Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Location formatting

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Listing events[edit]

The {{event}} template will output an event in proper format ^^--Relyk ~ talk > 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I know simple success/failure/multiple indents etc can never completely reflect the sometimes complex chains but, does this look any good User:Claret/Sandbox? It's a replacement for what we have and do but, hopefully, looks better. Thanks. Corrected to show link. I am not sure if a further indent may be better to make the items stand out?? --Claret 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't like it, the event success icon is used for events that can succeed or fail, one event follows another event if it can only be completed. That's why I don't really like the icon being used in the infobox when an event simply follows another event. You can be explicit with a Redirect Arrow.png chain icon, as it follows a "chain" function similar to skill chains, but I find the indenting is enough and allows us to keep the presentation cleaner.--Relyk ~ talk > 03:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
One of my ideas was to get rid of the Success/Failure parts of the list. Anyone else got a comment? --Claret 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Spacer images are soooo last decade. This all arose from when I mentioned that using dl structure (instead of the current ul structure) caused some large margins to be applied to the entries. All we need to do is figure out how to fix those margins in CSS, we don't need overly complicated layouts like this. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's because I am so last decade myself. Not being a CSS/HTML programmer, I fiddle my way through as best I can. Personally, it's the effect I was after without it being an "up-to-the-minute" coding example. --Claret 19:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I like the arrows that Claret has provided. Green arrow to indicate the event occurs upon success of the preceding event, red arrow to indicate the event occurs upon failure of the preceding event, and NO arrow for when an event occurs with success AND failure of the preceding event (unless a 'both' icon can be created). But what about when we get something like this:
If we just use the arrows, how could this be indicated? --MushaUser Musha Sigc.png 18:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
About 6 months and a bit ago, there was some indenting but the "success"/"failure" has crept in together with a variable degree of indenting and the like. Some like bulleting a list which typically leads with an icon, others have suggested to not bullet. As for using the {{event success}} etc, it was not received well when first suggested. Despite this, some have used it. The accepted way seems that if an event is going to chain anyway, it's a success, a request/suggestion for a "continue" option was said to be unnecessary. As for your example, I can't think of an easy iconic way to represent it, either with indents/bullets or icons. Maybe for some things, text is best. An example I wrote a while ago is at User:Claret/Sandbox although the multiple arrows were not there as I had a temporary blank icon (pooh-poohed as a bad thing) which is now gone. Personally, if I come across zones/areas that use the icons then I will continue that, otherwise I will use the "usual" way. --Claret (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Or both text and the arrows. Maybe something like:
Event boss (tango icon).png [Group Event] Destroy the effigy before it reaches the Victory Cenotaph (8)
Talk more option tango red.png Event shield (tango icon).png Protect the engineers repairing the Victory Cenotaph (8)
Either of the 2 preceding events: Talk more option tango.png Event boss (tango icon).png Kill the veteran lava shaman (8)
I also like removing the bullets, but keeping the indents on follow-up events. --MushaUser Musha Sigc.png 18:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. My main problem is the "extra" line in


  • aaa
    • bbb
I think that extra empty line looks "wrong" in the situation of the event lists. <Waits for someone to point out obvious solution> --Claret (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even notice it did that, but yeah, that does look wrong. --MushaUser Musha Sigc.png 19:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Map completion help[edit]

synopsis: should the wiki provide copy/paste-able chat codes for every WP & POI, to make it easier for players to unlock them, en route to completing maps?

I wonder if this wiki might be able to provide a substantive method for helping people complete individual maps without having to manually compare the in-game world map to one on this website (or some other). I got the idea when assisting a guildie find a missing WP by systematically sending links to all the waypoints I had. This worked really well: the guildie was able to click on the link & could instantly see whether it was uncovered or not. Two problems: it depends on knowing someone with map completion and it's very time consuming for the person creating the links (since the world map closes each time you link, you have to repeatedly navigate).

Instead, I thought it might be possible to decode the chat codes for each linkable icon on the map and put them in a table somewhere on the page for the zones. Ideally, the codes would be linked directly to an article for each POI/WP, so that we could use SMW and/or DPL to auto-generate tables of codes, e.g. one table format for an article about zone X, but another format for the map completion article.

There are three distinct issues about bringing this to the wiki:

  1. Should the wiki do this? I think so, but perhaps others disagree.
  2. Is it possible to decode the links so that we can provide a copy/paste-able text?
  3. If the answer is yes to the above, how should we present such data?

Maybe we can use this section just to address the first two questions (should we do it? can we do it?) and come back to the style/formatting question only if there's consensus to move forward. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The first two points are already being discussed, actually. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 17:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Area Questions[edit]

I wished to clarify a few issues that I ran across, and ask a few general questions.

General Area[edit]

In the "foes" part, some pages have animals broken down into races, like deer and boars, others are just listed as animals. I have been trying to break down foes into groups that relate to the "slayer" title. Before I just lump foes into animals, I wanted other folks opinion. (This is not consistent even in my own edits, I think perhaps a list of acceptable foe types would be helpful, and I will make if wanted)

Animals and "critters" which is now ambient creatures say not to link, I notice the animal page needs a rewrite but the ambient creature one is ok, I wished to edit this guide to reflect the change from critter and also to link, but again before editing on a "guide" page, I need other's input.

Points of Interest[edit]

Some POI's are easy to describe and enter info, like a fort for example. I would enter everything found within it's walls. Some like Mosstide Walfts I really have no clue, the poi on my map is on top of a small rise overlooking a pond. The pond has an event in it, does this event take place at this poi? (as a rule of thumb, I have been using aggro range if I'm unsure but maybe some one else has other ideas)Yoe Dude (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Events don't "start" or "take place" in points of interest. If they overlap in the vicinity of a poi (aggro range is good) or you can argue they are related, go head and add it to the poi article. No hard rules for it so go wild.--Relyk ~ talk > 04:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yet another can of worms I should not have opened. I made my "list" for foes and now I have more problems, mainly Branded and Destroyers , but also things like Canines. Sadly I have most of my slayer titles so these do not show up for me so I can't verify this. I looked at most of the pages I could find but no clue. Here's my Chart, hope it helps. Yoe Dude (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
;[[Ambient creature]]s               <!--Critters-->
* [[<Enemy name>]]

;[[Animal]]s                         <!--Boars, Deer and the like-->
* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

;[[Flame Legion]]
* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

;[[Nightmare Court]]
* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

;[[Risen]]                           <!--Zhaitan's Bane-->
* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

;[[Son of Svanir]]
* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

;[[Wind Rider]]
* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)

* [[<Enemy name>]] (<levels>)
Listing NPCs for a nebulously-defined Point of Interest (most of them) that completely overlaps with an area's list of NPCs seems like doubling up on information for little gain, and potentially creating unnecessary headaches. And yes, how to classif creatures by type/affiliation/race/family created years of huge discussions and many edits to pages on GW1W, to little benefit for users. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 01:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Final changes for location formatting[edit]

I added a point of interest template and I hope this new part meets every-ones approval. Please comment here if there needs to be changes to this. I am nearing completion of Ascalon and I wish to go back and make all pages in that zone conform with these guidelines. Two event issues remain:

1. Events on POI's.
I can argue that Defend Foewatch Encampment takes place at Foewatch Encampment POI and there are many events of this type that would apply. Should this be added into the the description like Atrox Castrum or as a separate category like above example?
2. Events on Areas.
A recent change turned ===Events=== into ;Events. I may have missed the discussion about this change so I wish to confirm this. Personally I prefer the old way, the font was slightly larger and it made a division in the "table of contents" near the top of the page. The new way just blends in. Yoe Dude (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that I have a vested interest in the semicolon version. Firstly, I have altered a large number to be that way, secondly, I genuinely think it looks better in that the subdivisions of ==Locations and objectives== are all at the same level, or should we separate out the Renown Hearts? They are just as much deserving of more prominence. I kind of hope that we'll leave it as it is. The idea of using ;/: lists was that bullets were not needed if you used icons for each line item. The "approval" for the format I use was tacit in that I used a "what do you think about that" and was given approval from several of the more active members of the wiki
As to your template for POIs, I think it very much depends on what kind of poi we are talking about. If it's a fort or camp within an area then by all means give it the NPCs etc treatement and your template works fine for that. Other POIs have no "range". These should just be mentioned with minimal detail. Don't forget, that we "should", as far as I know, list NPCs etc inside the area even if they are listed inside the poi.
Events should be restricted to areas at the lowest location type but again, I guess, they could be repeated inside some POIs but personally I don't see the point. We are in the danger of over duplication and each time you duplicate, you increase the maintenance requirements and room for error in failing to maintain. That's one of the things I like about {{area events}}, it reduces the room for error at one level. Events are, usually at least, things that happen inside areas. Not always by any means, I agree, but they tend to be defined by the their area(s), not their POIs. As always, my opinion. --Claret (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The L&O section lists both map completion targets and dynamic events. I preferred having a subheader (rather than a ; line) for Events, since this distinguished them from map completion. Perhaps having a subheader for each would be best; we could even expand it to have a subheading for exploration achievements that are not part of map completion (dungeons/bosses/puzzles/etc.).
I have in my mind the complete newb for who this wiki would be most useful. When I started editing I was firmly told that events were part of L&O. If so then they belong with them and I see no great reason to treat them differently than, say, hearts. If you want to seperate them out as non-map completion items then it kinda defeats grouping them with the others. Maybe you're arguing for ==Map completion== and ==Events==. There's some virtue in writing stuff that way but it would mean a tremendous rewrite of what we have. We're restricted practically by what's there unless someone wants to 'bot something. I am interested to see what other comments there are. --Claret (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A further comment, it was not disagreed what the current format should be used when it was proposed. It strikes me that there are many other items of greater priority that look bad and are confusing without arguing too deeply over minor stylistic ideas. OTOH I seem to be the one doing most of the arguing. <wry smile at self>. Anyways, it's a wiki so anyone can, within reason, edit things the way they want. If someone wants to try another new layout then why not? It may work out better. --Claret (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't argue against the no-subheader format because it wasn't important enough to me to warrant a discussion. Now that Yoe has opened discussion, though, I'm discussing it.
What I'm proposing is:
== Locations and objectives ==
=== Map completion ===
; Hearts
: ...

; Waypoints 
: ...

; Vistas
: ...

=== Exploration ===
; Dungeons
: ...

; Jumping puzzles
: ...

=== Events ===
{{area events}}
No substantive changes, just changing ; Events back to === Events === and inserting 2 other subheaders. This delineates the information in a very clear fashion: here's what is required for 100% map, next here's what else will get you achievements, and finally here's all the stuff that randomly happens. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's not substantive when you have not already done large numbers manually <sigh>. Let's see if anyone else has comments. --Claret (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Another thing, whatever is decided, it certainly will not be "final". Before too long some other bright spark - who knows, it might be me - will have yet another brilliant idea necessitating yet another change or, more likely, another variant of area pages. --Claret (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Great imput! I do like the format that Dr. Ishmael is suggesting. As always this is a work in progress, I too think nothing here will be in stone for at least another year. But I do want my work to be helpful and consistent, which is the whole point of this post. I think that Claret and I may be the only two users that are working full time on cartography any more. Myself, I am not that comfortable in the "higher" wiki projects such as making templates and infobox changes, but am very capable in data entry. Getting this one area well defined improves the pages that I edit, and keeps my contributions within agreed practices, and improves the overall wiki experience for the general user. Yoe Dude (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't want to sound snippy but it was defined, you're trying to redefine it. I honestly think we need a bit more input before we change things. I have no objection to Ishmael's format per se but I just wish he had taken the time to make the points before I took the time and trouble to do what I did. It's disheartening if this is the way people are to go.
There's still no great comment as to your suggestions/template for POIs and what quite to include in them. Any thoughts?
These things should be discussed a bit more or someone else will find that there work is wasted. Three people don't make a consensus. --Claret (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Accepted consensus changes over time. We're having a discussion right now that may change the consensus. We didn't have this discussion earlier because... well, we didn't have the discussion earlier. There's nothing wrong with that. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I know it does, IRL as well as on this wiki. But my point is that three people don't make a consensus, not by any meaning of the word that I have come across. I know this isn't a democracy, but a couple of more people commenting might be nice. --Claret (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is an agreement reached by all people involved. It doesn't matter if that's 3 or 300; we can't wait forever on additional input if no one else is interested. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This proposal has really not been up for discssion very long, less than eight hours over a public holiday period. Three people have contributed to the discussion. Previous discussions around this topic have attracted more than three people. There has been far too little time to allow for a reasonable chances of discussion. And again, there has been no real discussion regarding the POI proposal. Let people come back from the public holidays and then see if they are not interested or just doing other real life stuff. If someone is away for a week then fair enough but less than 24 hours??? If I am over interpreting what you are saying, sorry. --Claret (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Chill out, geez. I never said "IMPLEMENT THIS NAO!" —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said, "If I am over interpreting what you are saying, sorry." It's very difficult in pure textual communications to get a sense of what a stranger is actually and really saying to you. The Internet is full of these misinterpretations and the all too common reactions to them. In face to face communication, tone of voice and other body language modifies the words. Maybe it's me, I don't like pure text. This is why. --Claret (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Ishmael's suggestion is more a conglomeration of previous discussion. I would have to scan through discussion, but splitting into map completion objectives, other stuff, and a section for events has been discussed at sometime, just not much for presentation. It's a simple change that works better than not having sections, so I don't see why we wouldn't implement it very soon.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It may be a conglomeration of previous discussions but I was told some while ago, quite categorically, that events were part of L&O and what an idiot I was for suggesting otherwise. Still, as was said, people change their minds. As I also said, I just wish that this had been suggested when I suggested the previous format change, especially as it seems to have been on the people's minds. It certainly has not been discussed on the this page but then I can't know what pages Location formatting should be or is discussed on. Simplistically I would have thought here but I guess that's my naivety. I would be interested to know where I should look for such discussions. --Claret (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion keeps events as part of L&O, I'm not sure what exactly you have a problem with. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

+Don't worry about editing/undoing hundreds of pages to restore formatting, as long as the change is mechanical, its very simple to AWB it into position. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

^The only person using AWB--Relyk ~ talk < 23:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Problem (1) - there has been discussions on the formatting of L&O apparently but somewhere else than the discussion page where it may be reasonably expected to be (2) That a format was put up for discussion a relatievely short while ago, asked for comments, and, despite there having been such a discussion, no-one could be bothered to say so. When you ask for comments, you reasonably expect for people to make them, or is that not the way things work? (3) If you were aware of the contradictory advice/instruction that I have received, some by email, some on pages, you would be surprised. It's hugely confusiong as so many of the "explanations" make assumptions of prior knowledge of discussions that are in obscure corners of the wiki. (4) The rest would be even more of a rant and so I'll omit it as no-one is interested. Anyway, whatever AWB is - I have no idea - I am a contributor not a programmer then hopefully my work will not be wasted. --Claret (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
(now that the vector css is back to normal...) Although the subdivisions make logical sense, I think the additional 2 headings from dr ish look a bit heavy. Also, I assume losing the icons was deliberate? (if so, no icons in the lists? or bullets or what xD) -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 00:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's pseudo-code. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Look at User:Claret/Sandbox5 which has Ishmael's idea on it, comments on that. I tend to agree with the Chieftain that the headings look a bit heavy but <shrug> it's not the end of the world. --Claret (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at the sandbox page, and now I'm not as sure as I thought I was just looking at the template, it does look a little heavy, maybe if they were linked? no clue, I think I'll drop my suggestion to change how events are formatted... Yoe Dude (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I also looked at the current edit of this talk page's page. There are some changes to what I posted for the POI template and I'm not sure if I agree with them. Removing Crafting Resources. While I agree there may not be a node at any POI I know there are bulk sellers and perhaps crafting stations. These lines should be on the template with delete if not needed. Changing Environmental Weapons to Bundles. Bundles may be the correct game mechanic format, but on the wiki it re-directs to EW. Or this change should also be on the area template. NOTE I am not discussing bundles. Yoe Dude (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

All mentions of environmental weapons need to be changed to bundle. It's more suitable for a bot to go through and do so.--Relyk ~ talk < 01:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Event and heart dependent spawns in NPC lists[edit]

I don't see anything explicitly stating one way or the other, should NPCs that only spawn in an area during an event or when certain actions are taken as part of a heart task be listed? I don't believe many areas list such currently. If they should, would a parenthetical "only during X" be appropriate? Some heart and event names can be very long, making these lists a bit unwieldy. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not come across too many but I use (during event only) but, so far, it's obvious which event is referred to. --Claret (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

NPC ranks[edit]

I asked a friend of mine for input on something and he mentioned something I agree on: A way to see the veteran/champion status of a foe without having to click each individual link. Thoughts? --Sacropedia (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What individual links on what location articles? The list of foes on the area articles?--Relyk ~ talk < 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Lists of foes aren't generated automatically, they're directly edited. You could easily tag them with "(champion)" or "(veteran)" after the link (assuming they don't already have "Champion" or "Veteran" in their name). —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
@Relyk, yes, the list of Foes on any page with a list of Foes under NPCs. @Ish, point of my comment was to see if anyone else shared my (&my friend's) sentiment of making this rank-tagging standard practice, like, everywhere. (Idle thought: A nice icon could solve this neatly, but might not be possible.) If I wasn't short on time earlier I would've added more info, sorry about the confusion. (Idle thought: To think I ended up with this when all I wanted was to fix personal storyline pages. xD) --Sacropedia (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there an in-game icon for veteran? We could possibly use a smaller version of that in a template and throw those up next to names. -Auron 13:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly an icon, but there are different "borders" around the target's headshot in the selected-target bar. These are described on NPC rank. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Map objective tallies[edit]

I'm thinking the regions and Tyria should display the total tallies for objectives in the infobox and map completion display the tallies for locations whose children contribute to map completion.--Relyk ~ talk < 08:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Veteran Locations[edit]

I noticed that several pages, mostly lower level zones, have a Veteran section on their page, but I see nothing for that in the format. Is there any particular reason why there is a section for Veterans on certain pages? - Doodleplex 18:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It may be a remnant from when there used to be a Veteran Slayer daily? --Cali (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me as the pages who have it put it there quite a long time ago. I don't see any purpose to leaving it up anymore unless somebody objects. - Doodleplex 20:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Position of the Ambient dialogue within a page[edit]

moved from User_talk:Louise#Ambient_dialogue_moving
Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Location formatting#Area structure <- I've been following that which has ambient dialogue going under NPCs and resources being at the bottom. Not sure if there's something I didn't know about, and if that's the case, let me know. - Doodleplex 02:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've always believed it was the other way around. But, to be honest, I don't think it matters that much in which position it's placed in regards to a page. In my opinion, I think it looks more visually pleasing at the bottom and a better way to close out the page. I also don't really feel like going back to all those I edited lately and making the changes so unless somebody thinks it is that major of an issue, I will continue to place it at the bottom. [[User talk:Louise|<span style="font-family:Georgia; color:black; --|| Louise || 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)font-weight:normal">|| Louise ||]] 02:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree about the dialogue looking better lower down on the page, but I still prefer the resources at the bottom, since it's like that for zone and PoI pages. If you did that to a bunch of pages, don't worry about having to re-edit them, I have to go through a lot of area pages anyway to do interwiki stuff and link clean up. - Doodleplex 02:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you since we do not put ambient dialogue on neither zones nor PoI pages and I think that objects and resources should go together and jamming the ambient dialogue in-between really wouldn't look great. || Louise || 02:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps bring it up on the talk page for the template? If others agree with you, then the template should be changed, otherwise people will just switch it back to how the template is currently. - Doodleplex 02:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
" I think it looks more visually pleasing at the bottom and a better way to close out the page." I feel the opposite. Resource nodes feels like a better close, and people looking for them can just instantly scroll to the bottom rather than search the middle. Further, ambient dialogue directly relates to the NPCs so putting those two together makes sense (Objects go inbetween solely because of the similarity in listing between NPC and Object and how they're the same everywhere else). Further, Ambient dialogue evolved from dialogue, which is right after Objects in story instances, dungeon, fractal, and raid articles. Konig (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I do agree with the bit about Ambient dialogue being related and thus should be closer to the NPCs but the problem is that in certain areas, the list can get quite extensive so it would break the flow of the page in my opinion where, if put at the bottom, I feel like it could be considered like some extra optional read for those into that kind of stuff. || Louise || 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, I feel the opposite - that the resource node section breaks the flow, regardless of its (or the ambient dialogue section's) length, because of how different the topic is. Konig (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, having a large list of mostly minor dialogue between regular NPCs in the middle of the page is far more flow-breaking than a slight change of topics at the end of the page. The change in placement shouldn't really be that big of an issue since readers can still access the sections they are looking for via the ToC at the top of the page. But then again, those are our opinions so it would help if more were involved so we can get somewhere. || Louise || 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Was merely giving my view on the matter. If folks prefer your way then I'll go with it. However, since the majority of articles are already structured as it has been (ambient dialogue right after NPC/Objects), I'd prefer more voices added before we start changing how things are done. Konig (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As did I. I was only saying that it won't lead to much with only two opposing opinions weighing on the matter. As for your point, on the pages I've worked on lately, it's been pretty much 50/50 on the way it was applied. || Louise || 05:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not quite only two, I agree with Konig about the resources being on the bottom instead of the dialogue, it feels better, but I still don't quite like the dialogue up so high. - Doodleplex 05:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Louise, please stop moving the dialogue sections to the bottom, when first we wanted to wait for more opinions before doing anything, and second, so far the "majority" lean towards having the resources at the bottom, not the ambient dialogue. =c - Doodleplex 01:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Had a thought, like Konig mentioned above the layout for personal/Living World stories/dungeons, objects and NPCs are usually together, and the the dialogue is under the objects. So how about it like that for the location page, under objects but above resource nodes? That way the dialogue wouldn't be so high up, but still close to the NPCs? Also can we remove "Bulk ingredients" and "recipes" from that section on area pages? I've found less than 10 that that actually use bundle on area pages, as most of that stuff is from renown hearts so the area doesn't have it, they do, and that's only if the task is completed. - Doodleplex 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New PoF map items[edit]

Path of Fire introduced a handful of new icon'd items to maps:

  • Bounty Board
  • Mount (Raptor, Springer, Skimmer, Griffon at their respective "homes")
  • Griffon Roosts

Should we list these in the Locations table where they show up? (In Domain of Vabbi, for example.)

Further, with the expansions we've gotten both Infinite Hearts and Infinite Hero Challenges, with icons specific to the Infinite varieties. Should we use the Infinite icons where appropriate? This'd mean they'd need added to map icons. -Hindbrain (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Historical content[edit]

Is there a consensus about how to format content removed from areas? I was editing Gunbreach Hills today, and while looking for hints on how it's done for other areas, I found 2-3 different ways it's been done on various pages. Eg.:

I edited the second two now to Farshore Ward's format, as that seemed the tidiest, but it would be nice to know what is the right way to do it.

On a related note imho historical ambient dialogue would be better to have on pages called "/historical" instead of "/dialogue" so that other historical content could be moved to the same page, and we wouldn't have different subpages for essentially the same purpose. -- kazerniel (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)