User talk:Drone9

Thanks for working on the wiki, but what are you doing with the RoF mission? The proper name, as it already was, is "Ring of Fire (Mission)." --Fyren 03:55, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)

the bracket problem
the problem with the coop mission names is that they unfortunately have the same name as the locations they can be found at. distinguishing between location and mission by naming the entry xy (mission), xy (location) is not the best option imo, since this leads to many tags not working correctly (ie. if RoF is mentioned within a text, but the entry with the location info would have the name RoF (location) the text would also have to include (location) in order for the link to work). sticking to the plain name (ie RoF) for the location and name + mission (ie. RoF mission) in the case of a mission, seems much more logical and easier for the entry to be linked to from other entries (ie. it is more likely that a text would say "...during the RoF mission..." than "...during the RoF (mission)...". only that brackets have been used up until now, doesn't automatically make it the best choice imo.


 * You can do Ring of Fire to name links whatever you want. The preceding turns into this: Ring of Fire  --Fyren 04:46, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)

thanks. that helps. still, at least for the location entry I find (location) not very intuitive.
 * The plan, which no one has gotten around to, was the plain name would redirect to the mission and the mission would have a link to the location. --Fyren 06:25, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * It's fine that you disagree. But you need to raise the issue somewhere appropriate for discussion rather than go implementing your own view.  I suggest GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Locations.  Everyone is free to edit because it's a community site.  --Fyren 06:40, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I agree with Drone (though disagree with changing the whole structure without talking first). Abaddon't Mouth is a LOCATION, if we want to put a distinguishing mark it should be for the Mission. i.e. I am in favor of Abaddon's Mouth and Abaddon's Mouth (mission) not Abaddon's Mouth leading to misison and then having Abaddon's Mouth (Location). --Karlos 17:27, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)

Enjoy Domination Magic :)

Small images and thumb
When you add images that are small (example the images of various locations you added) and thumbnail them define the size of the image to the articel too so it won't get blocky. Like this: --Geeman 07:47, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I think we need to come up with a standard regarding image thumbnail side. For characters and for maps at least. This discussion doesn't belong here of course. :) --Karlos 17:27, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)

Mission Bosses and Skills
I've noticed you are adding the information about elite skills that can be captured during missions to the appropriate location page. Why? We have this information already on the mission page (where it belongs in my eyes). You are generating redundancy and redundancy is bad ;). --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 02:55, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * since bosses do not only appear in missions but also in "normal" areas, it would imo be more consistent to have this information as part of the location info. (btw. many mission entries lack this info.)
 * I was referring to not only elite skill info but skill info in general. I have to admit I overlooked the entries in the coops where elites can be captured.
 * also, at many occasions I wanted to know what skills to get at my current location in the game, but sadly, no such information was available at that time or at least I didn't find it.
 * btw. rereading your post, I plan to add info not only for elites, but for all skills that can be captured like at the Fort Ranik entry.--drone9


 * I just don't like the idea of have exactly the same information on multiple pages. I know that the information about skill captures is incomplete at best. But adding another page where it can be found will not solve the problem, just spread it out even further. I don't know how everybody else is seeing this, of course. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 03:45, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Regarding Redundancy: I agree that having the exact same info in several pages doesn't help the wiki. BUT, in the case of non-mission areas, the bosses will naturally be listed under the corresponding location entry ie. Snake Dance. Therefor to keep consistency the coop mission bosses should also be listed in the location entry imo. I believe consistency is of high importance for user friendliness. --drone9


 * I agree with Eightyfour-onesevenfive, the redundancy is a bit much, especially when you have a link to the mission page right below your boss list... As for the boss skills in the explorable ("regular") areas, wouldn't it be more intuitive to have them listed on the associated explorable area pages themselves, rather than at the outposts leading to those areas?--Razorfish


 * I am not talking about putting boss/skill info on the location page adjacent to the area they can be found at. technically speaking ie. the Ring of Fire is the location the bosses are encountered, even if the area has to be entered by starting the mission. The name of that area still is Ring of Fire. --drone9


 * I think that the non-"(Mission)"-marked pages - Ring of Fire was the example you mentioned - are used to denote the outpost of the same name (i.e. "Location = outpost/hub that is reachable by map travel", rather than "Location = general overview or summary of explorable/mission area"). So, this "mission skills in location pages" seems to be a disagreement over terminology and what that is supposed to signify...--Razorfish


 * true it's a problem of terminology. too bad the hub and the mission have the same name.--drone9


 * I, and the current official formatting, agree with 84. The location entry is for information about the Location, not about what goes on in the mission. It may make sense to include that information in the location entry if the location entry was the default, but again, the Mission article is widely agreed to be the default article. --Talrath Stormcrush 04:14, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Then it's sad that the mission entry is the "main" entry. Only because it gets more hits? --drone9


 * Only because it gets more hits? Only because more people read it?  Only because it's apparently more important?  --Fyren 05:29, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * question: what is "main"? up until now, I considered a coop mission to be nothing else but a somewhat different sort of quest. in in-game terms ie. Ring of Fire will never refer to the coop mission but the location/hub. believing that in-game is more important than out-game, especially in an encyclopedia on the game, for me the hub is main and the mission comes 2nd. also you can reach the mission only through the hub, right?
 * But before this keeps dragging on I'll give in. have the Bosses listed in the mission entry, but then please list them complete with all skills, not only the elites. --drone9


 * ok. now that's different. had someone reminded me of the fact that an entry automatically comes up if the exact phrase is searched for, I wouldn't have argued for the location being "main" in the first place. in that case go with the mission as main of course. --drone9

Umm, the boss in a mission is IN the mission, he can only be found IN the mission, not in the outpost that starts the mission. Likewise, the boss in Snake Dance is IN Snake Dance (an explorable area) not in Camp Rankor. Mission areas are the equivalent of explorable areas, not outposts.

I have a better suggestion though: Talk. Tell us what you are planning to do and why and how and see if this is the general feel of everyone. Nothing more frustrating than editing 100 pages only to have them reverted three days later. Thanks. --Karlos 05:33, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * of course you are right. not used to editing a wiki. only other sort of multi-user-input databases. I somehow miss a forum. where can I post suggestions? --drone9


 * You can do one of two things:
 * For an article you want to alter in a way that is not obvious or controversial, click on the discussion tab and edit it.
 * For a concept you want to suggest. Go to Main Page, click on Style and Formatting and edit that page.
 * The last thing you want is to build a reputation as a rogue contributor who does changes a lot of things poorly/with little regard for what the community wants. Cause then every edit you make will be checked by 100 guys who are worried you messed up something and every suggestion you make will have less value. --Karlos 09:08, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * thanks for the info and advice. I already got rid of all Boss and Skill info in the Location entries, re-changed the boss location info in the Elite Skill entries and altered/expanded the corresponding section of the mission entries where appropriate.
 * my approach to this wiki is simple: if I am unsatisfied with an entry (most likely due to the lack of information or structure) I will check other entries in the same category to see if there is consistency in the way they are done. sadly consistency is one of the things many entries here are lacking. if there is no apparent concept what such an entry should look like, I will compare several entries and try to find a simple and intuitive structure which I will apply to all category entries. this is what I tried with the mission location entries.
 * I understand that such a change is rather drastic to say the least and has to be discussed. only in the case of the mission location entries, there was no structure whatsoever and nearly no info at all to begin with. which is why I, in spite of discussing a possible structure, went ahead and tried to implement one that I find simple and intuitive. if a problem comes up, like the Boss and Skill entries, I have no problem to discuss it, and make changes where necessary/have it changed. as long as the changes make sense and are consistent no problem. I think it's better to act, than to wait and loose interest. --drone9
 * We'd all probably agree we need more consistency. As you saw in the locations talk, someone proposed what it should look like (a long time ago), but there seemed to be no one willing to fill it in anyway, so it just stagnated.  Besides the issue of which one is the "main" entry and where to list the skills, since you're willing you can probably dictate the rest.  I think 85.175 is the only other person that's really done much for locations.


 * In the actual locations style and formatting article, not the talk, put in either a full description of what should be there, or create a fake example with all possible info, and we'll discuss it. I made a fake skill example you can see in the skills section.  For missions and quests, there's a description of what's supposed to be filled in.  Items and bestiary items have a loose consistency, but everything else is rather undefined.  --Fyren 10:18, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

Hi Drone9. Some of the changes you made to the missions are quite ok, but IMHO they should have been discussed here first ([GuildWiki:Peer_review#GuildWiki:Style_and_formatting.2FMissions]. It's great that you, like all of us, believe that consistency is important, but we need to keep the templates up-to-date with the actual articles. I think that the changes you made to the missions' boss section is fine and proberly still work in progress, because several missions still use the 'old' style in regard to e.g. headings.  kaarechr 00:22, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)