GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Locations

So, here's another area that is going to require a lot of typing. What sort of information do we need in the location pages? Of course, Explorable Areas and Cities will have totally different info.

• Cities
  • Henchmen Available
    • Their Level
    • What skills they have?
  • Merchants
    • What they have for sale, how much
  • Exits
    • To where
  • Quest Givers
    • What quests they give
  • Other notable places (statues, hidden plot points, etc)

• Explorable Areas
  • Type of terrain
  • Types of MOBs
    • Bosses, if any
      • Class. Maybe skills? These probably belong on a seperate page for each boss.
  • Notes on what level of random spawns (e.g. L17 Spiders in groups of 4, etc)

I'm sure I missed some things. Discuss. Gravewit 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)

Do we really need detailed information about the bosses on the explorable area's location page (like class, race, skills - see Talus Chute)? Listing them by name would be fine, of course, but everything else would generate a lot of redundancy. They are already on the elite skill locations pages and everything is, of course, on each bosse's page. --84.175.116.111 19:33, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

Agreed (mostly); most of that redundancy is useless, but the profession of the boss SHOULD remain on the location pages, as it provides a useful index for a reader looking to know if he needs to bring a Signet of Capture or not. Otherwise, he'll have to check every boss page, instead of just the ones that might interest him. —Tanaric 20:39, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

In the explorable araes I think the following is needed as well:

• NPC's
  • Collectors
  • Material traders
  • Merchants
  • Quest givers
• Exits/Connects to
• Additional notes (if any)

And an additional notes item for the Cities as well could be useful. kaarechr 20:45, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

---

Could we name the section listing the exits to other zones "connected zones?" Right now, 84.175 has been using "neighbouring zones," but geographically (as if they were real places) some zones neighbor/are adjacent to other zones but aren't directly connected. My secret agenda, though, is to get rid of the British spelling. --Fyren 06:26, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

Neighboring wasn't my idea! Just keeping up what someone else started... ;) I'm personally rather indifferent on what terminology to use, as long as it's clear what is meant (nobody would list neigboring zones that aren't connected *rolls eyes*). --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 06:57, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

Lol, hey 84.157, have you met Ollj? ;) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 09:58, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

merchants: With very few exception merchants have the same things on sale at the same price. no need to list identification kit, salvage kit, die remover, etc. every time. I suggest for this info to expand the general merchant entry. for the location I would simply suggest: name (merchant) in the NPC section
naming of coop location entries: I suggest using ie. Fort Ranik as the location entries name, instead of Fort Ranik (location). there seems to have been the notion to use the plain name for the coop mission entries. imo that would be less accurate. even though some users may say ie. "Fort Ranik was hard" referring to the coop mission, not only in in-game logic (see the map info) but also in common use, terms like Fort Ranik refer to the location, not the coop. also if mentioned within various entries, it seems far more likely that Fort Ranik would refer to the place to the coop making linking easier.
exits: why not just use the term Exits for exits? it's simple, easy to understand and accurate. please take a look at Iron Mines of Moladune to see an example of how I would suggest to do it. --drone9

The reasoning behind making the mission the more prominent entry is that besides the main page, the second most viewed page is the mission overviews page. Looking further down the list, many individual mission pages account for 15 of the 50 most viewed pages. If people want to know where skills are, they'd follow the "trainer locations" link on the main page (10th most viewed). If they want to know where a zone is or what's connected to what, they'd probably go to the maps link off the main page (7th). If someone wants to know about a quest, there's the quest link (9th). The main locations article, also linked on the main page, is down at 17th. I don't think people care much about locations. Either the info in a location article is useful (skills, quests, connectedness) but not intuitively looked for there or the info is just not that useful (mission dialogues, the fact that there's a merchant and storage agent, a description from in game). This is probably why no one's done much work at all on locations. (Stats are from Special:Popularpages) --Fyren 12:04, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)

I have stated this already someplace else, but imo in-game logic comes first. in the realm of GW ie. the Ring of Fire refers to the location/hub and not the mission that can be entered from it. for the casual gamer it will make more sense to use the plain term with regard for the location/hub and not the mission.

it doesn't surprise me that the mission has much more hits. 1) the location/hub entry didn't have much information to begin with 2) the mission is more likely to cause troubles then the hub, so many players will search for help to get through the mission. still this should not have an impact of the accuracy of the wiki entries. a user searching or "Ring of Fire" should find both the hub and the mission entry. I am not against the mission entry coming up first, but still the plain entry should be for the hub. everything else would be inaccurate. --drone9

At the top of the mission and locations entries, place a link to the other. Talrath made a small template for one way, make another for the other. --Fyren 10:29, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

I'd argue that we should remove the seperate pages entirely, and include a brief "location information" section in every page. The mission overviews are what matter, and the location articles aren't that big anyway. —Tanaric 18:15, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

maybe I was wrong, but I assumed that the GW wiki aimed to become the most comprehensive page on GW on the web and not some sort of gamefaq, not paying any attention or even scrapping non-gameplay-relevant info. if it wants to be comprehensive, how can that be achieved by deleting the separate location entries in favor of a brief "location information"? even though most of the info is candy, it should still be there for the sake of completeness. eventually there will be someone interested in reading it. imo it's even worthwhile to have it there if it gets one hit per month.

also aside from fluff and mission prompts (found under the appropriate npc entry), I believe that info like "getting there", the level of henchmen and "exits" is already useful and if "quests" would be added it would definitely be of interest for some. --drone9

You are correct in the purpose of GuildWiki. I think you misunderstood my intent. I said a brief location information section merely because the location pages are already brief; most of the page is whitespace between sections. It would be very easy to include that on a single page along with a mission walkthrough. I am very much in favor of adding more roleplaying/flavor information to this wiki, as it is sorely lacking, but I do not believe we need to arbitrarily split up our pages to do so. —Tanaric 22:17, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

as suggested by Fyren I set up a fake location example how I would suggest to structure location entries. of course not every type of location would feature all entries. discuss. --drone9