GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Locations

Archives

/Archive 1

Proposed S&F guide and split

Ok, although most of the location articles follow roughly the same format, we currently have nothing official as to how they should be. I've put my spin on it here (my test page). Take a look at it and let me know what you think. Note that this is for towns / outposts / mission locations only. The second part of this is that I think we should split the S&F article to GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Explorable locations and GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Urban locations. Now I know those probably aren't the best names but they get the idea accross. Hopefully some people will look at this and give feedback.  :) --Rainith 00:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Looks good, just name it "towns" for short. Also, should have a Notes/Features section where stuff like statues of gods and/or monuments of significance can be mentioned. --Karlos 01:03, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Looks good :) I like the sound of location boxes! — Skuld 01:53, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Hubs vs Instances? Still get the idea across (i hope) and much shorter.-User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Looks good. Are we going to see an example, or is there one allready? -- 04:32, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Seems ok to me, I added "Getting There" to the example (which was left off for some reason). In the location box do we need to have an attribute to say it's Luxon or Kurzick controlled town (for those that this applies to) or will this be integrated into an existing attribute (presumably either parent = Region or type=Town or Outpost) ? --Xasxas256 08:18, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

There is no value to saying that the town is Luxon or Kurzick. We could add a line (or tag or marker or graphic) that says this town is an "alliance controllable" town. Because technically, if the Kurzick/Luxon border moves far enough, Luxons can take over HzH and Kurzicks can take over Cavalon. Those towns that are controllable should also have a note that they have an exclusive area and then the exclusive area can have one, two or three NPCs. --Karlos 08:49, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok, good responses.  :) My responses to the responses:

1. There is a notes section at the bottom. All misc info can go in there IMO. Things like Statues of the Gods, exclusive areas, etc...
2. Naming the S&F articles, I tried for a long time to come up with names that would not lead to possible confusion (Cities/Towns) or be so essoteric that many people might not understand them (Hubs/Instances). I'm not saying that what I came up with was good either, I just think that there is no good way of describing these town/outpost/mission location areas. I am fully open to suggestion on this.
3. I don't have an example made up using this, but I drew a lot of my work from the Seitung Harbor article (first place I saw PanSola's awesome location box) and from the Ascalon City (Post-Searing) article. (I'll make an example tonight after I get home.)
4. I'm uncertain how helpful a "Getting There" section is. For much of the Prophecies areas this is moot, you can get to most of these by exploring the world and ignoring missions/quests/etc... In Factions it makes more sense. If we do have this section, I think if there is no barrier to entering the city (Lion's Arch for example) then the section should be left out completely as this info can be gotten by working back thru the linked areas in the location box.

--Rainith 10:56, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree with "Getting There" section being like the "Notes" section (not needed, not added). I like the syntax, its very well organized and to the point. Got two questions I would like to ask.

1. Is alphabetizing an issue in any part of it, say henchman or crafters?

1. Will the profession symbols be used for the henchmen?

For the S&Fs for other parts, just use what the game calls them, e.g. Explorable locations = Explorable areas. Everything looks good to me and it seems very general and could be used for any campaign, the present ones and for future expansions. --Gares Redstorm 19:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I think Rainith meant to hve "Explorable locations" meant to encompass explorable areas and "(Mission)"s. At least that's my assumption when I proposed using the term "Instances" instead. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:38, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I must have read over your Hub/Instance line. Gotcha now. --Gares Redstorm 19:54, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I think that seperating Locations into Explorable areas and Outposts makes a lot of sense. They are, after all, very different kinds of location.

My only concern at the moment is that the location box seems to use a table inside every cell. Not only does that mean that the box looks different to other boxes used on the GuildWiki (an extra border), but it also means more redundant html in the template. I'd really like to see the extra tables removed.

Other than this 1 minor issue I think this is a great idea, good work Rainith, PanSola and everyone else above :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 10:04, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

I beleive Skill and Armor boxes also nest tables. As for the extra borders that only show up for hte location box, blame Skuld d-:. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:52, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

I can't really comment on the other skill boxes, I haven't taken a look at the wiki code for some time, but I imagine you are right PanSola. My main concern is that nested tables have only been used to achieve this extra border. If that's not the case and the nested tables are still needed, fine, but I do think it's important that skill boxes have a similar look across the site. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 10:04, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok, for those wanting to see this in action, please see the Seitung Harbor article, as that one needed the least tweaking to make it conform to this standard, I used it. I've got a bit of a headache at the moment, but if it doesn't get any worse, I'll try to modify a town and mission location article too so we can see what those will look like.

As for Gares' questions, the answer to both is "I don't know." Does anyone else have opinions on those? Should we alphabetize the NPCs in their groups? Should we use profession symbols for the henchmen? And I'll ask one of my own, should we create articles for the henchmen types and then link those? Shock Henchman, Deadly Henchman, etc... Or maybe just link those to the profession pages? --Rainith 21:36, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Examples can be found in the articles: Henge of Denravi (town example), Seitung Harbor (outpost example), and Fort Ranik (outpost) (mission location example). Please post any comments/complaints/etc... below. --Rainith 22:30, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Looks good. A minor thing: Align the text in the 'neighbours' box to the center. It would look a bit nicer. -- 04:16, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

I am very please with this box, good work. I have center aligned the neighbours box and I think it looks better. Does anyone disagree? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:12, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Looking at the template in use, it seems the different cells have different alignments. I am going to try and remedy this. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:14, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks Biro. I didn't create the box, I just saw it in an article around the time I was thinking we should standardize this and loved it. I'm not against minor changes to it to fix formatting of the cells. --Rainith 14:48, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Mission locations should include the full breifing from the NPC. Such as Thirsty River (outpost) (feel free to change how the breifing is formatted). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:43, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

I disagree, I think that info should go with the NPC themselves. If we want to note these NPCs with a mark (Mission NPCs) or something that's fine with me, but I'd rather keep dialogues on the NPC pages not the location pages. --Rainith 10:32, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Sorry for not replying earlier. I've been /afw for a few days. Rainith's S&F draft for towns/outposts looks near perfect to me, and I have very little to add. One might use a slightly different tree structure for the NPCs, for example by using the generic term vendor as the root for all crafters, merchants, traders and such. Also, "Quest NPCs" might be used for all quest related NPCs. And I remember I've used the term "Guild Services" for emblemers, registrars and other guild related NPCs at least once. But such things are really minor and shouldn't stop us from making Rainith's draft official asap! -- 01:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Rainith, about my questions, I still do not want to say either way about the profession icons, but I do think alphabetizing NPCs in each category might make it look organized. We already "abc" skills, items, and such. As far as the articles are concerned (Shock Henchman, Deadly Henchmen, etc.), I haven't paid that much attention to the correlation between the name and the skills used. Maybe it's just a naming scheme ANet came up with, without any real intent, or maybe it does have a purpose, I don't know. I do know that each different naming scheme in each profession uses different skills, so there could be something to it. I'll wait for an agreement of some sorts before I go cowboy. ;) --Gares Redstorm 12:12, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

I have an idea for the order of NPCs that is not quite ABC based, I'll post it when I get home (assuming I don't fall asleep as soon as I walk in the door). --Rainith 12:51, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok, I was way too tired yesterday and crashed almost as soon as I got home from work, but today I'm ok, so I updated the test page with what I'm calling a class based alphabetization scheme. It wasn't quite so easy to put into words, what I intended, but if it is any consolation (which I know it won't be), it makes perfect sense to me. Essentially I alphabetized based on the classes in parenthesis after the name, then if there were multiple NPCs with the same class (or with no class) those were alphabetized based on the first letter of their first "name" ("Bob" would go before "Lady Anne" for example). The only exceptions I made were to put Merchants first in the "Merchants and Traders" group and to group the Henchmen in GuildWiki standard order (and to change from henchmen titles to profession icons). I also updated the 3 articles Henge of Denravi, Fort Ranik and Seitung Harbor with this altered design. To me this way looks "cleanest", most aestetically pleasing I guess. Others may not agree, please, as always let me know. I'd like to finalize this relatively soon, so we can put it into action, and I can move on to the first draft for the Explorable Areas. --Rainith 21:41, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

No complaints in 4 days, so I'm going to do this. Creating in GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Towns as I think that is the best name for it, even though it encompasses more than just towns, people will be able to figure it out easiest this way. --Rainith 23:29, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Wiki Classification of GW Places and Locations

← Moved from GuildWiki talk:Community Portal

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), & 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 & Shrines) while General locations feel like primary destinations but aren't (Village = a no-portal Outpost & 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 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 ) 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 ) 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.)

1. 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.)
2. 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 ) 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 <wink>, 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 ) 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 ) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that not everyone approaches a game this rich the same way, which is why I began by asking, "does anyone share my concern?" I think the answer is pretty much, no. Which is perfectly fine - I'm good with the idea of improving some of the current terminology articles (and I will help). :-) --Tennessee Ernie Ford 11:25, 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)

Hmmn. What I'm trying (now) to say is, "here's how I tried to make sense of the game - does anyone else view it this way?" So, yes, if others also break down the game similarly, then it would be worth updating the current categories. So, I do like the idea of updating the infoboxes...but I don't have a strong suggestion. And it remains to be seen if my viewpoint is widespread or relatively unique.

Maybe part of this conversation is really about the fact that newbies and veterans need different things. For a veteran, subtle distinctions and rewards for special accomplishments are important; for a newbie, those same details make it harder to get started. Newbies don't need to care about the difference between Outposts and MLs, while veterans do. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be a shift in game community as well; initially the wiki is about smart players sharing stuff that is hard to discover, and as the wiki nears completeness it's been useful to newbies (for some time now), but lacks the features for them. The paradox is that those who could write them don't need them. --◄mendel► 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at an article like Maguuma Jungle. It has a list of every town and explorable area in it, and each of those links back to the Maguuma Jungle article in the Part of: part of the location template. The region articles I think are very useful in removing the confusions about many of the locations in that region, however I think most players don't even look at them, since their links are not "in your face." To be honest, I really don't see any kind of obvious flaw in the way we have things organized, other than the fact that we don't hand everything to you all at once (think articles that take 2 minutes to load on 56k...), meaning you have to follow some links and read some articles if you really don't know anything about your search subject. There is a beginner's guide to each campaign, but not one for the game in general. There are some categories, but those really are useless if you don't know what you're looking for already. I think all we really need is some kind of general guide to the game itself that includes all the common terminology, such as clarifying the differences between the types of cities, how map travel works, etc. I met a guy in DoA once who, after visiting the Guild Hall, mapped to Kamadan, then into the Vortex, and then back to DoA, and I was like... you could've just used the "Leave Guild Hall" button... and he was like "The what button?" He got to DoA not knowing about it... And I don't think it is mentioned anywhere on this wiki. RoseOfKali 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Maguuma Jungle is very clear. And glancing at a couple of other regions, those look straightforward, too. I note that the section, Towns & Outposts includes Mission Locations, distinguished only by the parenthetical (Mission). I think that works well - the difference is there for those who need it, but the similarities haven't been obscured.

I think you nailed it when you said that somethings aren't helpful if you don't already know what you're looking for.

And, yeah, even the perfectly formed wiki isn't going to solve the problem of, "the what button?" --Tennessee Ernie Ford 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Action Taken

With everyone's comments in mind, I took the liberty of updating Town, Outpost, Mission location. The goal: make the articles look consistent while preserving as much of the original authors' text & intent. Please feel free to update, correct, and/or revert...especially Mission location, since I only know about them from reading, not from having completed dozens of missions.

• Pros: crisper look, highlights similarities and differences appropriately, more consistent with recent articles
• Cons: some of the original text and details might no longer fit (or I might have mangled the original intent)

--Tennessee Ernie Ford 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rose-I like the clean-ups you did to the pages. The borders around the icons look nice. I also updated the other two pages to replace "continental map" with "world map" (continental sounded stilted to me, but I wasn't sure which was official).--Tennessee Ernie Ford 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do the borders, there were a few people involved in editing the articles besides me and you. RoseOfKali 20:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks to all. (and RoK: thanks for catching my copy/paste mangle :-)--Tennessee Ernie Ford 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Next Steps: Update the POI Note

I think it might be helpful to (a) update the poi note and (b) add a page defining POIs. I've suggested phrasing here.

(And, for those still wondering at the source of my confusion, I think the Template:Poi was part of it. It currently implies that you must walk to Mission locations, since it suggests that only Towns and Outposts allow Map travel. I wouldn't be confused by that now (especially after everyone's help), but I certainly was after only a week of playing.) --Tennessee Ernie Ford 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)