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



template brainstorm[]

There are several types of npc:

  • Merchant
  • Crafter
  • Collector (further into Armor, and Weapon/Item)
  • Skill trainer
  • Quest-giver
  • Mission guy/gal (the one who stands there in middle of mission "staging" zone)
  • Henchman
  • Story

In general, anyone not in a city or outpost will need a map; story NPCs and henchmen should all have nice screenshot images (and honestly, user-contributed sketches might be kind of cool too!).

What else should be added to each page? Is there a good taxonomy box idea out there? Nunix 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)


The guidelines for NPCs need to be expanded alot more. I was pretty confused about all the categories until I drew out the trees and noted the problems. It just a couple of inconsistencies that need to be cleaned up. I've actually drafted up an expanded guidelines but got stuck on several points. Basically, as already mentioned, each NPC page must have a Type, Location, and Species categories, while Nationality and Organization are optional. This is all fine and easy, especially the last three types, where it's usually at most 1 will apply. The problem comes when attempting to assign a type and location.

For location, it's fine for the majority of NPCs who appear only in one place. For certain types of NPCs, such as henchmen, they appear in multiple places. Take the Factions henchmen for example, say Sister Tai, or Mai. They appear in ALOT of places, including town areas, explorable areas, and mission areas. Do we add one category for each place they appear in? How do we handle this?

It's the same problem for type. One type each isn't enough for certain NPCs like Devona and Master Togo. They would need all of Quest Givers, Quest NPCs, Mission NPCs, and (for Devona) Henchmen. Same thing with merchants, traders, and trainers who are also Quest Givers and/or Quest NPCs, like Captain Osric and Gelsan the Outfitter.

In effect, each NPC will have at least 3 categories (which is likely rare) and all the way up to potentially 2 dozen categories for henchmen like Devona, Mhenlo, and Cynn who are also NPCs at certain points of both the Prophecies and Factions storylines.

How does everyone feel about having so many categories? I'm thinking the way to reduce the location categories would be just list the first one or two locations they appear in and put the rest under a section called "See Also", or "Also appears in", or "Other locations". But that kinda defeats the purpose of the location category if most of the location categories would be incomplete. --Ab.Er.Rant 23:45, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

A creatures locations will always be listed under ==Locations== in their page even if the categories do not list all locations. You do have a point. What do we do with something like Dragon Moss that's in 7 or 8 different places or someone like Sister Tai? I personally don't think it's a problem if we do not categorize their location in this case. --Karlos 23:54, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

I went through the GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Bestiary carefully again and I can see additional problems on the categories guidelines. You need the species, which is fine for NPCs too. But it also needs profession. Should NPCs make use of categories like Category:Monks or stick exclusively to categories like Category:Monk NPCs instead? The locations category faces the same problem. The additional note there is worse. Category:White Mantle according to the bestiary guidelines is a species, whereas to the NPC guidelines, it's an organization. Which applies? Perhaps NPCs shouldn't be listed as a subset of Bestiary, since Category:NPCs aren't really beasts right? For me, I'd suggest that since Category:Humans is under [[[:Category:Beasts]], then human NPCs should just be Category:Human NPCs; totally separating the two category trees at the species level.

Also, one more thing. Is it generally accepted to use "Skills Used" and "Quests given"? I've actually been using "Known Skills" and "Quests offered", so I suppose I should update them to match all the other pages. I think Category:Quest Givers is rather awkward but have no better idea than "Quest Source NPCs", which also sounds awkward. Any particular reason why it's "Skills Used" and not "Skills used", but it's "Quests given" and not "Quests Given"? -:- Ab.Er.Rant (Talk) Necromancer

I agree that NPCs shouldn't be organized as a subset of Bestiary. However, "beasts" here is used to refer to all creatures, so all NPCs *should* be able to be found under Bestiary through some manner. White Mantle is organization composed strictly of Humans, I'm not seeing where in the Bestiary guideline that defines it as a species. As for upper/lower casing it, go lower. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:06, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

Location Category[]

No other opinions after several days? I would venture to propose that NPCs (possibly the whole of Bestiary) to specify only a Region category, and not location. With a region (or regions) as categories, a Location section can then detail each of the different locations within the regions a particular monster or NPC appear in.

I think I will start with all the henchmen first, and then later propagate to all other NPCs unless someone says otherwise. Ab.Er.Rant 08:03, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Don't use a regions category. That just includes areas and cities in the region. The main reason you see the NPCs categories and sections messed up is people having that same approach you just mentioned. X decides that NPCS should not be classified as Monks but as Monk NPCS (which would be a sub-category of Monks), but then X does 10% of the work and leaves or is away. Then Y thinks that it should be "Quests offered" not "given" and so on.
Unless you plan on doing the whole change yourself, do not consider lack of response to be a green light for you to start the change. That only results in messed up pages.
Like I said above, just don't list any location categories. List the specific locations in the Locations section of the article. --Karlos 11:25, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Ok, I'll just leave the locations category out for now, or maybe just one or two primary ones and leave the rest in the section. I'll standardise the other categories starting with each type of NPC and work from there, see how it goes. And I can make all the changes, spread across several days of course... :P --Ab.Er.Rant 19:11, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
I could aid in renaming categories/moving articles/etc using if I get specific rules. I do believe we should leave the town/outpost categories be though, and put those categories as sub-categories of region-categories, of course that might be what you suggested. :p — Galil Ranger 19:29, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Section and Categories proposal[]

Looking for comments on my proposed sections and categories before I actually try to add it into the guidelines:

  • Sections (in order)
    1. Description
    2. Location - grouped by regions, with any conditions noted
    3. Quests Given - quests that can be obtained from this NPC
    4. Quests Involved In - quests that somehow involve this NPC, including being a quest rewarder
    5. Skills Used
    6. Evaluation - includes behavior notes, pros and cons, and advice or tips
    7. Dialogue - includes those with a proper message box or those that advance the storyline
    8. Quotes - just any random text bubbles
    9. Notes
  • Categories (in order)
    1. Type - list all types alphabetically
    2. Species - list 1, eg. Humans, not Human NPCs. Type already identifies NPC; unless it's better to have a subcategory of NPCs in every species?
    3. Profession - optionally list 1, e.g. Monks, not Monk NPCs; unless it's better to have a subcategory of NPCs in every profession?
    4. Nationality - optionally list 1
    5. Organization - optionally list 1

For Nationality, I'm thinking this is the full list so far: "Ascalonians, Canthans, Deldrimor, Elonians, Krytans, Margonites, Orrians".

For Organization, it's pretty messy right now, but I thinkn this is likely enough: "Ascalon Army, Canthan Emperors, Canthan Heroes, Celestial Ministry, Kurzick, Heroes of Ascalon, Flaming Scepter, Lionguard, Luxon, Shining Blade, Stone Summit, White Mantle". Mursaat could be an organization too. And I don't think we should bother with categorizing NPCs by campaign at all.
--NecromancerAb.Er.Rant 01:04, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

The Mursaat can be part of a new Unseen Ones category. Also, for both the species and the professions, after much thought, it's better to have one NPC subcategory for each species and profession with NPCs. That way, all the NPCs can be grouped separately and the category listings of hostile creatures aren't cluttered with NPC listings. --NecromancerAb.Er.Rant 20:09, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
Just come across one more thing... is it necessary to distinguish between Category:Mission NPCs and Category:Quest NPCs? I think the former can be folded into the latter, or we can just use both and accept the fact that some NPCs can be in both. --NecromancerAb.Er.Rant 21:47, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
Hmm... four days and no one has an opinion? Considering the change User:PanSola:PanSola made (calling it 'chatter' instead of my 'quote'), I suppose I should rename by section header to 'Chatter' as well... although I personally feel Quotes sound better, since some of the henchmen battle cries are more than just chatter. So I feel that Quotes is more encompassing, unless we break them down into even more subsections... --Ab.Er.Rant 18:32, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
"Quotes", to me, feel overly encompassing, and encompasses things beyond the speech bubbles. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:24, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
"Chatter" is a very informal word and I would advise against it. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:58, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

Prefixing Type categories with continent name[]

I noticed that Jailbyrd had actually created two new categories specifically for Canthans, Category:Canthan Collectors and Category:Canthan Weaponsmiths. At first, I thought it was pretty pointless, but after some thought, it does have merit. This helps split up the type by the campaign they're in. I'm thinking perhaps "Tyrian collectors" should exist too, and perhaps deleting "Collectors" altogether. Same thing for all the other NPC types. It's for long-term benefit too, when chapter 3 comes along. What I'm wondering is whether Anet would continue to introduce new continents for each new campaign. It's altogether possible for them to reuse the Tyrian continent for something else. Perhaps we could use the campaign name as a prefix instead, like "Prophecies collectors", "Factions collectors", and "Nightfall collectors". Or maybe make it shorter, like "Collectors (Ch1)", "Collectors (Ch2)", etc. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Or should we just stick to lumping all NPCs into a particular type? --Ab.Er.Rant 04:34, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

I support the format: "Collectors (Prophecies)". See the unsuccessiful discussion I tried to start regarding whether it should be prefix or suffix at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting#the untouched question: Prefix vs Suffix as well as an older vote specifically on on suffix format at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting#Vote on suffix -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 05:24, 9 July 2006 (CDT)
Ok... so how has your crusade gone? :) I suppose I'm obligated to wait a couple of days before starting to filter out the NPC types into X (Prophecies) and X (Factions) :P --Ab.Er.Rant 06:26, 9 July 2006 (CDT)
It also kinda led to the question of how much we want to go... I think limiting this suffix to the NPC type is enough for now, since that's the only place where a suffix identifying the campaign an NPC belongs to is important. Having a suffix for species, professions, and organizations might be overkill. --Ab.Er.Rant 06:52, 9 July 2006 (CDT)
I thought I was done with the crusade as far as the articles cagetories I cared about (armor, skills etc). My crusade wasn't going around and split things, but going around and rename things that got split. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:02, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

NPC area[]

In addition to the previous issue that not much people have commented on (the prefix/suffix thingy), let me highlight another one. Apaprently, most, if not all, the new NPC articles for Factions uses one of area/location/region/mission categories. I actually removed it such categories from most of the Tyrian NPC articles. If anybody thinks that such categories are only logical and proper (which I don't think so, due to some NPCs appearing in too many places), then may I suggest that we suffix it with "NPCs"? Like "Category:Wajjun Bazaar NPCs" rather than just "Wajjun Bazaar". The former helps filter out all NPCs into a subcategory. The latter only manages to produce a mixed category. Also, please help define the rules for location categories if that is your preference. Or maybe I will... if enough people think that some sort of location or region category is preferable. --Ab.Er.Rant 01:39, 10 July 2006 (CDT)

I do not see the need to filter all NPCs into a subcategory. Mixed category is fine. But if you want to rename the mixed category to something more specific (but remains fixed), I have nothing against that. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 07:59, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
Well, one of the my reasons for splitting off the NPCs was because of the splitting off of the bosses, it just makes for an easier lookup and reference. Why are bosses placed into a subcategory? Because they allow skill capture? The same thing can be said of NPCs, they are all non-hostile. It helps when you want to, say, add something standard to all NPC pages, or like the previous need to add skill icons to all bestiary pages.\
A special case in point are NPCs who are also bosses. It could be confusing if a particular boss is both "Humans" and a "Human Bosses", but other "Human Bosses" are not in "Humans". If there was an NPC subcategory, this this special case of a "Human Bosses" would also not be in "Humans" but in "Human NPCs" instead... but I know, it's just mostly some nitpicking on my side. --Ab.Er.Rant @ User:Aberrant80 (msg) 00:32, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
Actually, I'm not thinking about issues with Human NPCs. I'm thinking about Wajuun Bazaar NPCs vs the rest of the Wajuun Bazaar category. I don't think it necessary to sub-divide locational categories. As for the Human NPCs issue, I think NPCs should simply be sub-divided by funcitonality, and not intersect with the species category tree at all. I don't think it matters in terms of categorization if an armor crafter is a dwarf, tengu, or human. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:40, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
Hmm... good point regarding the pointlessness of categorising NPC race. Same thing with profession categorisation too I suppose. I'll mull it over. But regarding location, do you think it's important for there to be location categories? Maybe instead of trying to list all locations, I just realised we could just list the locations where the NPC is there permanently. That is, the NPC is always found there, unless some quest or mission is happening. Special appearances to be listed under the location section only. Hmmm.... now's that seems like a good idea. :D --Ab.Er.Rant @ User:Aberrant80 (msg) 09:12, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
How about treating quests as an "area" itself, so special appearances are filed under respective quests and not location, and only use locations to file regular appearances? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 20:12, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
I assume by "file" you're referring to the sections, and not the categories. So... it'll be something like "*[[Some Special Quest]] (in Area A and Area B)"? Hmm.... it would cut down on the number of "if so-and-so quest is active".
Also, henchmen won't have any location categories I suppose, since there'll be too many.
And what about organizations? I suppose they aren't really a useful category either... hmm... big turnaround for the guidelines. --Ab.Er.Rant @ User:Aberrant80 (msg) 22:13, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
sorry by file I meant categorization. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:23, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Oh... I initially thought you meant categorization too but discarded for being a bit weird. You see, if quests become categories.... wouldn't there be alot of small categories? Each of the quest categories would probably only include like 2 or 3 articles. And NPCs involved in alot of quests would still have a long list of categories (like Master Togo and Devona). I suppose this would allow certain items or bosses to be placed under a quest category, but... hmmm... --Ab.Er.Rant @ User:Aberrant80 (msg) 02:35, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Go ahead and scratch that thought then d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 09:49, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

a note on NPC skill bar listing[]

If an NPC appears multipe times, especially with different levels, and especially with different levels, then the skill bar should be checked and marked explicitly to say this NPC always carry certain skill, or only carry this skill at this appearances etc etc. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 06:16, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

By organization[]

Ok ok, I know this is really silly but I think I'll just re-add the organization categories. I guess I was a bit naive on the sheer number of NPC articles that already has it... I 'll just reword the guidelines to wrap around it. It's just probably only logical to group by organization. Sorry Tetris and whoever else created the original categories that I signalled for removal. Some of these would be Category:Shining Blade since they're all not hostile, but others would be like Category:Stone Summit NPCs, to separate them from the normal bestiary category. --Ab.Er.Rant @ User:Aberrant80 (msg) 18:35, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

Profession trainer or Profession Trainer?[]

"Profession Trainer" currently redirects to "Profession trainer", which is apparently the correct name, since it's consistent with the "use lower case" policy. So it kinda indicates that the Profession Trainers category needs to be renamed as well. Unfortunately, we also have "Skill Trainers" and "Armor Crafters", both of which are also not in-game terms. Is it better to just ignore the policy and stick to the current capitalization (meaning changing the direction of Profession Trainer redirect) or have a capitalization scheme consistent with the policy (which also means an inconsistent capitalization when actually viewing Category:NPCs by type)?

Many of the NPC categories were created (mostly by myself) with capitals at a time when GW:ULC wasn't as widely acknowledged and enforced yet. Later I realized that they should be lowercase, but was simply too lazy to fix all the categories. Feel free to go ahead and fix it while you're at it. Unless you finally got bored with NPC categories that is. ;) --Tetris L 03:52, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Weaponsmith formatting[]

Hi all. Can you please take a moment to have a look over what I've done at Weaponsmith/Legend, Arthur Ayala/Weapons, Arthur Ayala and Weaponsmiths (Prophecies). The formatting of the weaponsmith's tables has been bugging me for a while, this is my attempt to clean it up and include a bit more info. I realise though that it's a pretty big change and should be discussed - I just thought it'd be easier to show what I have in mind than try to describe it. Please post your comments here, if there's nothing negative I'll see about updating the other smiths over the next few weeks. --NieA7 13:39, 17 December 2006 (CST)

Awesome. Keep the legend specific to each crafter imo, he only offers melee stuff so there isn't much sense in keeping the caster references (edit, oh, its in a template, never mind then, he's in the minority) — Skuld 13:44, 17 December 2006 (CST)
Yeah, he's a bit of a non-representative smith to start on, but it's often the freaks that show whether a style will work or not. Plus I wanted to pick somebody who won't be looked at all that much. It took me a while to get my head around templates but having had a fight with the unique and crafted quick references I've come round to the idea, they save a hell of a lot of time if done right. My only concern with this one is that it's kinda long compared to the rest of the smith article... --NieA7 13:58, 17 December 2006 (CST)
It looks really great! But I'm just wondering if the legend for the short-form names of attributes necessary. Can we not just use the full attribute name in the table? That would cut away the need for the legend; making it sort of a vertical vs. horizontal spacing. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 20:16, 17 December 2006 (CST)
Even if the attribute names went we'd still need the colour key and the Dmg/HCT/HSR bit. I'm not absolutely convinced it's necessary (and it's only going to get longer as the Nightfall smiths offer weapons for all 8 professions), but I don't want to include the full length attribute names in the table either - part of what I'm trying to do is get the tables as small as possible so they'll work OK for people browsing at medium/low resolution. What I'd really like to do is get the smith tables consistent with the collector/smith/unique quick reference tables (e.g. Elementalist unique items quick reference (Prophecies)), but as one smith makes all weapon types it's a bit more complex than weapons by profession. --NieA7 04:13, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Hi again. I've thought about it for a while, and I agree that the formatting could be cut down a little. I've hacked it up a bit and come up with a new scheme at the old places (Weaponsmith/Legend, Arthur Ayala/Weapons, Arthur Ayala and Weaponsmiths (Prophecies)), and, to show what it'd look like on a "perfect" weaponsmith, Mathilde. Instead of "Mod 1" and "Mod 2" in the table I've gone for "Inscription" and "Mod", on the grounds that the innate effects of Factions and Prophecies weapons are identical to inscriptions - better to be consistent between campaigns (it only really matters on the ones with blank inscription slots, which only occur in Nightfall anyway). Let me know if you think it's an improvement. --NieA7 17:25, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Speak now or forever hold your peace... --NieA7 12:41, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Looks good except I'd prefer the staves to be on one line or all to be on two. It looks kind of smushed at the top or too spread out at the bottom. - BeXoR Bexor.png 13:25, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Well I want to get the table as narrow as possible for people browsing at lower resolutions, so if anything it'd be all on (at least) 2 lines. Only other things that could be split (looking at Mathilde) are bits like "Dmg +15%, AR -10 (while attacking)" and the materials, but if they go to one line each some of them could end up being 3 lines deep. Suggestions? --NieA7 18:46, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Maybe shorten it to "En". Then it's only adding 1 or 2 characters to the width. - BeXoR Bexor.png 02:35, 29 December 2006 (CST)
Ack, I've really let this slide, sorry. I've just moved house and don't have a decent net connection yet, so it'll be another week or so until I can get any real work done on this. Apologies for the delay, if anybody is waiting. --NieA7 10:45, 12 January 2007 (CST)

New comments on this are at Talk:Arthur_Ayala/Weapons#Change_of_formatting. --◄mendel► 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up Devona and gang[]

As an effort to clean up the rather long and unwieldy articles on Devona and gang (splits were suggested but didn't receive much positive responses), I've whipped this up: [1]. It's still a work-in-progress, particularly with the treatment of dialogue and quotes, but I would appreciate feedback. Still too cluttered? Confusing tables? Too edit-unfriendly? Move all the dialogue and quotes to the bottom of the page before the notes? --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 05:34, 20 December 2006 (CST)


Pretty much all of the collectors are a mess. I'll work on a template for them and post it here when I'm done. - BeXoR Bexor.png 04:52, 22 December 2006 (CST)

Why don't we do the collectors and weapon smiths together? They fundamentally offer the same kind of thing after all, it'd just need a very slight tweak in the layouts. --NieA7 05:36, 22 December 2006 (CST)
I've got a template up here User:Bexor/Collectors but it's pretty messy and I want help. :P I've never actually edited an armor crafter's article, so I don't know how similar they are. I spent today editing a lot of Collector articles, so that's why I feel this is necessary. Even if it doesn't get added to the site, just having a guideline up to conform the articles so that when people create new ones based off the old ones there aren't as many discrepancies as there are now. - BeXoR Bexor.png 06:36, 22 December 2006 (CST)
Actually, it's not messy at all. I think you've hit upon an idea here. I keep trying to trim the NPC s&f but just don't feel like there's much to trim. Rather than trim, I think we could conceivably split it so that the templates for the different types can be put up. As for collectors being similar to smiths, I suppose some middle ground could be achieved. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 08:17, 22 December 2006 (CST)
If you want to edit it, please do. :) - BeXoR Bexor.png 08:44, 22 December 2006 (CST)
Now moved to GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Collectors. - BeXoR Bexor.png 21:32, 23 December 2006 (CST)


I'd say those headings should be lowercase, not because of the bestiary but because headings shouldn't ever be in title case. --Fyren 19:25, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm ok with it. It's just that when I first tried to standardise the case for titles, I was told not to (can't remember where it was, long time ago), solely because it would then make most existing pages inconsistent with the S&F. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer (msg Aberrant80) 19:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


I'm reformatting the Factions and Nightfall armorer articles using a denser table.

Style Type Profession
Warrior Ranger Monk Necromancer Mesmer Elementalist Assassin Ritualist
Canthan armor Body armor 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k
Headgear1 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k - 1k 1k
Auras Headgear2 - - - - - 1k - -
  1. Excluding "no attribute" headgear.
  2. Excluding Elementalist's Aura.

-- Gordon Ecker 21:53, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

It's done. -- Gordon Ecker 00:11, 25 June 2007 (CDT)