Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Location formatting/Archive 1

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Apologies, I'm perhaps being greedy by stubbing this page out some, so that I can have a nice convenient spot to ask some general questions pretaining to locations. Torrenal 01:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated and clarified the text on the page to reflect the specific terminology in question. This is a necessary step to avoid confusion in what should be entered into parameters in the infoboxes. Moreover, I've split the section into two separate previews, one for Zones and one for Areas. These two will be the bulk of the pages consulted/created, and there is going to need some untangling as to what should be presented on each page type and how. I believe, and I believe others have expressed this as well, that there is simply too much content to be lumped all into one page. Therefore, organizing and agreeing on the general amount of information and the level of specificity respective to a pagetype, while finding useful and efficient ways of presenting that information, is key. Redshift 04:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


As I see it, regions currently break down into 4 broad categories, starting with conteinent, working down to region, zone, and sub-region. Or at least, those are my names for them, but I'm not known for smart names (Smitey Smite rod of Smiteyness?) so perhaps someone has already arrived at proper terms, or perhaps there are official ones we can use. Torrenal 01:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The agreed-upon terms can be found at Location :D. Redshift 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
that would... Make sense. Why didn't I think of that? Torrenal 15:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Zones: Event & Heart content

I've seen some inconsistency here, and I'm not entirely sure that some of what I have seen is well formatted (or perhaps I should say, the proper mix of content for the page). The Plains of Ashford, for example, just lists the events, no mention of the Renown Heart NPCs. The events listed primarily include events specific to those hearts. Wheras, the Blazeridge Steppes list the renown hearts and the general task, devoid of any event content (probably because nobody has recorded any yet)

My approach to the heart and event content would be to list the Renown Heart NPCs in one list, and only list hte NPC name & location. In a separate list have the events. By each event, list the Renown NPC, if it relates to that NPCs renown region, or the location the event either starts at (escort events) or primarily takes place at (for foray events). Anyone seeking more information on the event or Renown NPC can click links to get the full details, and I don't see the location page as needing to do anything more specific than a 'this is where it is' statement. Torrenal 01:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We should figure out if these are really crucial to the page, and if tables would benefit us... for example, having a table with columns for event name, level, area, type, etc. that would be sortable. The thing about listing hearts is that if we are listing hearts, then what about skill challenges? If we are listing 3 of the 4 map completion goals, then what about PoIs? These considerations are sort of tied into any more specific content and I do think need to be addressed simultaneously, if not first. Oops. Redshift 11:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For a zone, i would expect that anything needed for completion would be listed in the zone page. That's waypoints, PoI, Skill Challenges, and Hearts. I hear also that each zone has a resource farm, which I would expect to see listed, and it looks like each zone has a location for crafting which I could see getting mention as well. The catch I see is that much of the longer lists (waypoints) creates a lot of verticle content... Which may not use horizontal room. Tables? We could use them, but would the tables be anything more than one or two columns wide? Options: sub pages, say one page just for PoI content of the map. Pre-collapsed lists. Lists that span multiple columns. Might be other ways, but I think if we need it for 100% of the map, it should be in the page directly. Torrenal 15:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Waypoints don't need their own separate section in a Zone page; they're well covered via Locations. What I would suggest for consideration is covering Locations, Waypoints, and Points of Interest in one table or some more horizontal format. We already have some sub-pages in functional practice to what you're talking about; the Renown Heart#List of hearts by region and skill challenge pages are already like that. Is there another format that you were thinking of?
As for resource farms and crafts, etc, what about a section for 'Services and resources'? Or separately so, since the resource spawn points seem to be stable? Redshift 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Going to start a new topic for the services and such. As for event & heart content, it's more a case of 'not liking what I've seen to date' than anything. As most events are linked to hearts, I am interested in combining the two into a single list, without explicitly mentioning exact locations for either -- by drilling into the Renown NPC or the event, the user can obtain precise location details, and we avoid cluttering the page. Torrenal 19:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting approach; I'm not sure if I have an idea of how it would actually look like, however, and I think that if we wanted to list them the utility of any such listings in the Zone page would be diminished if we didn't make them sortable at least by area. Otherwise, it risks becoming a block of text that will simply be skimmed over—the location component for events will be pretty key. I would probably suggest soliciting more feedback on this, since I would think it's a pretty crucial decision to the development of these pages. Redshift 22:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thinking on it, some hearts do have several linked quests (repair the mill, defend the mill, foray out from the mill...), so I suppose a single area can have multiple events. I was thinking more along the lines of a '1 area, 1 event, 1 heart' structure, which plainly doesn't work. My biggest concern here is winding up with a big block of text without structure, and the event names as we have them now (long wordy sentences) do not help for small structured blocks of text. :S. That said, many of the events are either directly or indirectly linked to hearts -- At a bare minimum I would like to link Hearts to their events. At the same time, I realize not all events can be tied back to a heart. This poses a page structure problem. We've got two unique lists (hearts & events), want to show where they intersect, but not all the items on either list intersect. Torrenal 02:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the wild, wild world of wiki ;). I think relating the hearts and events together might be too complex for the zone page—I might recommend that for what's already being done in practice for the nascent Heart pages where they're listed as contributing events (and something likely likewise for the Event pages). Redshift 02:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hearts are a necessary component of map completion and should be presented in a concise list. Events are separate from map completion, and I'm having trouble seeing how any attempt to combine them into the list of hearts will be anything but confusing. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Splitting them is the way to go. Since there are "List of hearts by region" pages, would it be more consistent to have "List of events by region" pages? -- User Sig.png 10:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


Would we benefit from table formatting some of these sections proposed, such as making the locations a little more horizontal and less vertical? What about events or hearts? Would these pages become unnecessarily large and navigation unfriendly, or would they be more efficient and useful? Redshift 04:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. Even if it's just 2 columns, the page would simply look better. -- User Sig.png 10:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking of a table with just 3 columns: Area, Waypoint, Character Levels. That's it. Additional information could potentially be no. of PoIs, Vistas, and Skill Challenges (either as a numerical count or a simple yes/no icon), but I'm not sure how useful these extras will be. Any player looking to complete their map won't be looking at the wiki to find what they missed - they'll be looking at the in-game map. So too much information is kind of pointless. We could probably do something similar for the "Events" section too. -- User Sig.png 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, @Redshift, apparently you've had drafts like User:Redshift/Sandbox/Ex9 a long time ago! I like 'em! Any particular reason why they weren't implemented? I have mixed feelings about the infobox, but I'd say the layout and section structure trumps what we have at the moment. -- User Sig.png 14:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


Where do waypoints fit in the hierarchy? They are more important to me (for navigation purposes) than PoI, which are basically just names that I cannot find as easily on the map. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For navigational purposes and completion they are indeed important, but in a hierarchy that's simply discussing locations, I'm not sure that they are present as they are more an object and not a specific 'place.' If they were to be included, they would probably be last, since a point of interest could be theoretically housed inside a point of interest--a PoI is certainly greater in size than a Waypoint. Redshift 11:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
by all means list them. I was thinking more along the lines of 'types of location that get unique pages'. I'm not sure waypoints will have enough content with each to merit unique pages. Torrenal 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm similarly not of the opinion that an individual waypoint merits its own page—like some of the other completion goals, at the moment tables and lists will serve just fine. Redshift 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that most PoIs are more interesting than most WPs — in GW2, they are both formal terms referring to a point on the map (a POI cannot exist inside another POI). I think we are reifying POIs as if they are synonymous with "landmark," for example, the Mystic Plaza PoI is a point on the map (and an item for completing LA's map achievement) that is located in the center of Mystic Plaza, which is the relevant location/landmark. I think Mystic Plaza deserves an article, but Mystic Plaza POI does not.
However, I am not willing to argue the principle against the snowballing consensus. So I ask instead that we ensure that WPs are included in articles as the central tool for navigation and orientation, e.g. in infoboxes. They don't need their own article, but they are fundamental: I don't know anyone who gives directions by mentioning POIs; folks describe the nearest WP and/or the landmark (which often matches the POI, but not quite always.). For example, crafters in DivReach are located near Commons WP and people refer to that as "the crafter area" (I don't know think anyone knows that area is formally called Dwayna Low Road). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I think some clarification might be in order—the original purpose of the brief locations breakdown was to reiterate/recap the community consensus for those who had missed the conversation here. This is here on the location formatting page because there has been historically a lot of looseness in the terms 'region,' 'area,' 'location,' etc. in how they relate to each other—particularly in terms of scale—and the later defining of these terms is reflected in a couple of our go-to infoboxes and their parameters/explanations. The 'hierarchy' is thus related to locations in terms of size and focused on their location-related context. Following that, again, Waypoints were not included as, in my mind, they were more considered objects. That was the only reasoning—I certainly don't mean to imply that waypoints are irrelevant or that they should be stripped out of the location articles (and do agree that they are extremely useful in navigating instructions). :) Hopefully this helps to set thing aright? Redshift 18:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
On reflection, Waypoints do merit explicit mention in the formatting page, if only to state that they do NOT receive independent articles. Torrenal 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking waaaaaay ahead here to a possible usage of SMW - there is a Semantic Maps extension that would let us build a dynamic map application of Tyria (using Google Maps or OpenMaps as a backend). Each placemark that we display on there would have to be sourced from a distinct article that contains the placemark's coordinates, so for us to include waypoints in a dynamic map we would have to create distinct pages for them. (That's not entirely true - any repeat objects that are identical, like a specific kind of gather node, could have multiple coordinates on a single page to display multiple placemarks. However, waypoints are not identical.)Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Would that still work if those pages were redirects? Redshift 04:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Now there's a thought... configurable maps... Fair enough to keep it as an idea in the pipeline, but we've more immediate concerns than upgraded, scaling maps. Neat and Useful, and I'd still have to put it behind other priorities. 'waaaaaaaay ahead' is right. Torrenal 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
No, SMW doesn't recognize any properties for redirects. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
GuildHead seem way ahead on this ([1]) --Vedrfolnir 12:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could just use templates and css like wowpedia do for marking locations? They overlay a marker icon on a zone map image. Examples. -- Nighty 09:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Semantic Maps will be something like that, yes, but spiffier. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but WHEN!? :) (and we need smilies too!) -- Nighty 13:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Services & Resource Farms

Thus far, I've noticed a single collection of crafting stations per zone. I would like to see mention of these in the article. Also, it's been mentioned that there are resource farms per map. Talk:Gathering#Farms. Each farm can be collected from once every 23 hours, and the materials they offer can only be gathered from those farm nodes. This is apart and different from standard resource nodes that recharge more frequently, but are scattered across the entire zone. While I would explicitly list the resource farm type & location, I might list mention the types of other node, but not bother giving locations, since that would wind up being a separate map with lots of little 'x's marked across it. Torrenal 19:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that mentions for resource farms, crafting stations, and service NPCs would serve us well. I'm not sure how the distribution of resources is generally handled across a zone, but I think it might be good to at least say 'this zone has spinach' as I don't imagine that every single vegetable is going to be available in every single zone. Specific locations of nodes are best left to the more detailed Area pages and the resource page itself. Redshift 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Zones: Foes and fauna

Wondering if it would be feasible and useful to include a mention of the foe and animal types of sizable count in a zone, as a bestiary makeup could be of use and interest (and, I think, definite relevance) to a zone. This wouldn't be documenting specific creatures with name and level—something left again to the Area pages that list foes and allies—but more its bestiary grouping and and concentrated areas of occurrence (like pirates in around the Brigantine Isles, centaurs to the north of Nebo Terrace, etc. but in a more presentable format). This certainly doesn't have the mechanical precedence of the 'big four,' but a page devoted to a zone also doesn't quite seem right without it. Redshift 23:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Something like:
=== Foes & Fauna ===
  • Skale appear in all lakes except those surrounded by ghosts to the north
  • Ghosts wander the reagon near the wall, and inside most ruins
  • [[Skree]] Skree occupy the northwest section of the wall
  • Deer occupy all the wooded areas
  • etc...?
Is that about what you were thinking?-- Torrenal 02:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Something like that, yes. Redshift 02:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That section would also make sense for rangers looking for Juvenile pets. I started documenting their locations from various sources on the Wiki, but am unsure about where it goes. See Queensdale for an example of what I added. --Davidmo 12:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... if I was a ranger hunting down pets that I'm missing, I'd probably go directly to the pet page instead of going through all the location pages. -- User Sig.png 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this would be handy for people trying to gather crafting materials.

Linking renown hearts etc

I'm currently splitting all the karma hearts into pages by area you should be able to link them in a area document by {{:List of hearts in <areaname>}} Ascalon is currently completed. If people like this for the hearts shall I do a similar organisation for the skill challenges vista etc? --Dr.Mobius 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

With the hearts as it is, I think we should do the same for vistas and skill challenges as well. -- User Sig.png 04:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That is what i'm currently working on its on the large todo list for Project Cartography >.<. --Dr.Mobius 07:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Skill challenges are now done, moving onto vistas. I will also do a clean up of all them once complete for consistency and to improve their main pages.: Skill challenges are now done, moving onto vistas. I will also do a clean up of all them once complete for consitancy and to improve their main pages.--Dr.Mobius 20:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
As Work has moved forward and I don't think that their is any argument on doing this for the zones for Heart,Skill Challenges, Vista,and POI. I have edited the main template to including this formatting. Anzenketh 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Update Template

Per Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Projects/Cartography Metrica_Province is the standard for zone. And Quetzal_Bay is the standard for area. I updated the zone and area tempalte to match the layout Metrica_Province and Quetzal_Bay. Anzenketh 05:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you? I used that template for a few areas in Gendarran Fields. But in the template, the events are in Locations and objects section. Quetzal Bay looks fine, but the template don't match it. I will undo those pages that got the wrong look. --Hencovic 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Zone tables

moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal

This is in reference to:

  • Category:Lists of hearts by zone
  • [[:Category:Lists of vistas by zone]]
  • [[:Category:Lists of skill challenges by zone]]
  • [[List of points of interest in Metrica Province]] and similar articles
  • [[List of events in Metrica Province]] and similar articles

And how they are used. It has apparently become an habit for editors to flood zone articles with tables - see, for instance, Lornar's Pass, Metrica Province, and Caledon Forest. This, in my opinion, is bad - both on eyes and ease of finding the proper information. There is no consistency among zone and city articles now, so I'd like to try to get one created - made this topic here because I don't know where else would be a good centralized location. Anyways, I'd like to look at why each list article was created:

  • List of hearts - They were the original list articles - they were made while documenting pre-BWE information, before we decided each heart would get their own page (and for good reason), and as such they list everything gained from a glance about it - area they affect, heart NPC, name, text goal, and reward. IMO, this creates a redundancy with the actual heart articles and since they're overused onto zone articles, just creates a massive clutter with all the access information. I would suggest reformatting them more akin to the old GWW list of quests (example) - removing the things that don't apply to hearts and adding what do while keeping the same feel, the lists would only show name, location, and level. This information is also all that's needed - at most - on Zone articles, though on zone articles they don't need to be tables, imo.
  • List of skill challenges - these, I believe were created to match the list of hearts, as they seem hastly created in the same format and follow the same design page wise (split by zone) despite the utter lack of information in comparison. IMO, these being by zone is unhelpful and a bit confusing, the information on them is well enough, so just keeping them by region and, in that, dividing by zone should suffice imo (perhaps as a single table, though). On zone articles, transcribing these tables as currently done isn't helpful IMO and only creates the same effect that was created in the List of hearts by region articles - which is why they got split. That is: too many tables giving too much information - though in this case, it's too many tables following different formats creating an apparent table fetish on the wiki. My suggestion would be, as said, to merge them to per region, and find a different means for zone articles.
  • Lists of poi and vistas - like skill challenges, these seemed to have been created in the whole love-of-tables. They share the same design - name (despite vistas not having such), location, description - vistas having an added "nearest waypoint" and "youtube video link" (the latter is, imo, a very bad idea due to how it's already apparent that youtube video uploaders are apparently very e-peeny, so to speak, with theirs always being "the best and should be on the wiki dammit!"). These in of themselves are fine, though I disagree with the need for a list of PoI (and due to their highly incomplete state, I guess others do too), but placing these on zone pages just furthers the reason why I'm making this section - it becomes annoying to try to find the information one's looking for.
  • List of events - also seems to have been made for the whole love-of-tables concept. Except these provide 'nothing' that the old format does. It just list the names of events! All they do is serve to add to the clump of table.

In short: Can we get a concensus for when to have a "list of" table, and when to not with all these? The massive amount is getting tedious imo, and they're being added to zone articles.
Also, I would like to suggest making a guideline to how zone articles should be formatted. I can create one momentarily if having such a guideline is agreed upon. Konig/talk 19:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of these tables are well formatted and make it easy to find data I am looking for. Also allows me to sort data by level, area, name and other factors. This makes the tables very useful. Cannot do that with plain text lists. If I were nitpicking some of the columns don't need to be sortable and perhaps make the bigger tables collapsible. Only minor issue I see is tabling really basic lists like Caledon Forest#Events. This type of bullet list doesn't necessarily need a table but having one isn't breaking anything either. — Skill challenge.png Malacon Skill challenge.png on Blackgate — 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so much arguing "don't use tables" but rather "don't put so many tables on zone articles" (these lists can exist without being transcribed onto zone articles) along with "the list of heart tables can be greatly simplified due to the fact we now document hearts on their own pages, whereas the lists were created with being the most detailed information on them". Konig/talk 22:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen the Caledon Forest page since I made the changes but it's a lot more condensed and now offers an "at a glance" insight into each area. It doesn't give any more information other than what's there and how many, providing a quick reference point before clicking through to the more detailed area page. I've also had a look at the area page layout and please see Village of Astorea and The Verdence for my solution proposals to their layout. [edit] nvm, I see you had seen it :) — Andrealinia 05:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Andrealinia's formatting of the location list (in the Caledon Forest example) makes the raw list more readable, that's good. I dislike the "everything mixed together" approach, (examples are Caledon Forest and Queensdale). I went to the Queensdale page looking for a list of _areas_, but its hard to sort them out from the waypoints and points of interest listed. I'd prefer to see a 'Waypoints' section/list, an area list, a point of interest list, a vista list, etc. instead of them being interspersed. The current format seems to attempt to convey which area a given 'location' is in, this could be clearer with a table, or simply putting the area in parentheses: Vale Waypoint (Altar Brook Vale, Queensdale, Kryta)...a fully qualified example, which may be overkill. Since areas have their own page, the hierarchical approach isn't necessary on the zone page. Feaelin 16:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hadn't Dr ishmael said that these list of things will become unneccessary because of new wiki tech, that will be implemented soon (or a bit later I don't know). Actually I am glad we settled on the Caledon Forest approach I think the information there was never better to read and the subpages provide all the detail you ever need. Or is this an entirely new discussion andi missed something important? - Yandere Talk to me... 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how can you mix up areas with waypoints and the like when they're in separate columns and the areas are clearly noted with "Areas" at the top? I would very much not like to see separate lists because then you don't know which area the waypoints, poi, etc. are in - you'll have to constantly repeat the areas, which then makes the area list redundant but furthermore is just unnecessary spreading of the page. At best, there can be a different column for each type of location with Area being the main annotator for where things are but then you'll have a lot of white space and the page width will then be stretched beyond most monitor screens. Your parentheses idea feels even worse for having to constantly repeat the zone and region (which wouldn't be necessary either), and as to "clearer with a table" - it is a table though.
And I would disagree on a hierarchical approach being unnecessary on zone articles because people will often go to the zone articles in order to find which areas the PoI/hearts/skill challenges/vistas/waypoints are all in. That's probably going to be the primary reason zone articles get searched rather than searing area articles directly (unless one cannot recall how to spell an area, or needs to look at the map to remember the area's name).
@Yandere: this discussion predates settling on a format at the project page - I was redirected there indirectly when I posted this. Feaelin revived it, perhaps not knowing of the project discussion. Konig/talk 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, Andrealinia (I'm assuming the above is Andrealinia...?). Looking again at the table for Caledon Forest, I realized that it succeeds in answering the question I wanted an answer to: "What is the complete list of areas in this zone?". Unfortunately, I wanted (and still do) it for Queensdale, and the Queensdale page (currently) does not succeed in answering that question.
Yeah, I could see how some folks would want to use the hierarchical complete list as a check list of sorts, and work area to area. If that is really the intent, the ideal would be a list arranged based on adjacency...but that sounds like more work that it may be worth. I'm not sure I've used the wiki to do tasks/waypoints/points of interests, I've been doing that using a "greedy algorithm"...I just visit/do whatever I happen to be near. Eventually, I end up with one or two I missed and have to go back, but those are usually easily discernible on the in-game map. In any case, the format on the Caledon Forest fulfills my want and appears to fulfill the hierarchical need as well. A win for everyone.
I came here while looking for what standard was being set for zone pages. I take it there's another discussion elsewhere to finalize what has been covered on this discussion page? I admit, I picked the conversation that seemed to be the best match to what I wanted to say, but even then seemed not a perfect match up. Where is the project page? Feaelin 15:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You just broke up my response into three, thinking each was someone else? Ooookay. As to Queensdale... *points to notice at top of wiki - assuming you didn't dismiss it - that says the wiki is a work-in-progress*. Queensdale hasn't been updated yet, that's all. As to the project location Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Projects/Cartography Konig/talk 16:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Map completion

How should map completion rewards be listed on zone pages? -- User Sig.png 06:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine they would be best displayed in the infobox. — Andrealinia 06:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Or not at all? Map completion rewards are the same for all zones, same amount of % experience of current level, 40 common materials that can be found in the zone, 2 green, rare, or exotic (depending on zone level) around the highest level of the zone, and then the 3 transmutation stones or 1 black lion key. It's always the same and is mentioned on map completion. Since it's randomized, with a very wide variety, denoting on individual zone pages is silly, imo. Konig/talk 12:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed: there's nothing zone-specific about map rewards, they're random within a defined structure, so no need to mention them on zone pages. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realise the key and crafting part were also random. -- User Sig.png 14:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers and walkthoughs

Who decided to put walkthroughs inside spoilers? They are not story related, and the spoiler template clearly states that it's to hide story, plot. And people visiting those pages are expecting those walkthroughs, even looking for them. And they completely break the structure of the page, as spoiler tags are designed to contain texts relating story, not more complex blocks of content with images and such like walkthroughs have. We can't go putting half the entire articles and no story at all inside spoiler tags. No walkthough should be inside spoiler tags, not for personal story, not for hearts, not jumping puzzle, not dungeon, not for anything. It both looks and works horribly. Imagine if we had all the walkthroughs in the GW1 wiki inside spoiler tags, all those Mission and quest pages would look hideous and would be uncomfortable to use. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 02:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See here. Basically, there are 2 types of people who go to a jumping puzzle page: 1) those that just want to know how to get to it/find the entrance but want to figure out the puzzle itself on their own, and 2) those that want a full walkthrough. After deciding to merge the /solution subpages into the main article, it was decided to use spoiler tags to hide the walkthrough itself from type 1 people.
Just because the template says "story" doesn't mean it can't be used for other things. If it bothers you, we can change the wording. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Not only the wording. The spoiler tag isn't prepared for anything but text spoilers and should not be using for anything but that. It wraps its content inside a div, which breaks the format, and puts a pink bar on top of things that says 'spoilers'. Either another one should be designed for walkthroughs, or the existing one fixed so it doesn't break the format. And story spoilers must be clearly differentiated. There's people who cares about unintentionally seeing actual story spoilers, but not about guides and walkthroughs - and in fact come here for non-spoiling guides and walkthrougs - so the spoiler template must not be shared or have a different setting to clearly make it different when not used for spoilers, or people who doesn't want spoilers but wants guides will end up finding 'empty articles', as they want the guide, but won't click the spoiler tag even if it's under the 'walkthough' section, because they don't want the spoilers. Maybe making the bar blue instead red when not used for lore and story spoilers. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
A spoiler template should be used for anything considered a spoiler. If you're worried about the spoiler misleading people, it's only a matter of changing the words. A story spoiler tag wouldn't be located in the walkthrough section, but at the top of the page like other pages afaik. Story-related spoilers would be located in a general description or notes ideally. I can't say what the div is breaking.---Relyk 03:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone considers guides and walkthoughs to be "spoilers" at all, and there's spoiler-free guides and walkthroughs, while there's also guides that contain spoilers. Someone who's looking for a spoiler-free guide may not click and find what they are looking for even if it's in there, thinking that the guide will have story spoilers, when most jumping puzzle guides have no story spoiler at all. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 03:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
A spoiler can refer to any piece of information, in this case it's spoiling the puzzle instead of spoiling the story. There's nothing in the template that implies a spoiler is related to the story unless you leave the default text. Putting the spoiler tag under the walkthrough section leaves very little room for confusion. If there is a "spoiler", the spoiler template will go on the top of the page.--Relyk 04:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
On another note, we could color the JP spoiler green to make it easier to differentiate at a glance but mostly because it would look adorable.--Relyk 04:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking on things like a mention about an object or location that is special in lore. Like a spot in the middle of a jumping puzzle with grave mentioning someone, that could be considered story or lore spoilers, or a jumping puzzle happening inside a place that is part of a story (like Windy Cave and Bad Blood) with references to the story. As for colors, I'm all for it. Green or blue is fine. Green is already used for the Jumping Puzzle icon, so it would be better than blue. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 07:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
"Not everyone considers guides and walkthoughs to be "spoilers" at all" Not everyone considers Kormir replacing Abaddon to be spoilers to Nightfall either. Doesn't mean they can't be spoilers to people.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't we make a walkthrough tag instead of using the spoilers tag? It's a bit redundant, as they'll more or less do the same thing, but if your issue is that walkthroughs aren't spoilers (they are - be it spoiling the solution of the puzzle, or spoiling the plot of a dungeon, or personal story step - not all spoilers are lore spoilers), then there's a solution for it. Konig/talk 18:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That's the thing. Where do you draw the line? Crafting and mystic forge recipes you can discover, story walkthroughs, NPC quotes, anything could be considered a spoiler by someone. But if you hide everything that anyone could consider a spoiler, you won't have a properly usable wiki. You'll have countless pages with countless tags and sections hidden behind spoilers. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 20:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The walkthrough for puzzles wasn't originally in a spoiler tag. However, when the pages were combined quite a few people went "all I want to know is the location. Not how to do it." Hence why the spoiler tag was put it. That's how you draw the line. If no one goes "I don't always want to know this information" then a spoiler tag isn't needed, but if a discussion is made then it's worth thinking about. — Andrealinia 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
In the terms of walkthroughs themseves, they are unnecessary overall the spoiler-tag. The section-heading itself is enough warning, and it is usually easy to skip it. Thing about jumping puzzles is that the "getting there" is part of the walkthrough - and as said be Andrealinia, some people want one but not the other. Those who go to walkthroughs for dungeons, personal story steps, etc. are often knowingly risking to spoil themselves with the plot (should they not know already) and usually doesn't include the dialogue - just names and, sometimes, actions. In this case, that is where the line is drawn by typical consensus. With other things, the line is usually drawn when it reveals major plot points (in GW2 terms: personal or dungeon stories) when it would normally not (e.g., how gw1:Shiro Tagachi reveals in the beginning paragraphs that he was influenced by Abaddon) - just as we don't spoiler tag mission pages in GW1, we shouldn't spoiler tag personal story, dungeon, or event articles, but rather NPCs and lore articles which wouldn't necessarily be thought of as spoiling a plot (e.g., no need to spoiler tag Zhaitan, but Eye of Zhaitan, which reveals information gleaned only from The Source of Orr about who the Eyes were in life, would be). Konig/talk 15:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Same here. A walkthrough is a walkthrough. No need to hide it. Spoilers more readily bring to mind plot spoilers. If someone doesn't want to be told how to jump a puzzle, don't read it. I personally find that reading how to jump is incredibly useless. I'd go google up a video rather than spend time reading lines and lines of where to jump to next. Just having your eyes just flow over a the text in a walkthrough section is entirely insufficient for a reader to digest what's in it, much less suddenly gain an immediate clarity of how to clear the jumping puzzle. If we start hiding things like that, image if someone says they want don't want to see recipes on this wiki and want to discover it himself but still wants the wiki page to tell him how many recipes there are to discover... A wiki page is a wiki page. You don't come to a wiki looking for half-veiled tips and nudges - you should be expecting a deluge of information. -- User Sig.png 09:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
" Just having your eyes just flow over a the text in a walkthrough section is entirely insufficient for a reader to digest what's in it" Actually, this isn't that true... I do this very often just to pick up the general gist of things. — Andrealinia 11:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, you're talking about reading news, novels, and reference books. The walkthrough that's going to be hidden is all about precise one-after-another steps. You can't get the "gist" of a set of instructions. I'm sure you wouldn't just scan through an technical instructions and conclude that you're competent enough to run a machine. Besides, if someone's really such a fast reader as to digest an entire set of instructions just from a glance, that bolded "Walkthrough" header should be screaming out not to scan anything below that. -- User Sig.png 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Haha, No I'm talking about reading stuff on this wiki. I glimpsed over a walkthrough to get a general feel of how to complete the puzzle. Personally, I don't mind spoilers but some people really do and so I don't see any issue with using a spoiler tag. Not as if it's really inconvenient or anything. — Andrealinia 00:21, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Camps, towers, keeps, castle

Are we going to have individual articles for these? Or are the PoI and area pages going to cover it? Stonemist Castle has a page, is there going to be a Stonemist Keep and [[Stonemist Castle (area)]] page? Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeps/towers/camps should documented as the PoI, obviously. The areas generally cover a lot more than just that.
Stonemist is more complicated, because it's... complex. The castle and area are essentially the same thing. But would you document everything about the castle on the area page? Or break it up into the 4 PoI pages? I'm not familiar enough with it to make a recommendation. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Video guides

I'd like to bring an issue which I'm starting to find a little annoying. I've seen many 'let's play' posted as guides to jumping puzzles. When players get to those 'guides' they see things like a video with annoying music with a guy doing the stuff, not explaining anything, or a bunch of players chatting with each other while they do the stuff, or videos skipping parts of the puzzle altogether, or all of those at the same time, and even worse things.

As you know, people can get revenue from people visiting their videos on Youtube, and so people may feel tempted to link anything and call it a guide, and even if some people would be able to do it seeing those videos, they are not good enough to help a decent amount of people, judging from the comments in those videos. Some people even replace better proper guides with their own bad ones, which can barely be called guides at all, judging not just from what I've seen, but from the comments in those videos.

Because of that, I believe we should have guidelines about what can an can't be linked as a video guide in the article page. For example, I believe a good video guide would be like this:

  • It should clearly indicate the starting point, showing the map, the nearest waypoint and the path to the entrance.
  • It should not skip steps of the puzzle. Showing a failure, and skipping or fast-forwarding to the last point before the failure is ok, but the entirely of the puzzle must be shown, even the 'easy' parts.
  • It must be in order. Step 1 goes before step 2. Yes, I've seen guides with the steps "scrambled".
  • If it's narrated and its quirks are properly explained (like tricky collisions, parts that require a speed boost, things that look like you can jump on them but you can't...) it's better than if there's no narration. But I would not require a narration, as just seeing it being done may be enough for most people.
  • It should not look like a streaming let's play with players aimlessly attempting stuff and chatting with each other, while viewers can't help but think "What the hell is going on? What are you doing?" Even if it looks like a let's play, it should be a narrated and edited let's play.

Then, after the guidelines are decided (what I just put was merely an example), videos that do not follow the guidelines should not be allowed in the main article. Maybe in the talk page, but not the main article. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would rather we remove all Youtube links completely. It's not all that hard to go to Youtube and search for "guild wars 2 conundrum cubed" or whatever. Instating guidelines like this would place a heavy maintenance burden on the community to vet every single video link that gets added to any page, and I don't think anyone really wants to volunteer for that. Not to mention the potential for people to complain of "favoritism" when we take down their link but leave someone else's. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
What I'm against is people taking advantage of the wiki to get viewers, specially when their videos have low quality and complains in their comments. Leaving things in the hands of players and the community works, and videos with better quality tend to get more views and will show higher in the search results, so that would be a good solution too. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 14:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion I've seen before (I think it was Manifold who made it) was to provide Youtube search links, rather than completely cutting people off. I would be okay with this, but direct links to videos should be limited to ArenaNet's official channels. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, down with youtube links!! Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 15:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I was the one to suggest that, but I do approve of it. People were adding links to videos that weren't even processed yet during Halloween! People are using the wiki for views and profit. There's at least a handful of videos for every jumping puzzle, and certainly a lot for the Mad King bursting out of the fountain cutscene, let users choose which video they want to see. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 16:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of 'region'

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I can't find the discussion where the current definition of region was agreed, so here goes. The way we document regions currently is "mechanically", (according to the Explorer achievements), and produces the following hierarchy:

  • The Mists
      • ((Blue World)) Borderlands
      • ((Green World)) Borderlands
      • ((Red World)) Borderlands
      • Battle of Khylo
      • Eternal Battlegrounds
      • Forest of Niflhel
      • Hall of Memories
      • Memories of the Past
      • Raid on the Capricorn
      • Temple of the Silent Storm
  • Tyria
    • Ascalon
      • Plains of Ashford
      • Diessa Plateau
      • Fields of Ruin
      • Blazeridge Steppes
      • Iron Marches
      • Fireheart Rise
    • Kryta
      • Queensdale
      • Kessex Hills
      • Gendarran Fields
      • Harathi Hinterlands
      • Bloodtide Coast
    • Maguuma Jungle
      • Caledon Forest
      • Metrica Province
      • Brisban Wildlands
      • Sparkfly Fen
      • Mount Maelstrom
    • Orr
      • Straits of Devastation
      • Malchor's Leap
      • Cursed Shore
    • Shiverpeaks
      • Wayfarer Foothills
      • Snowden Drifts
      • Lornar's Pass
      • Dredgehaunt Cliffs
      • Timberline Falls
      • Frostgorge Sound

We are also currently told by the wiki that the Shiverpeaks are comprised of three sub-regions: Steamspur Mountains, Far Shiverpeaks, and Deldrimor Front (although these are all given the same prominence as the Shiverpeak Mountains on the world map), and that the Maguuma Jungle (rarely if at all named as such in-game GW2, and afaik never in achievement text, map text or anything else "mechanical", so really that needs changing regardless of what decision is made here) is comprised of the Maguuma Wastes, the Tarnished Coast, and Magus Falls (which again, all have the same prominence as each other on the map). It turns out that these sub-regions are purely speculative and have no real basis in either lore or mechanics, so if we keep the current system, we need to think about how to treat these (although if the discussion gets too large we should start a new section, so as not to detract from the main point).
The first thing I'd like to say about the current system is that the basis isn't really as "mechanical" as everyone seems to think. It is based solely off achievements, which aren't really adequate for reasons I'll explain in a second, and it doesn't really tell us anything about how the game tracks the region your character is in, or if the game does that at all. It's slightly more "mechanical" than my new proposal, but IMO it creates more problems than it solves.
The most glaring problem of the current system is probably that if you look at the map, explorable zones are routinely categorised into regions that make no geographic sense. This stems from the fact that that the Explorer achievement, which is what we use to construct our concept of regions, has to have a reasonable balance between the number of zones in each region to make each Explorer achievement roughly of the same difficulty, but I do not believe that this problem should carry over onto the wiki. Another fairly large problem is that the Eye of the North and Southsun Cove simply don't fit into the current way of doing things, because they don't count for the Explorer achievement, and I worry that as more explorable zones are added, this issue will become increasingly obvious.
The final problem is that regions which exist in Tyria in lore (e.g. Crystal Desert, Ring of Fire Island Chain) are treated as if they don't exist, even though most, if not all of them are likely to appear in future expansions. Some, such as the Far Shiverpeaks and the Sea of Sorrows, contain explorable zones but are treated as if they are "empty" because their constituent areas don't count towards the Explorer achievements, which seems overly idiosyncratic, even for this wiki.
My proposal is a little more "common-sense", in that the main basis for region determination is the map text above that region (still "mechanical", but less so). It also puts region hierarchies in terms of lore, and allows us to include regions that exist in Tyria, are labelled on the map, but do not necessarily appear in-game yet. You'll also notice that it completely eliminates the fictitious "Maguuma Jungle" region, and treats Tyria as a part of the Mists rather than on an equal footing to it (which then reflects the lore situation). The hierarchy is The Mists → worlds → continents → regions → explorable zones → areas:

  • The Mists
    • World versus World
      • ((Blue World)) Borderlands
      • ((Green World)) Borderlands
      • ((Red World)) Borderlands
      • Eternal Battlegrounds
    • Battle of Khylo
    • Forest of Niflhel
    • Heart of the Mists
      • Hall of Memories
    • Memories of the Past
    • Raid on the Capricorn
    • Temple of the Silent Storm
    • Tyria (world)
      • Tyria
        • Ascalon
          • Black Citadel
          • Plains of Ashford
          • Diessa Plateau
          • Fields of Ruin
          • Blazeridge Steppes
          • Iron Marches
          • Fireheart Rise
        • Blazeridge Mountains
        • Blood Legion Homelands
        • Crystal Desert
        • Deldrimor Front
        • Elon River
        • Far Shiverpeaks
        • Isles of Janthir
        • Janthir Bay
        • Kryta
          • Divinity's Reach
          • Queensdale
          • Kessex Hills
          • Gendarran Fields
          • Harathi Hinterlands
        • Magus Falls
        • Maguuma Wastes
        • Ring of Fire
        • Ruins of Orr
          • Straits of Devastation
          • Malchor's Leap
          • Cursed Shore
        • Scavenger's Causeway
        • Sea of Sorrows
          • Southsun Cove
        • Shiverpeak Mountains
          • Hoelbrak
          • Wayfarer Foothills
          • Snowden Drifts
          • Lornar's Pass
          • Dredgehaunt Cliffs
          • Frostgorge Sound
        • Steamspur Mountains
          • Bloodtide Coast
          • Sparkfly Fen
          • Timberline Falls
          • Mount Maelstrom
        • Strait of Malchor
        • Tarnished Coast
          • Rata Sum
          • The Grove
          • Metrica Province
          • Caledon Forest
          • Brisban Wildlands
        • Unending Ocean
        • Woodland Cascades
      • Cantha
      • Elona

Claw Island would be considered part of Kryta, the Hall of Monuments would be part of the Far Shiverpeaks, and the Chantry of Secrets would be considered part of the Steamspur Mountains. I'm not sure if Lion's Arch should be considered part of the Kingdom of Kryta or as part of its own "The City of Lion's Arch" region (as an independent city-state), but I'm leaning towards Kryta since it doesn't have region-level map text, and I think most people would probably agree.
The downside to this approach is that using "common-sense" adds a small element of judgement into what goes where. This isn't a problem currently, won't be a problem with Southsun Coast because it is repeatedly and clearly stated to be part of the Sea of Sorrows in marketing materials, as well as clearly being part of the Sea of Sorrows on the map, and won't be a problem as long as ArenaNet stay consistent in how they approach new areas, but it could theoretically cause some debate further down the line if new zones in "grey areas" are added. It also doesn't tell us how to treat, say, the Depths of Tyria, which is where a chunk of the dungeons are located, but that isn't a new problem since using Explorer achievements doesn't deal with this well either. It does need ironing out at some point, though.
Anyway, wall of text over, hope people have som thoughts. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that I have a very good and well-thought solution to this problem, but it would seem that we've always leaned towards documenting things as per their mechanics rather than lore. Crystal Desert is an inaccessible part of the world, so if anything, I'd say it doesn't "exist" as a region, assuming this is what you meant. Perhaps re-categorising these inaccessible regions as "Lore locations" seems like a better option (for me anyway) than trying to merge lore regions and mechanical regions into a singular system. While the chance is high that these may get developed into mechanical regions in the future, we don't know for sure when and how. Perhaps these lore regions will get subdivided? Who knows. Might as well just put them aside. -- User Sig.png 13:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Acually adding a "Lore location" category for all places (regardless if it is a region or a continent or cocktail bar) that are not in the game seem like a pretty good idea to me. I would follow the ingame region definition, that is given by the explorer archivement.
The mists are special... It is however pretty obvious if something is in the Mist or not, so I don'T see a huge problem there. - Yandere Talk to me... 13:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My biggest beef with the proposal (after a glance) is that everything is under the Mists. Mists and Tyria (world) should be on the same level, imo. --JonTheMon 13:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely free on time at the moment, so I'll respond in full later.
  1. "the Maguuma Jungle (rarely if at all named as such in-game GW2, and afaik never in achievement text" - interestingly, it's the opposite for me. Brisban Wildland only talks about the Maguuma Jungle - never Maguuma Wastes nor Magus Falls - and I don't recall off the top of my head any mention of Tarnished Coast either. All areas you'd consider to be in the Tarnished Coast is always said to be in the Maguuma Jungle. (I think Mount Maelstrom is also said to be in the Shiverpeak Mountains, and never have I seen "Steamspur Mountains" mentioned in-game outside the map).
  2. "It turns out that these sub-regions are purely speculative" Then you completely misunderstood my explanation. It's not speculative, but its not mechanical. Mechanically, the Steamspur Mountains and Tarnished Coast don't even exist, but they do in lore - the Tarnished Coast is the coast of the Maguuma Jungle, and is outright stated by Jeff Grubb to be part of the Maguuma Jungle (as is the Maguuma Wastes), as I said. Sub-regions is purely lore-based, just as is the mere existence of said sub-regions.
I also cannot agree with your hierarchy and your claimed hierarchy of how locations currently are is false (The Mists is a region itself, and, imo, should remain as such). I don't think we should document purely on lore, as that creates a huge divergence and confusion. Furthermore, what about the zones which are, by your heirarchy, in multiple regions? Timberline Falls is part of both Shiverpeak and Steamspur Mountains; Blazeridge Steppes is part of both Ascalon and Blazeridge Mountains; Bloodtide Coast and Sparkfly Fen are both part of Kryta and just simply the coastline of the Sea of Sorrows - they're not part of any mountains, let alone the Steamspur mountains which the former doesn't even connect to (and yet you would put the Chantry of Secrets, within Bloodtide Coast, as Steamspur despite Bloodtide not being adjacent to Steamspur?); Brisban Wildlands would count as both Maguuma Wastes and Tarnished Coast, despite being what can be called Maguuma Jungle proper; Gendarran Fields holds part of the Shiverpeak Mountains on its east side, what about that? Not to mention that you're proclaiming bodies of water to be the same as regions, which they really aren't, and the Unending Ocean isn't in Tyria but rather borders it by lore - which you're using - and the Elon River is more of Elona than Tyria (though technically now part of both). There's far too much confusion and "this is part of two places" situations with your layout.
Beyond this, I'll respond later. Konig/talk 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Lore and mechanics often clash. Sometimes a creature that clearly isn't part of a type is listed as that type for mechanic reasons, like certain monsters with clearly different lore appearances sharing types within a dungeon. Since that happens quite often, and it's bound to keep happening, it stands to reason to have some kind of way to note either lore or mechanics when we only know one for sure, or both when we know them both. MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 20:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Could we put a "Region [?]" in the infobox for people wondering why the zone is labeled for its mechanical region rather than actual region?--Relyk 09:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC), Yandere: That's the thing, I don't think 'region' has any real "mechanical" definition, isn't really defined in-game, and that we have created a definition for the wiki using the Explorer achievements, when, to me at least, it seems a lot more sensible to use the text on the world map. In GW1 we had loading screens and quest categories clearly distinguishing between regions, which is how we knew how, for example, Verdant Cascades was part of the Tarnished Coast. We also had a list of regions given by manuals and maps like these. We don't have such a luxury here, and to be honest, that system does more to create confusion than it does to clearly document the game, when there's no reason there can't be a note at the bottom of a page saying "for the purposes of the Explorer achievement, this location is considered to be part of (Orr, Maguuma, etc.)". We do have a clear and definitive list of regions given by a map - the in-game world map, so it's not like they have no basis in-game, as Konig suggests. I do like the idea of creating a 'lore locations'-type category though, as we have places like the Plains of Golghein and Hrangmer that don't appear yet in-game but also don't really fit in anywhere else. But as for lumping them all in together - we have a list, given by UI text, of these same-level locations that we may as well call regions, I think throwing them in a category with areas that really we know nothing about would be a mistake.
Jon: obviously this could be changed with little effect on the rest of the proposal, but I think it's important to reflect Tyria is just one of many worlds within the Mists, and is on the same level as the many, much smaller islands of reality, because this was never really clear until "The History of Guild Wars" was published. That said, unlike the rest, it has absolutely no mechanical basis whatsoever and I can see the argument for keeping the Mists on the same level as Tyria.
Konig: Do you mind providing an in-game source that describes the Maguuma in its current state as the "Maguuma Jungle"? It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't recall seeing it anywhere. And if you'd read my proposal, you'd know that the areas are considered Tarnished Coast because the the proposal has a basis in map text rather than the Explorer achievement. And I think I understood your explanation, it was jut that your sub-regions idea doesn't come from anything in-game, like the list of regions in the proposal, just your own "logical deductions" from GW1 lore. Which is speculation. As for areas which have more than one type of environment, you'd simply use your brain to pick which region the zone is obviously meant to be in - despite your disingenuous claims to the contrary, there are not yet any "grey area" zones in-game. And of course, the problem you described is far, far worse with the current system, putting Mount Maelstrom in the Maguuma, despite it being, by its nature, the heart of the Steamspur Mountains, as the volcano that melted the Southern Shiverpeaks.
Mith, Relyk: I like this idea, and if this proposal doesn't go through, I definitely think something like it should be implemented. We need to remember that this isn't just about infoboxes though, the (currently, wildly inaccurate) Maguuma Jungle page, as with most of the region pages, is written mainly from a lore point of view, and makes no note that the list of zones is a product of the Explorer achievement. So you can imagine this being quite confusing when it lists the two completely disparate Sparkfly Fen and Mount Maelstrom regions as being part of the Maguuma, with no justification or explanation. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
True, "region" doesn't have any real mechanical grouping function in GW2, but with the Explorer achievements it does seem more clear-cut as to where to group them. These achievements are like the direct descendants of the loading screens of GW1 - they tell us how ArenaNet groups them. While you may think the world map is definitive, there are no border lines on it that very definitively states which area label belongs to which region label. Not that I'm strongly opposing your idea, but I'm not quite convinced why we should ditch the mechanical grouping offered by the achievements. You noted that Konig "deduced" locations from GW1 lore, but your proposal is also similarly just deductions and speculations plus "common sense" as you put; just a different perspective of things.
As for the Maguuma Jungle, I'm assuming you're just aiming to downgrade it into a "Lore location", as opposed to wanting to get rid of that name entirely. I forgot to oppose the placement of Tyria inside the Mists previously, but [[The History of Guild Wars|that article you linked]] does seem to indicate that ArenaNet considers Tyria as part of the Mists though, so I'm inclined to accept it. I'm from a D&D background where I immediately considered Tyria as a material plane, and the Mists being the ethereal plane that connects other planes together, I've always thought of them as being on the same level. -- User Sig.png 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
We want to keep them separate, otherwise saying you travel from Tyria to The Mists sounds silly.--Relyk 03:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Santax: The Achievements I would say is a "real "mechanical" definition" as well as a "clear and definitive list of regions". I would also say the world map is not. Just as gw1:Dzalana didn't exist in GW1 mechanics, nor did Orr, nor Sulferous Wastes, but they were on the maps. Besides what Aberrant said about no definitive boundaries, and the fact some zones are split between multiple map-based regions, there's the fact that those bodies of waters cannot be regions - Strait of Malchor being a prime example, exists in the game. But it is not a region, it is part of a zone without any mechanical connotation to it, resideing on the northwestern edge of Malchor's Leap. It is little different than the Dragonbrand truth be told (which can be argued to be a region lorewise, since it falls into the word's actual definition with ease - but then you're just splitting hairs).
Regarding lore locations, I don't disagree with the concept, so long as 1) it has a better name (aberrant made a cat for it, I tagged it for move on an, imo, better name since "lore location" is too generic and would, technically, include every location) and 2) does not exclude its entries from being in other categories - otherwise it may lead to confusion for category searching (e.g., The Underworld should remain in Category:The Mists irregardless). But at that point, other than being a better replacement for the "<Region's name> isn't accessible currently" note which is in of itself out of date yet spread to all regions for no real reason, it becomes a redundant category except to create a list of unaccessible locations (just as Category:Ghosts of Ascalon locations is meant to create a list of locations mentioned/described in GoA).
"Do you mind providing an in-game source that describes the Maguuma in its current state as the "Maguuma Jungle"?" More or less anything related to the druids. I don't think it's documented on the wiki yet, but basically go to the Priory camp - there will be idle chatter mentioning Maguuma Jungle. Around there will be other mentions of the Maguuma Jungle in that spot too. Though the word "jungle" is lacking, Return the arboreal spirit to its husk, and drive away the hylek has documented use of the terminology (undocumented parts of the dialogue, I believe, does explicitly mention Maguuma Jungle in full). I recall other such mentions throughout Brisban Wildlands. And I think Metrica Province though this I am not 100% certain of - and the same goes for northern Caledon Forest. I, however, cannot recall a single instance that states "Tarnished Coast" so can you provide such a source please?
Regarding the location and proposal - well, that's all fine and well, but those words don't really reach Brisban Wildlands. It's literally in the no-mans land of the three Maguuma Jungle sub-regions. It is, if anywhere, the truest place to be called "Maguuma Jungle proper." On the map alone, you cannot really justify it without it being equally justifiable to be Maguuma Wastes, or for Rata Sume to be justifiably Magus Falls. And that's the largest issue with your proposal. Just where do these "regions" begin and end? Where does the Shiverpeak Mountains end and the Steamspur Mountains begin? Where does Kryta end and the Sea of Sorrows begin? Sea of Sorrows end and Steamspur Mountains begin? You cannot seriously call Sparkly Fen mountains can you? And yet even Sparkly Fen has Kryta nation ruins (The Shattered Keep as we learn from Halloween). One can debate for months about how one can place the boundaries for where a map-named region begins and ends and still get no where, because it's such a flimsy line.
A flimsy line that you yourself acknowledge to be flimsy, in fact, by saying that there's no real definitive means of determining region outside the explorer achievement.
"it was jut that your sub-regions idea doesn't come from anything in-game" Game? No. Game developer? Yes. And Jeff Grubb's words is just as reliable as an NPC's - if not moreso.
" despite your disingenuous claims to the contrary, there are not yet any "grey area" zones in-game" Timberline Falls. Half snow-covered mountains, half defrosted mountains. It is, quite literally, half Shiverpeak Mountains and half Steamspur Mountains by your proposal. Little different from gw1:Majesty's Rest, which we could only determine by its loading screen. And our GW2 equivilant of a loading screen, as Aberrant said, is the explorer achievement.
"the (currently, wildly inaccurate) Maguuma Jungle page, as with most of the region pages, is written mainly from a lore point of view, and makes no note that the list of zones is a product of the Explorer achievement" Easily ammended via using 1 and a subsequent note. Or something of the like. The entire reworking of the system is unnecessary. Also, it's not wildly inaccurate. It's just not following the system you prefer (and, regrettably, could be clearer). As for being written in a lore perspective - the introduction is. As is every article that has lore on the subject; following sections are always mechanical. This is as true for GW2W as it was for GWW (only exceptions being when the mechanical aspect takes a huge frontal position to the lore - in that, I mean, that the non-lore information cannot be documented in mere lists). Konig/talk 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
@Aberrant: "The History of Guild Wars" is NOT ArenaNet made. It has hundreds of glaring contradictions and was writing by BradyGames (as explained on talk page), and it is even uncertain if it's allowed to be on the wiki, copyright and all (matter was brought up with Stephane, waiting on response). Though in lore, everything is in the Mists so that is true - though mechanically, The Mists is a mere region, while Tyria is a conglomerate of regions (and Tyria (world) is non-existent in mechanics). Konig/talk 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
User Santax region naming proposal.jpg

(Reset indent) The thing I worry about is this: if ArenaNet groups the regions by achievement (which is not necessarily convenient for them, just for balance), and our documentation reflects that, does this help the reader's understanding of the game world? I don't think it does - I just think it misleads them and could cause them to miss out on vital clues for future updates. The new system wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be a lot less confusing and misleading than the current system, I think. The "Maguuma Jungle", does not exist as far as see in GW2. It is a historical region - any mention of it (and no hard evidence of this has been produced) would come from the druids, who existed before the jungle dried out. I would argue that the region that was the Maguuma in Prophecies is now more accurately referred to as the "Maguuma Wastes", the name given by the map that came with the Ghosts of Ascalon book. Now that you have said that about D&D I can see the merits of either arguments re: what "level" we consider Tyria, I am mainly concerned with documenting the regions.
Konig: the Brisban Wildlands is firmly within the Tarnished Coast, if we make the assumption that no region contained a single zone upon the release of the game, and that the other regions are for future expansions (which is a reasonable assumption, especially given the placement of Southsun Cove). One could debate for months about the specific region boundaries, but only with you Konig - I think to everyone else they seem quite obvious. I wouldn't like to accuse you of being disingenuous about finding the region boundaries unclear just for the sake of trying to damage my argument, but it does seem a bit of a coincidence that after many revert wars and a fair amount of bitterness, you are the one who finds the region boundaries most unclear. Of course, if you really wanted, it would be possible to split explorable zones among multiple regions (for example placing [[Stromkari Heights]] in the Shiverpeak Mountains but Gyre Rapids in Steamspur Mountains). This would require the most effort, but would also make the most sense - like in real life, region boundaries aren't straight lines. This also avoids the problem of having to worry about placing a zone in one or the other. But I think the image illustrates why we need change - preferably before ANet add more zones and muddle things up more (you say that the achievement provides a clear and definitive list - what about Southsun Cove? And possibly every single zone added from now on?) Please try and be more reasonable. Creating policy is a matter of iteration, suggesting improvements and ironing out kinks, not fingers-in-ears and militant opposition. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no need to split zones into multiple regions (I'm actually against such, but by your definition of what marks regions, these zones would be in multiple regions or be oddities), and I do not think many people would consider Brisban Wildlands as part of the Tarnished Coast (and in fact, you're the sole person I've seen, or recall seeing, do such - while Caledon, Metrica, Rata Sum, and the Grove were often given Tarnished Coast as region in early release times, I cannot recall Brisban Wildlands ever once being called part of the TC outside this discussions or other discussions of this topic by you). Similarly, I cannot see how Bloodtide Coast is part of the Steamspur Mountains (and I certainly cannot see how you'd consider Claw Island to be in Kryta, but not Bloodtide Coast when Krytan ruins are very clearly seen there - as well as in Sparkfly Fen, for that matter). If any change is needed, it would simply be putting Mount Maelstrom and Sparkfly Fen into new regions and nothing more as they are the only confusing aspects, though I wouldn't call Sparkfly Fen part of the Steamspur Mountains either. One can argue Timberline Falls too, but I that's never been brought up as an issue except by you. Konig/talk 23:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You are aware that just because the region is officially named the Tarnished Coast doesn't preclude it from having inland areas, right? That's like saying Frostgorge Sound can't be part of the Shiverpeaks because a sound =/= mountain, or that Sparkfly Fen can't be part of the Maguuma Jungle because fens contain few trees. But if we want to talk geography, Brisban Wildlands certainly fits the Tarnished Coast a lot better than the Maguuma Wastes (remembering that the Maguuma Jungle no longer exists). We also have the likely idea that on release, we only have a few regions (Ascalon, Shiverpeak Mountains, Steamspur Mountains, Kryta, Ruins of Orr and Tarnished Coast) with other, unexplorable regions named for future expansions (there's a map of known zone exits and speculated zone boundaries here) - so it wouldn't seem reasonable that Brisban Wildlands was placed in the Maguuma Wastes, because then it would be on its own - if it was placed on its own, it would be the only zone in the game with its own zone on release, which seems unlikely).
The other argument you make is that you haven't seen anyone else call the Brisban Wildlands part of the Tarnished Coast. Well, just because everyone else does something doesn't make them correct, and although other people and fansites will have their reasons for calling Brisban Wildlands one region or another which could serve as a good indication for us, the wiki decision-making process has to remain independent. That said, I haven't seen a single source calling the Brisban Wildlands part of the Maguuma - the official PRIMA guide, gw2db, and the IGN wiki all call it part of the Tarnished Coast, so I've no idea what made you take that line of reasoning if I'm honest.
Finally, Claw Island is considered part of Kryta because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Lionguard, and is geographically near to Lion's Arch. Everywhere south of there, such as Bloodtide Coast and Sparkfly Fen, are (a) geographically dissimilar to Kryta and (b) aren't within the reach of Queen Jennah or the Captain's Council. The fact that there are Krytan ruins there means that Krytans lived there once, but don't anymore - it does definitely not mean that those zones are part of modern Kryta. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It's more important to stay consistent with what region the game considers the zone part of than what region the zone is commonly considered part of. That's regardless of an ad populum argument. As far as lorewise, you can mention the differences to your heart's content on the zone or area page. And ignwiki says "Renown Tasks" instead of "Renown Hearts" on that page, so citing them kind of killed that argument for me.--Relyk ~ talk > 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This entire argument is the reason why we should stick with the Explorer achievement mechanics for defining region within the wiki. Nothing else is 100% definitive. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Event list formatting

Sorry for redirecting, but i would be grateful for an opinion on event list formatting: Thanks in advance--Leriel 10:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Jumping Puzzles (and other) to Locations and Objectives (Area)

The area formatting for Locations and Objectives seems to be lacking placeholders for content like Jumping Puzzles, Asura Gates and more impopular things like Ships and whatnot as seen in Template:Map_icon. Because many of these aren't frequently used, I propose to either add only the JPs and AGs under Vistas and Waypoints respectively, or to make a list on the page which states the order of each location/objective, possibly with example code. ~ Sanna 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Create a header for each type of location.--Relyk ~ talk > 02:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello everyone. While writing up and (re)formatting various area pages, I've noticed a section for Landmarks. There should probably be a link to the Landmarks page included in the list of terminology if we want to use this term. I know I had no idea what they were before looking them up on the wiki. Personally, they seem a little too subject to personal interpretation. I would make the edit myself, but I wanted to see what other people thought about this term first. Zomperzon 07:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Landmarks are any feature of interest that is not already identified by a map marker. The "of interest" part is subjective, yes, but common sense should make it pretty easy to decide whether some feature is interesting enough to document. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
A link would be good, yes. And I wouldn't say "of interest" but a named location/structure that is not a region, zone, PoI, etc. So it isn't really subjective (you can't make a nameless hill into a landmark, for instance). Dragonbrand, Wizard's Tower, Seraph's Landing, Grenth's Spokes, Northern Wall - these are all landmarks, all of them are actual names provided by the game in some form. So there's no subjectiveness to it. Konig/talk 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Jumping puzzle spoilers

Since I troll jumping puzzles, I want to check if we want to keep using {{spoilers}} for the jumping puzzles. People are just as likely to go on youtube for information on jumping puzzles as navigating to the jumping puzzle pages. I think they know full well the jumping puzzle will contain spoilers and won't accidently read more than they want to. Just looks seems like it makes it harder for new editors to contribute, as they simply add new sections and video guides more often than editing the walkthrough. And it's just annoying to hide when you edit the walkthroughs constantly.--Relyk ~ talk > 06:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I preferred when the walkthroughs were on a separate page. That way the article only included the "how to get there" and people who wanted a walkthrough followed the link. A non-video JP walkthrough ought to include images and maps, since text alone isn't enough for a lot of people. That is awkward to edit under {{spoiler}}, but easily managed on a subpage. 07:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hiding the walkthrough in a subpage was way worse--Relyk ~ talk > 07:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It makes it easier to edit, no one is spoiled unless they want, and it separates location info from an extensive walk through. It addresses your stated concern about making it easier to edit the article, addresses the implied concern about spoiling the puzzle for people who just want to find out where it's located. I think it's "way worse" now, since the tag creates the additional issue you raised in your OP. 07:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not the issue, the use of subpages was already discussed here and the previous section. We will not be splitting an article into separate pages based on whether or not certain sections contains spoilers.--Relyk ~ talk > 08:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)