GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Advertisement

Suggestions[]

Darn, I was just about to create this page. :P

Anyway, some things crossed my mind:

  • For the "Creatures" section, would "Bestiary" (already in use in some older pages) be better considering we have Category:Bestiary?
  • Do we really need the "x" and the levels for the non-combat NPCs? It feels distracting. But that's just me.
  • For exits and points of note, wouldn't it be better to list by the item then put in the direction? So, I'd go I can go out Exit C, which is south, rather than north is Exit A, hmm, northeast is Exit B, nope, south is Exit C, ah ok. :P
  • And for exits, since the list is never long, is it necessary to have subsections? Just a list of exits and directions should be fine rite?

--Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 01:29, 19 December 2006 (CST)

No one pays attention to these minute details huh? --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 22:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)::Unless you are two people on one account, you knew this page was going to be created since you posted in my sandbox's talk page.
  • Creatures, Bestiary, it doesn't really matter imo. I'll change it to Bestiary, but the argument of what has been done in the past is near irrelevant, since almost all explorable area pages have differences in them, large and small.
  • The symbol NA-icon-small.png was being discussed regarding being changed to something less flamboyant, but no one seriously persued it. Yes, the level should be there because that's what wiki does, document even the most minute details.
  • The direction/exit is personal preference. In any way they are listed, it's the same information meaning the same thing. If someone can't understand directions, I don't think formatting is the problem they should be concerned with :P
  • Subsections was discussed in the talk for the proposal.
  • People pay attention and some of what you brought up above was already discussed about 2 weeks before you mentioned it here. — Gares 22:56, 25 December 2006 (CST)
Oh... whoops. Guess I didn't bother looking down beyond my comment on your sandbox talk page to see the big "Exits" there :P --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 00:48, 26 December 2006 (CST)

Order of Bestiary[]

  • Currently, the order in which the professions should appear differs between the general format and the one currently adopted. The general order can be found here: Style_and_formatting They recommend the order to be: # Professions: Warrior, ranger, monk, necromancer, mesmer, elementalist, assassin, ritualist, paragon, dervish. (in the order they appear on the character creation screen)
  • Whereas the explorable area guide recommends, Assassin, Dervish, Elementalist, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Paragon, Ranger, Ritualist, Warrior.
    Which do you think should be kept or adopted? Baron Diamon 03:47, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Not sure why an alternative sorting is adopted for the explorable areas. I'd prefer the normal prof ordering though. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 11:23, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Order of bestiary again, but on another matter. What do people think about the "group by species" part? I've been looking into explorable areas these days and I can't help but notice that the more complete pages are unnecessarily long. Look at the Perdition Rock I just changed to comply with S&F. Rather long isn't it? And it's not exactly a straightforward manner to look for the elite. Look at this previous revision. The list of bosses look better? --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 06:34, 30 January 2007 (CST)

How about something like: "Sort monsters and bosses by profession, and then by name. If there are several different monsters of the same species, consider grouping them by species and subspecies. For bosses, group only by profession and name." --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 21:43, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I would prefer to keep the grouping of monsters by species, but changing the bosses themselves to sort by profession. --Rainith 21:52, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Yep, a cleaner list of bosses makes it easier to locate elite skills. I tried incorporating skill icons into the list as well but the misalignment of icons doesn't look too good. Certain pages include the species in parentheses. Do we keep that? See my sandbox for my tests. Feel free to add more and comment. Either version 1 or 4 for me I think. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 22:43, 30 January 2007 (CST)

--Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 22:43, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I support Rainith's idea of above. Keep the general order of professions in the general guide for one thing. However, monsters should be grouped by species except when only one of that species occurs - then sort by profession. Bosses should be sorted by profession only. Baron Diamon 12:21, 2 February 2007 (CST)
Take a look at Diessa Lowlands, I like the style that someone did with the Charr. The style is neat, compact, easy to understand, and makes a good use of space. Anybody like that style as well? Baron Diamon 12:29, 2 February 2007 (CST)
Not really. It only looked good on pages where you have a lot of different monster types. If you have pages where each species only had one type, it looked weird and stretched the page vertically. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 21:43, 2 February 2007 (CST)
What about by profession? I did in an example in your sandbox to contrast with a standard list. Aberrant80's sandbox Baron Diamon 03:09, 4 February 2007 (CST)
I know, I replied there already. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 09:47, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Hard mode[]

I propose that we split the monsters and bosses sections into normal mode and hard mode subsections. -- Gordon Ecker 23:02, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

How about using 2-column tables for each section? --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 21:02, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
That's an interesting option. There's more than enough space for another column. -- Gordon Ecker 21:11, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
Now that hard made is implemented, I'd prefer to include the levels of creatures in hard mode in brackets after the normal mode levels. -- Gordon Ecker 00:20, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

What about Vanquishing numbers? Do we place those or just include a link to vanquishing title? If so, which section should we indicate the number (range) of foes in the area? I've seen it in bold just under Bestiary and also in the notes section, although twice is probably too much. --Vortexsam 02:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Zerris and I discussed that here but nothing really came of it. — JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg 03:00, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Think it would be better to just link to the appropriate table on the Vanqisher title article, otherwise have to issue of the numbers being kept in two places (and likely always "out of sync" between the two, as not everyone going to update in both places). --Wolfie Wolfie sig.jpg (talk|contribs) 03:02, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Decide where it's more appropriate for the full details to be displayed: on each individual explorable, or on the Vanquisher page. Whichever gets picked gets the full details of max and min and such. The other just gets a rough average. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 21:43, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Indicating skill captures[]

It says here to indicate skills worth capturing by using parentheses around the skill: Example Boss (Example skill), but on the mission style/formatting guide it says to do: Example bossExample skill

Are they meant to be different, or should we do one over the other? N Segick 04:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)