GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 18

Edit Window Bar take 2
The new new edit bar: keep it whatever turn it off Take 1 is here, and we wanted to have the new "floating" edit bar for Monaco (with the shorter summary box) turned off. Now that Wikia updated it, do we still not want it? Please post your opinions if you have them! -- ◄mendel► 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What does the new one look like? And where's Archive #17? RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Set your skin to monaco and edit something. Or click [ this]. -- ◄mendel► 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the new one now, just would have to get used to the buttons being in a different place. The Editing tips are useful for new users, and the blue bar makes the buttons stand out.  As long as it stays blue, and not red like last time... :S  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Press Ctrl-F5 to shrink the poll if it looks wider than high! Thank you for the feedback. -- ◄mendel► 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha! What did you do this time? RoseOfKali 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl+F5 fixed it, but that was still rather bizarre. :P RoseOfKali 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does everything break for you?--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Roar.]]îğá†ħŕášħ 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It broke for me too, briefly.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It broke for me also, but like Rose did, Ctrl+F5 fixed it. &mdash; Balistic

Urmmm...
What happened to RC? I can't click the "Show new changes starting from " button Random Time  07:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After much fiddling, it's back - thanks to uberfuzzy from wikia IRC for helping me out Random Time  07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Remote Area
Named places inside explorables get treated as landmark or "Point of Interest"; there is no fixed format for those yet, and many don't yet have their own page. There's work to do! ;-) -- ◄mendel► 11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think they all should have their own page, and link to the explorable area they're in. I don't know if there's enough uniformity to make a template, unless it's really basic, like "Located in explorable area so-and-so" and "Trivia" or "related information" or something like that. Some of them have nothing special about them, they're just there.  Others are quest locations.  Others are mentioned in lore.  That kind of thing.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumable Template:location box can be used to hold an image, campaign info, type=landmark, and "Part of" would give the explorable it is in. Sometimes a map comes in handy as well. You'd want to list what quests it is involved in, and soemtimes there are NPCs gathering there, so basically it could be a cut-down version of a regular location article. -- ◄mendel► 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New Video namespace (moved)
&larr; Moved from Video talk:Bananaphone

moving conversations
The alternative to moving conversations is to leave them in place and to add a link to them from places where they're relevant (e.g. here). -- ◄mendel► 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Link from here to places where they are relevant means less things are buried under generic archives. This place was originally meant to be about generic community stuff anyways.  That intention can partially be glimpsed from the wording "If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page...".  The moves are usually done with sectional edits that have a edit summary to hopefully alert anyone watching the topic that something happened in the thread, so when they come check it out they can follow the link to the new discussion.  There is a flaw where people who only use the Watchlist to keep track and had too many thing watched so the move get flushed away may not noticed the moved discussion that might be continuing.  So that is indeed a factor to be weighted upon. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 06:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Previously in...
Is there a policy about how to handle references to previous updates of the game? (couldn't find one in Policy or Category:Policy_proposals) As a newbie, I find it distracting to read in the main text about quests, monsters, bosses, or loot that was available in 2007 or before Factions was released. Instead, I prefer to read about the game's current features.

For example, the Lion's Arch article lists three NPCs found in LA "prior to release of Factions," a Getting there item which is listed as "removed ...2007," and an exit "added in 2006." Given the current length of the article, these entries make it harder rather than easier to find one's way around.

On the other hand, I suspect if I were a long time veteran, I might want to readily see things that had changed (esp. if I had been away for a time).

An easy compromise might be to add to any article, where relevant, a Previously in Guild Wars subsection to the Notes that would include changes that occurred more than 6 months prior. For example, the various references in Lion's Arch would be replaced with the following:

--begin example--
 * Notes
 * lorem ipsum
 * Previously in Guild Wars
 * Prior to the release of Factions, these NPCs were also found in Lion's Arch: x, y, z
 * Before May 25, 2007, you could also reach Lion's Arch via the Canthan Ferry Captain.
 * The east exit to Lion's Gate was added October 25, 2006.

--end example--

What do people think? I don't think this an urgent issue. At the same time, I am motivated (as I progress through the game) to re-arrange such references.--Tennessee Ernie Ford 08:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think it's a good idea to put things removed from the present game (and not likely to come back again) in a separate section away from the main contents of the article. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 08:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have time now to look it up, but I've seen the issue discussed and the gist of it was, we document the game as it is, which confirms your view, T.E.F. We do have a nice Template:historical, which can be used thus:


 * Feel free to use it on articles where historic notes detract you; you can then easily skip the outdated stuff when looking for current info. -- ◄mendel► 10:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks great! Assuming no one objects, I'll move >6 mo entries to Notes; leave newer entries where they are; and use the Historical template in both cases. Thanks for the help, support. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a pleasure to support! :-)
 * A second advantage of the template is that players coming back after an absence can quickly find out what has changed, as well. -- ◄mendel► 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents; maybe a header for it, so skill pages with several bugs/anomalies don't get huge clusterfucks of those templates. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  13:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible for long articles - check out Lion's Arch and let me know if you like the way that was handled.--Tennessee Ernie Ford 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Would you like to have the ability to place it all in a box (e.g. medium solid gray) with a simple |box or something on the template call? -- ◄mendel► 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Terms or Confused Newbie?
As a newbie, I'm confused by the wiki's classification of places. For example, I don't understand why Mission Location is considered noticeably distinct from an Outpost. To me, MLs are Outposts that also have Mission-related services/NPCs.

Do I have a fundamental (i.e. newbie) misunderstanding of the terminology (if so, please set me straight :-). Or, is it worth considering some clarification, reorganization of the jargon used by the wiki?

(See also above about Remote Areas)

Game Playing POV
As a game player, I'm primarily interested in whether I can reach something via the Travel Map, do I lose my DP/morale, or can I find storage/services/H/H. So, in my newbie POV, I see only 3 types of GW areas: Travel Destinations, Explorable Areas , and other destinations :
 * Travel destinations - places I can reach through the world map. They have services, H/H, and cancel DP/morale. For me, this would include: Cities (full services, Max items), Towns (limited services, items), &amp; Outposts (minimal services).
 * Explorable areas - places that have portals to a Travel Destination or another explorable area (no services, you retain DP/morale);
 * Other destinations are also interesting in the game, but lack their own portal - Point locations have an exact coordinate (Landmarks &amp; Shrines) while General locations feel like primary destinations but aren't (Village = a no-portal Outpost &amp; Remote Area = a no-portal Explorable).

In this schema, there would be only 3 location templates (as noted above). However, one could apply various tags that note any additional game functions: Mission Location (also has mission services), Quest Destination (also important for quest), Temporary (only appears during Mission or Quest), Blocked (only available after completing certain prerequisites), and so on.

While I want to respect NCSoft terminology, I also like the idea that the Wiki is player-centric rather than from the game-designer POV. Does anyone else share my confusion? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? --Tennessee Ernie Ford 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure I like your classification. Mission outposts are unique in that not only they simply have a mission-starting NPC, but they also can be categorized as a mission location, and are important for Protector and Guardian title seekers, especially in Cantha and Elona where you skip some of them on the first pass through the campaign, and later have to find them to complete the title tracks.  Many other outposts you may never even visit or know about their existence until someone tells you or you stumble upon them while wandering around in the middle of nowhere (Maguuma Stade, Port Sledge, etc.).  Cities are the centers of the respective area they are in, such as the Amnoon Oasis in the Crystal Desert, or Cavalon in the Jade Sea, and they almost always have a full set of NPC's.  So I feel like it is important to keep the distinction between the types of towns.  And don't forget about Challenge Missions.  All of these things have a different icon on the world map, and I think they should be categorized differently.  They may share the same template, but the template would need separate flags for the different types.  An explorable area is the ENTIRE zone with a particular name.  This is the whole area that counts for Vanquisher title, and nothing else should be called that, with tags or without, other than the ENTIRE zone itself.  The only place that may actually use revision is the other stuff, such as Villages or other locations WITHIN a given Explorable.  I think they ALL can be Templatized simply as a "Landmark" and the description of this "Landmark" will give you a good idea about what it actually is, be it a quest location, lore-related, a village, etc.
 * So I think we can get away with 5 location/area templates. One for a Town, with different flags for the different types of cities/outposts/mission towns/etc.  One for a Mission itself, with walkthroughs, dialogue, etc.  One for an Explorable area, with lists of bosses, foes, NPC's, quests, portals, landmarks, etc. located in the zone.  One for a Landmark, having its description, how it is significant, and a map of its location in the explorable area.  And one for a Region, such as Southern Shiverpeaks, Kaineng City, or Desolation, with lore, cities, missions, zones and other stuff located there.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Historically, I think the idea was to use the names that the game gives you on the screen that is displayed as you enter the location. That makes it easy to find it if you search for it. Also, Outposts, Mission Outposts and Towns have different icons on the map. There is a wiki term that encompasses all three, staging area, but it's hardly ever used; it has the the meaning of "anywhere you can map travel to". We might want a table of what services are available where, but since you can find everyting in the capitals and you can quickly map travel there, the utility of that is quite restricted. The fact that "staging area" is so rarely used makes me think that most players don'tthin in these terms, so lumping all three types of these under a common term might actually turn out to not be so plyer-centric after all.
 * Point locations and "villages" such as in Zehlon Reach, or King's_Watch in post-Regent Valley, are generally categorized as landmark, although the more formal "Point of Interest" is also used. I'm not sure if there are conventions on these, I tend to go with the less "bureaucratic" landmark designation even if it's not strictly a " a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality" (Merriam-Webster); maybe "locality" ("a particular place, situation, or location") is a better word to use?
 * The information you want to see in the tags should already be listed on the page of the place. I think we have a "quests involved in" section, and the "getting there" section should note what you have to do to unblock it, or which quest to take to reach it. Template:Location_box currently doesn't have that information (and we have no infobox at all for quests that would list locations). If you want to tag locations, you might want to think about new entries for that infobox, and come up with some examples to demonstarte how they'd work. If it makes sense, I can easily modify the infobox for then, and we can update the locations accordingly. We can than automatically generate sortable tables from these. -- ◄mendel► 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The terminology is one thing that had been debated/discussed almost to death on the. Right now, the only thing I think can be improved is the POI terminology, but so far I haven't really came across any alternatives that really work.  "Landmark" comes the closest in its brevity, but neither Landmark or Locality really work as a general solution IMHO. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "While I want to respect NCSoft terminology, I also like the idea that the Wiki is player-centric rather than from the game-designer POV." <- the thing is, you either understand NCSoft terminology, or you do not. If you do not, then is it better for the Wiki to ignore the ingame terminology, so that whatever you learned from the Wiki about one thing cannot be applied in general to something else you just encountered in the game (because the wiki uses different terminology from the game), or is it better for the Wiki to help you understand the terminology so you are no longer confused about them?  I consider the latter to be more player-centric.  If marking things as "Towns" vs "Outposts" vs "Mission locations" confuses you, I strongly advocate you to check out the respective articles, even if their differences are of negligible importance to you.  If after reading those articles confusion remains, then shout a warning so we can figure out how to improve those articles to reduce confusion. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad there's some discussion around this. I'm going to try to summarize comments and briefly respond (so the thread parsing doesn't get too ungainly here). (Please, step in if/when I mischaracterize anyone's comments.)
 * I'm not entirely alone in thinking that newbies can be confused by the current entries, particularly regarding locations. (Although, perhaps not as confusing as I might have suggested.)
 * For various reasons, people currently prefer amending current entries rather than redefining or redesigning the current approach.
 * For example, we could update existing articles for clarity.
 * For example, the info boxes (for various terms) could contain additional tags if folks thought they would be useful.


 * And, my two cents.
 * I'm going to take a stab at amending Towns, Outposts, and Mission Locations. I think they currently read as very different ideas. (e.g. Mission Locations seems to be mostly about the map icons). I might do the same for the articles on terms relating to the outdoors. I'll update this space when I do, so that folks can review.
 * I want to be clear that I'm not advocating ignoring NCSoft terms. I'm asking whether it's the best terminology to emphasize in order to help new players and/or veterans. For me, it's parallel to the discussion about focusing on Guides/Roles instead of Builds. The official term has its value, but it's not enough to understand how to play well.
 * Perhaps a better example: in-game, while no one refers to Staging Areas, neither do they distinguish between Towns and Cities nor between Outposts and Mission Locations. Locations are referred to by name and are distinguished by the method of arrival (Run, Map Travel, ...) or a specific activity available there (buy max items, trade, find a better H/H). That suggests to me that the official terms aren't enough.


 * One issue is that the "player terminology" differs between time, and even the guilds or people you are used to playing with. If someone just asks me "Hey, is Port Sledge a travel destination?", I would not really understood his question, as to me "travel destination" sounds like something you go out of your way to go for sightseeing (or other special purposes), so I would've thought the Grenth's statue in the Shiverpeaks or the actul waterfalls in The Falls as something to be called a "travel destination" (it's a place you want to walk="travel" to), and I wouldn't consider any towns, outposts, or mission locations as "travel destinations" because those are places I can "teleport" (how an inexpenced player might consider "map travel" as) to in an instant.  On the other hand, I would be surprised if somebody playing the game has no clue what a town or outpost is.  Thus, the most neutral ground for a wiki to work with is using official vocabulary, supplemented with our own additional vocabs which may not necessarily cater to any group of player's culture, but is geared towards making it understandable to the people who have at least a basic grasp of how the game works.
 * Redefining the supplemental vocabulary is fine, this wiki has done a bunch of that before. The challenge is to come up with a new redefinition that is better, in the sense that it takes into account all the considerations that the existing definitions has accounted for (including deliberate "we will just have to make sacrifices on this issue"), and adds additional value.  In this specific topic of "towns" vs "outposts" vs "mission locations", I am not (yet) convinced that any confusion created by the official vocabulary would hinder somebody's ability to play the game well.  It's not like you are going to mix it up with an explorable area (is it?).  BTW, in game, there are players who distinguishes town vs outposts, and there are players who distinguish mission outposts with other types of areas-you-can-reach-via-map-travel. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right - my terms aren't necessarily better. I used them to illustrate how the game appears to me. And I'm sure if I play long enough (and hang out here), I'll meet more experienced people who are using different terms or using the official terms appropriately; in the meantime, the people I'm meeting don't seem to.
 * In any case, I am trying, however unsuccessfully, to agree with your central point: stick with official unless there's a demonstrably better alternative. I can see now that much of my confusion is due to the articles and not the terms (I didn't realize that until reading the comments here). I appreciate the feedback and help.--Tennessee Ernie Ford 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing that confuses me about your confusion, is that on one hand you seem to be advocating a simplification of location-related terminologies, while on the other hand you are suggesting that perhaps the official terms aren't enough. As a result, the only thing about your issues that I actually understood is that you think some stuff needs to get redefined, but I am confused about what you find confusing and needs to be clarified. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is going to sound like Monty Python: your confusion about my confusion is partly due to my being confused about things that are not confusing to you. So, pretend that I had phrased things completely differently from the outset, something like:
 * here's how I see the game locations (map travel, etc as above) - is this a correct understanding of the GW universe? If so, why are Mission Locations considered different from Outposts? - they seem to offer the same services (with a single exception: Mission kickoff)
 * and so on...
 * To which you might have replied: no, not a correct understanding. e.g. MLs have a greater importance in the game (especially for veterans pursuing Titles), and so on...
 * I hope that makes more sense.
 * --Tennessee Ernie Ford 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. So, then, my candidate at approaching the reduction of your (and other new player's) confusion remains to explain the terminologies in their respective articles, in the overview article, and myabe in the New Player Guide articles (but then, we are also kind of assuming you aren't reading the game manual cover-to-cover d-: ). Inventing new terms that sound natural to you might not work with someone used to play Lineage 2 or Ultime Online or EverQuest or someone who has zero previous gaming experience. To understand how to play well, it is important to share a common vocabulary for people with different backgrounds, and the official terminology, if nothing else, is the most neutral choice. But whatever we choose, the most important thing is the terminologies have their own articles, to explain themselves to people not familiar with those terms. (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understood you, you want to break the locations down (categorize) differently, in a way that seems more useful to you. Since the wiki serves multiple target groups with multiple needs, we'd better find a way to include both ways of "tagging" the locations; I suggested changing the infoboxes to do that. -- ◄mendel► 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)