * Con: wordy.
 * Outpost
 * Pro: well they are outposts, that you can start a mission there is not so important
 * Con: does not distinguish from regular outposts.


 * I added summary pros and cons that are short enough to be in the poll. Feel free to revise.  We can add longer explanations for each thing below if you think that not everyone may understand exactly what we're talking about.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

strongly oppose
I strongly oppose the following:
 * use of words that are not intuitively clear to the average player in infoboxes
 * this obviously extends to location types
 * use of the word "Point of Interest", way to formal, and the abbreviation is unrecognizable, and it doesn't even cover areas, which is the only thing that can be said against landmark
 * use of "mission hub", nobody ever uses that in-game
 * the use of "instance" as proposed here.
 * Look it up in the article, you have "an instance of an explorable area", which means that an instance is a game object that is created as a copy of a general class, and it is that general class that has the type "explorable area". Calling an explorable area an instance puts this upside down; it is not logical at all.
 * If ever we get a GW2 that has shared and instanced explorables, this wiki will retroactively be hard to understand because of this logical fallacy.
 * The instance is the set of data that YOU are in at that moment on the server; with the monsters you have killed being dead etc. The explorable is the set of data that your instance is created from when you enter it. The instance is an explorable. The explorable is not an instance, just the way "my PC" is a computer, but a computer is not "my PC".
 * Countersuggestion: Combat Zone or Combat area. This fits with the military lingo we adopted when we accepted "staging area".

-- ◄mendel► 09:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC) & 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No outpost is in an explorable even if its only exits are to it. If anything is in an explorable you enter a portal to the explorable and walk there.
 * If I am in Sebelkeh, I am in Vabbi, but I am not in the Mirror of Lyss.
 * The library is in the Holdings of Chokin, though.


 * Love "Combat Area." Not absolutely perfect as far as being official or commonly used by players or whatnot, by it's clear and intuitive even if you've never heard it before.  Best suggestion so far imo.  As far as "Landmark" versus "PoI" to me they are synonyms, and shorter is better, leaving PoI out for its wordiness.  My understanding is that both refer to a "point" or a single object, and some things in the game can be quite larger than that and still need to be categorized together with the other "landmarks," thus not exactly fitting the definition of landmark, but after looking around in Thesaurus I couldn't find a better substitute.  I agree with the other points in mendel's "strongly oppose." RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable location? *shrug* RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mission objectives" would be accurate, wouldn't it? That's the intention of the article, as I understand.  Just throwing that out there. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Random comment I felt might be important: The headgear hide dropdown menu has the option "Hide in Combat Areas". --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, but it also says "Hide in Towns and Outposts," meaning they are two different things, unlike consumable items that only say "double-click to eat when in town" or whatever the wording is, but it still leaves mission towns in the dust. *screams into pillow*  I HATE INCONSISTENCIES!!! :(  What about "Mission - staging area" and "Mission - combat area?"  The hyphen would imply that they are both parts of a "Mission" and the second part is only used to identify them from one another?  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mission - combat area" sounds like there are places in the mission where I can hide to avoid combat or something >_<". Also, to me, the mission staging area isn't actually part of the mission.  It's a place you go to in preparation before "Enter Mission".  So to me, the "Mission instance"/"Mission - combat area" is the entirety of the location where the mission takes place.  It is the Mission area (but then "Mission area" is vague/ambiguous since its terminology doesn't mean anything significantly different from "Mission location" which actually meant something else entirely). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An "instance" is the set of data that YOU are in at that moment on the server. Locations that gets instanced are referred to as "Instanced areas".  At this point I don't have a problem.  In Guild Wars, explorable areas are a type of instanced areas (not a type of "instances"), and I don't care what happens in Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 might have jumping and that'll make this wiki retroactively be hard to understand and I don't give a damn about difference in game mechanics or classification systems in GW2.  So now the problem is with using "Mission instance" and "Quest instance" as shorthand for "Mission instanced area" etc. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you can always go hide from combat. :P But anyway, when you enter a "mission outpost" thingy, the game calls it a "Mission," so the outpost itself is very much part of the mission according to the game. Other than that, I'm still in favor of using staging area and instance, since they are complementary terms, or objectives instead of instance.  As I mentioned above somewhere, quest instances don't offer anything unique that is otherwise inaccessible (as far as mapping is concerned), so there is no need for separate articles for them, a mention/map in the Quest article and the Explorable area involved would be sufficient imo.  Plus only a few quests actually noticeably affect the explorable area's "instance" when active (most just add a monster or few and change some NPC dialogues), so "Quest" is fine and leave it out of this.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Vipermagi ha sconvinced me that since "Outposts and Towns" equals our "staging areas", "Combat Areas" should be the other category. It is an in-game term, and we strive to use these when it is possible and they're clear and understandable. None of the other suggestions (including "instanced area") are as easy to understand and as promintently placed in-game. The "hide cape" menu also implies that PvP arena are also combat areas, so that is good and fits with teh scheme I set up on Location. -- ◄mendel► 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's stop altering the terminology on the page until we reach a consensus please ~_~" -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You moved this talk to the wrong article anyway. ;-) Putting "explorable area" back one level is an improvement though, and we have consensus that it's not going to be our supercategory, so my edit is a definite step forward, and now we want to figure out if "combat area" has contenders that can garner consensus. -- ◄mendel► 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)