User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Style and formatting/Landmarks

Feedback
By and large, the guide is ok. I find some minor niggles: NPCs should always be listed, also bosses if they always spawn at the landmark because that way, we can pinpoint their location, and by looking for the NPC you can also more easily find the landmark in-game in case you got lost. (Re: bosses, an example is the Yuroso Island in the water in Haiju Lagoon, or Sizhou Hall in Jaya Bluffs.)

Also, why don't you think that the "quests involved in" deserves its own section always?

I don't think the subpages are a good idea. If you can write up info on the landmark, it deserves its own page with a portrait; if you can't and still want to have a page title for it, use a redirect. -- ◄mendel► 11:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * re: subsections &mdash; IMO less is more for LMs. With subsections that only have a single entry, the article ends up with two presentation problems: (1) it can visually take up an entire highres screenful; (2) the headers end up giving the page more whitespace than content. Either of which (again, IMO) make the page less readable/useful. Like I told Rose, I tried it both ways (conforming to explorable style and very brief); the short/sweet looked/read better in 3 of 3 cases. I don't mean to suggest that LMs should never have subsections; I think that wikians tend to oversection/list, so I wanted to emphasize the other extreme for LMs.
 * In particular, lots of LMs have zero or 1 associated quest...and typically the quest takes place but does not originate at the LM. Other locale style guides seem to point towards origination as the guiding principle to include/not; did I misunderstand?
 * re:monster/boss subsections: you make sense. At the same time, this wiki generally does not divide up zones...so it rubs me the wrong way to take an explorable that has different features in N, SE, central, and at a LM...and then only provide more details at the LM. (I can get over my pet peeve...but I figured if I got first stab at a style guide, I could toss in my prejudice to see if it sticks :-)


 * re: locating the landmark via NPC &mdash; iMO, that is still easily possible with single-paragraph landmark articles; the NPCs almost stand out better b/c they are highlighted within smaller screen realestate than if we add more sections. Your two examples (which I had not seen – rats, more updating for me!) seem to read fine for both our purposes.


 * Regardless, I'll review the style guide to make sure it only discourages oversectioning, as opposed to interdicting sections completely.


 * Re: subpages &mdash; no problem. (I can live with that, even if I'm not convinced :-)  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the zone detail shouldn't be moved to the landmark article; the landmark doesn't need to be detailed as to what to do with the monsters there, I just feel that if I want to walk there I should know what awaits. For the NPCs and quests, it is probably possible to achieve much the same effect as with sections by the use of a formulaic description that always lists these elements in the same order, and perhaps even highlights the words "quest" etc. I've indicated my preference and defer to your editorial judgment. Thank you for dropping the subpage idea. -- ◄mendel► 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. I will let your feedback rattle around in my brain for a few days, and then take another look at 3-4 landmarks in both formats (headers/few headers); I'll see if I still agree with myself :-) (Besides, as you can imagine, I'm loathe to go back to the articles already edited.)


 * (And np re: subpages; I admit to a distinct prejudice for fewer pages. For example, if I ruled the universe, Salvage Kits and ID kits would each be one page; their variations aren't IMO worth a total of 10 pages. Fortunately for the universe, ... :-)


 * By the way, I'm sure you noticed that the explorables seem to follow 4-5 different styles (mostly with monsters, bosses, and captures, but often with quests, NPCs, etc). Does the current style guide reflect the current consensus? (I'm guessing a lot of the articles are 90% the same from when they were first written and never got updated.) I ask because, as you've probably noticed, I've been trying to update details (or clean-up phrasing) as I play through...and I'm not altogether sure sometimes how to be consistent with the wiki. (When in doubt, half the time I drop the update; half the time, I impose my impression of the current consensus...which probably makes it worse.) Anyhow, whaddya reckon is the better part of valor here?  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the consensus for explorables. Ask on the Community Portal? Check the histories on who last did major edits to these articles? -- ◄mendel► 09:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)