Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Cartography/Archive 2

New layout proposal

I thought I'd bring this to the attention of all Project Cartographers:

In my quest to have a standardised, concise layout for all the pages I got discussing them with Konig (see here) and we agreed that the current format is making the page look too messy. Therefore I want to propose a new format. If you look at the Lion's Arch page, the table at the top provides links to the points of interest and, when you hover over them, they provide the name of the poi or waypoint. This format will allow us to get rid of the "Points of Interest" section on the pages. This would also allow for getting rid of the Renown Hearts pages as the heart could just link to the hearts page. This avoids a duplicate of data as well. I like having everything on one page but, personally, if I was going to the Caledon Forest page I would just be looking for either information on how many hearts there were and the locations they were in. I would click through to find out more information about the heart. I believe thatt his allows the user of the wiki to avoid any spoilers that they didn't want (some people don't want to know the rewards etc.) The Skill Challenges section could also vanish from the zone pages as, again, the user could just click through to the skill challenge from the concise table at the top yet still (at a glance) find out how many skill challenges there were and the locations they were in.

Opinions? — Andrealinia 08:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it keeps the page easy to read. However maybe tell users they can click the icons because it's not obvious right away. ~~Preau 11:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I like the principle of the concise table, I agree with Preau. Most users probably won't click on the icon (I wouldn't have at first if you hadn't mentioned it). I prefer the solution on Metrica Province. The short table first for anyone who just wants to jump quickly and then the detailed tables for people who want more.--Zerebruin 13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Metrica Provice is beginning to look very long and very untidy, full of possibly unnecessary information. I added in a simple line to the Caledon Forest table, just saying that clicking on the icon provides more information. I believe a simple line is better than streams of duplicated data. — Andrealinia 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also added the events into the table as that allows for yet a further clean up of the page. I think that's everything that can be slimmed down, done on the Caledon Forest page. — Andrealinia 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not add a little disclaimer that says 'Click the icons for more information' or something like that above the table? ~~Preau 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The "simple" table is indeed too simple. A bunch of icons doesn't convey very much actual information, and having to hover on them to see a point's name is tedious, especially when you want to see many names and have to keep going back-and-forth between multiple icons. [edit] This is especially non-useful with the events icons that were just added to Caledon Forest.

I also agree that the proliferation of tables has gone a bit too far. The simple tables (PoIs, Vistas, Waypoints, Skill challenges) would be better off presented as text lists. The Renown hearts table should probably remain a table, but it's currently trying to present too much information and needs some simplification, probably by removing the Goal and Progress/completion columns (I'm also thinking the Scout column isn't necessary, since there's no in-game requirement to speak to a scout before accessing a heart). Also, these sections honestly don't need to be transcluded pages, as that just adds clutter to the wiki as a whole. —Dr Ishmael 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing with the text lists is that they're hard to figure out. In the current list-only pages I have trouble figuring out which are PoIs, which are waypoints etc. I find the look-up table to be handy and show me exactly what is where. I find hovering over them pretty easy to do and it shows me everything I need without having to scroll through a bunch of excess information (but then I just made the changes). As a result the zone page is now shorter and any excess information can be found on the area page. I just added the event simples to see what it would look like. Again, I believe for the zone page we only need to show what's there as the area page would display all the needed information. [edit] I agree that on the area pages, the information would be mainly lists instead of tables. — Andrealinia 14:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We can add the icons via {{map icon}} before the object within the list, and combine all map completions into location like we do with area zones. E.g., using Godslost Swamp (which has one of every kind in it) as an example, the Location section on zones can look like:

• Godslost Swamp
  • Help Historian Garrod Investigate Godslost Swamp
  • Godslost Waypoint
  • Swamplost Haven Waypoint
  • Deathroot Shack
  • Temple of the Ages
  • Commune with Temple of the Ages
  • Vista

Thus we get rid of, currently, 3-5 different tables (overall, heart, skill challenge, poi, and vista) depending on the zone. Konig/talk 22:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a good idea is to combine these two ideas. A table with columns which each show a list of available places with text. If there are multiple, just list them below each other but withing in the same cell. ~~Preau 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we suggesting something like this then:

Area	Level	Renown hearts	Points of interest	Vistas	Waypoints	Skill challenges
Village of Astorea	2	—	Rime's Garden Solitaire Island	—	Astorea Waypoint	—
The Verdence	2 – 3	Help Gemai support the wardens of Wardenhurst Help Danador manage his kennel by becoming a hound	Danador's Kennel	—	—	—

OR

Area	Level	Details
Village of Astorea	2	Rime's Garden Solitaire Island Astorea Waypoint
The Verdence	2 – 3	Help Gemai support the wardens of Wardenhurst Help Danador manage his kennel by becoming a hound Danador's Kennel

Personally, I prefer the latter (but I do like my look-up table =p) — Andrealinia 06:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't like including events on this. Mainly because a lot (most?) events take place over more than one area. Konig/talk 09:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Do they? The events have a 'Location' field on their pages. — Andrealinia 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of them are probably for where they start. But take Escort the trading post caravan to Claypool for example. It starts at Altar Brook Trading Post and ends at Township of Claypool, going through 3 areas. A lot of the escort quests are like that, so are defend xyz NPC. Only ones which are typically in a single area are defending a settlement/outpost from waves, or an enemy triggered at a certain location. Konig/talk 09:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh okay, I removed the events from the sample tables [edit] Perhaps it wants renaming to "Start" rather than "Location" — Andrealinia 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First one looks better to me and won't take as much height. ~~Preau 10:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've meddled with it a bit and removed the icons and I like the first one now, too. For the vista columns the map icon can be put in to show that they're there (since Vista's don't have a name) [edit] Is this layout okay with everyone? — Andrealinia 11:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I liked it more with icons, makes it easier to quickly find what you are looking for and gives it a better look instead of the boring text. Also what are the levels based on (Downscaled level? Heart level (What if the area doesn't have hearts?)? ~~Preau 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the icons can go in :) I put them back. Um, the level is based on what I find i.e. heart levels, capped level, downscaled level. At the moment The Verdence is 2 - 3 because events are level 2 and 3 and the hearts are level 3 and Village of Astorea is only level 2 because (at the moment) the events are level 2. — Andrealinia 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the latter with icons, but why does it need to be a table? I like Konig's idea for text lists.

• Village of Astorea (2)

Rime's Garden

Solitaire Island

Astorea Waypoint

• The Verdence (2-3)

Help Gemai support the wardens of Wardenhurst

Help Danador manage his kennel by becoming a hound

Danador's Kennel

This kind of information is not tabular data, and I strongly feel that it should not be forced into a table just for the pretty colors. —Dr Ishmael 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the second table version most. The first one is just huge, and doesn't provide more information. The list can become huge too, and I think large lists are harder to read than large tables. I think what could help is some kind of show/hide function, where first the specific region information is hidden and can be shown individually. Of cause something like a show_all/hide_all butten would than also be a nice usability option. - Yandere 17:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I find tables easier on the eyes than long lists, but how about a compromise with the show/hide like Yandere suggested, see below;

Village of Astorea (Level 2)
Rime's Garden Solitaire Island Astorea Waypoint

A template would have to be made, and they might want combining so they weren't in separate tables, but this would give the list/simplistic feel to it without making the page overbearing, especially if we hide as default — Andrealinia 18:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"it should not be forced into a table just for the pretty colors" My sentiments exactly. I think that's the current issue with zone articles atm - people are trying to be fancy and thus have tables. But there's no need. The wiki is meant for clean, precise, and accurate documentation - no fluff, no "pretty flower"ness. A simple list is more than enough without any added confusion.

I disagree with being "easier on the eyes" - it really depends on how the list is done. If it's done like, say, Risen#Types then yes, a table's preferred, but in my suggestion I don't think that's needed.

Also, there's no outright need to list levels of areas on the zone article either because, quite frankly, if you get 20+ folks in the area the level requirements of events will go up (as will levels of foes). Levels fluctuate.Konig/talk 19:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I can agree on the need of levels, we can just sort the areas alphabetically and there's no really good indicator on what level an area is. However a list would get very long were talking about a rough estimate 25 areas per explorable zone, and each of those areas having anywhere from 0-10 things to do within them (not sure on max). ~~Preau 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Levels fluctuate." I didn't realise this. I thought the areas were just capped. In that case, the "level" section on the area page will probably want removing too. The issue I have with just lists is that is makes the pages very "left sided", though I don't mind doing really simple with the tables, just to spread the information across the page and stop the page from becoming really long and left-sided for an example, see below. — Andrealinia 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Village of Astorea Rime's Garden Solitaire Island Astorea Waypoint

The Verdence Help Gemai support the wardens of Wardenhurst Help Danador manage his kennel by becoming a hound Danador's Kennel

That is just bad layout design. We do use something similar for small groups of lists like on Pet, but it quickly gets unruly with more than 3 or 4 sublists. The main problem is that everyone uses a different screen resolution, so you can't pre-define your layout to specific widths - you'll either short-change people with high resolutions or you'll overload people with low resolutions - and in either case you'll have jagged alignment all over the place.

I don't understand what is wrong with a plain list. Yes, it's heavy on the left side of the page, but why is that a problem? Take the opportunity to populate the right side with some thumbnails of local scenery to give the page some flavor. If it's difficult to navigate, make the area names bold so they stand out.

About levels, I'm pretty sure that each area has a specific "level cap" like Andrealina described that determines the Dynamic Level Adjustment of player characters. The level ratings for hearts/events/NPCs rarely match the scaled level of the area. —Dr Ishmael 21:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just find that it quickly makes the information unreadable and you end up with a whole bunch of information that formatted in such a poor standard that no one can make heads or tails of it. For example, Harathi Hinterlands - There's loads of information there, but from looking at it I don't have a clue what is what and it's an awful lot to sift through if I'm just quickly looking something up. I think we also need to realise this is a game wiki and people come here for game help as well as to read interesting tid-bits. Also, keep in mind we're only discussing the zone pages - not the area pages themselves. Personally, I still don't see anything wrong with having the zone information in a neat, tidy, but informative table such as the one at the top, and then all the in-depth information given on the area pages in left-sided, plain text, lists. — Andrealinia 21:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"makes the pages very "left sided"" This can be remedied. If we merge the map completion and location sections (which are about the same things with the above changes implemented), we can move the letter to the right side of the page. This will also move the list up so that the infobox would be part of the right side at the list. Furthermore, if we increase the amount of images that can be held by the area infobox template, more images can be added (not a bad thing) thus pushing things down more if needed - though I think only having 3 images per infobox max (map, loading screen when applicable, and an image of a location in the zone/area/instance) is enough. Still, left sided-ness can be easily fixed via moving pre-existing boxes to the right side of the page.

An alternative solution would be to do what we did on pages like gww:Condition - make the lists collapsable, but still lists. Konig/talk 22:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that fits with my idea - the letter from the TES could easily be part of the "flavor" on the right side, perhaps reformatted so it's not so wide. Instead of adding images to the infobox, or maybe in addition to, I was thinking of more context-specific thumbnails further down for a couple selected areas, re-using the "image of a location in the area" that would be in the area's infobox on the zone page. —Dr Ishmael 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit anomaly)I went and made a prototype of the list alone here Only issue is that I don't know how to make the mail template go to the right (even using raw code instead of template) - I used Queensdale as the basis. IMO, the length isn't that big of an issue, nor will the whole "left oriented" bit, especially when we'll be slapping on the infobox and move that mail to the right. Two things to note: there's no icon for jumping puzzles and I don't like the old way of denoting Demongrub Pits was a jumping puzzle because not all JP's are areas (just 5 as far as I know, in fact) - which is a bit of an issue in how jumping puzzle pages are currently formated, they all seemed to have taken after Loreclaw, Demongrub, and the other three I know of, listing the puzzles as areas, but that's another matter (could just change "type" from area to jumping puzzle I guess? Split those five too?). Along with that, I briefly initiated a little side-project I'll be taking on in the future - landmarks (non map completion-required places of interest, either to players or lore) and that similarly doesn't have an image. One solution would be to create fan-made images for these purposes, the other would be to use explorer icon for jumping puzzle and leave landmarks blank. Konig/talk 22:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I know what you meant Ish, with the images comment. tbh, I didn't read your post until I had written that up. :P I could see using concept art images of known/obvious locations in zones/area articles doing the trick for that - we have it, might as well use it. Konig/talk 22:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Concept art/screenshots, whatever makes the page look good. I floated the mail for you. The remainder of the former "map completion" is probably unnecessary: it repeats the numbers and icons from the top of the infobox without adding anything to it.

How about changing the list to a definition list? I.e. use ; and : instead of * for indentation. Doing that would make the area names bold and provide a larger margin between them and the previous list, which would help with navigation. The locations with icons make the bullet redundant, and there are few enough puzzles and landmarks that they shouldn't look too odd without it, either. —Dr Ishmael 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(resetting indent) The page from the GW1wiki did actually something like I proposed. The page the Konig just linked in his Sandbox. Well, that is hard to read in my opinion. As I said I would do something like this: (here for the fist 4 areas within the zone, and I know there is a clever way to make an indent in this structure I just don't remember it at the moment) - Yandere 23:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Altar Brook Vale
Vale Waypoint
Crossing Waypoint
Help Lexi Price protect the trade route
Altar Brook Crossing
Bar Curtis Ranch
Defeat Franklin Quickblade and his band of rogues

Altar's Windings
Altar's Windings Vista

Bandithaunt Caverns
Bandithaunt Caverns Vista

Beetletun Farms
Aid the Beetletun farmers
Beetletun Waterworks

Yes, I like this, will only provide you with the information you need and not everything else. How are we naming 2 vistas in 1 area, just 2 times the same name? ~~Preau 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That sacrifices usability for readability - you have to click "show" on each area you want details on, which makes it nearly impossible to simply scan a page to find something you're looking for. "I know there's a heart somewhere in Metrica Province that involves the chaos krewe, but I don't remember what area it's in. Let me look at Metrica Province..." That user would be very frustrated with these collapsed lists. —Dr Ishmael 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Made alterations to my suggestion per Ish's comments - I think it looks much better. I would also agree that collapsing sacrifices usability. If we use collapsing, I'd put it as all locations, rather than by area. Konig/talk 00:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Caledon Location table is near perfect. One stop shop for all major info on Caledon. Mouse over an icon for info. If I need more I can click deeper. All in a well designed SORTABLE table. The Metrica Province Renown table is also very useful and should stay on the area page. As Ishmael said it does need some clean up. Remove a couple columns and it fits nicely. — Malacon on Blackgate — 00:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Except the former requires you to know that you have to mouse over, and requires you to know you can click for more information rather than just getting the image like 90% of all other images on the wiki. Also gives nothing on events. The latter is thus redundant with the former as well. We don't need zone articles to be "One stop shop"s - in fact, they shouldn't. Trying to make them such is what got us to where we are now - a shit ton of tables that make the pages look awful. Konig/talk 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The primary goal of a wiki page should be usability; if it can look nice at the same time, that's a bonus, but aesthetics should never trump utility. I find the Caledon Forest icon table to be very non-usable for the same reasons as Konig. (I actually have the same issues with the in-game map - I would love a feature where I could make all the icon names pop-up by holding Ctrl or something instead of having to move my mouse between all of them.) Andrealina's tables above would be an acceptable compromise if they weren't so sparse - the Caledon icon table already has a lot of empty space (which is cluttered by a bunch of meaningless dashes), and by enlarging the cells that do contain something by including a lot of text, the empty space is enlarged as well. Sparse tables should be evaluated for different methods of presentation, thus, the only logical method of presenting this data is as a text list. Yes, it is quite long, but at least it is usable - because all article names are presented directly instead of being hidden - and orderly. It does leave empty space, but instead of being spread throughout a sparse table, it is altogether on the right side, and can be re-purposed for presenting concept art, screenshots, and non-critical data (like the completion letter), thereby improving the article's aesthetics.

One change I might want to make is to sort the areas by scaled level, instead of alphabetically, but that's not nearly as important as making this list usable. —Dr Ishmael 04:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue, imo, about sorting via default level is that some zones, for instance Brisban Wildlands and Gendarran Fields have multiple "leveling paths" so to speak - that is, two different sides of the map are the same level and they inch closer until they converge (from a design point, I'm supposing this was done since players are expected to arrive from different points) - for instance, in Diessa Plateau, charr characters following hearts and thus their "level path" through the zone will completely miss the top left corner of the map, a lvl 16/17 zone meant to introduce norn characters as two norn personal storyline paths lead into that zone from Wayfarer Foothills. So if we were to sort via level, we'll be getting opposite ends of the map next to each other while making an "order" to it which, to me, just sounds confusing (also, how do you intend to figure out the leveling paths for Straits of Devastation and Malchor's Leap, where there are no hearts - events which, as I said, scale; including the "recommended level" for it?). Konig/talk 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the primary goal is usability, however not all users find lists usable. In this discussion we have three people who like the look-up table, three people who like long lists and one who didn't really state which they liked. How about a compromise. From this discussion I'm picking up that people either like look-up tables, or they like lists. Why not have both? Let's take the look-up table from Caledon Forest and rename it to a quick-reference table (maybe replace the "To get 100% map completion on this map, you must complete: " bit like Konig did on his example). It has a disclaimer at the top to let people know to hover for description and click for more information so the earlier issue about not knowing to do that is void. However, we can also have a section called 'Locations' and 'Events' that offers the long list of locations and events in a text-based, left-sided list with images down the right to balance the page. This allows for both types of wiki-users and both types of usability factors. Those that do not like the look-up table can ignore it, and those that hate long lists have something to use too (because I find the long list in Konig's example hard to use). [edit] Example here though I know that the table and actual locations don't match. — Andrealinia 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"we have three people who like the look-up table, three people who like long lists" - "like" is not exactly usability. How quick can one - anyone regardless of preference - find what they're looking for in all of the suggestions thus far? Collapsing by area fails that, no words fails that, and clunkiness reduces that ability outside Ctrl+F. Both lists and tables have their downsides, but I think having both is worse than having one or the other - you're duplicating information needlessly, and extending the page even more than either one option. Other than concision (at the cost of being able to even tell what's what), that table doesn't aid anything. It just looks pretty, which is pretty much how I'm seeing what Malacon wants - something that "looks nice." Side note: that event listing on your table is beyond useless imo - it is impossible to find the event you're looking for due to the pure amount of events in a given area, and it'll only get worse in higher level content where events are more numerous and chains are longer - I literally have to hover over each icon one by one in order to find the event I'm looking for, and what if I don't know which area it'd be listed under? That table just makes it slower, even if you like tables.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing any use to that table design except "number of xyz in areas" - to which, we can do that a hell of a lot shorter. Konig/talk 06:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm trying to say, maybe 'like' was the wrong word. I find the table to be 10x more usable than the long list. When I look at the table I can see straight away how many of each are in each area and have something to click on right there if I want more information. With the long list I have to scroll through, scan the whole thing just to pick out the area that I want and then I have to sift through everything under that subheading and count how many of each there are while ignoring all the text around it. I don't see any use to the long lists. Is it really unreasonable to compromise and use both? You don't find the table usable, but I don't find the list usable. Assume we represent a third of the wiki population each - with the other third not caring which they use - and by only giving a list, or only giving a table, you cut out the other third and make the wiki page unusable to them. If everything was just long lists, I definitely would find this wiki unusable. I agree the events may want to come out of that table though.

I don't think you can complain about page length, adding a table to the top will not as that much to the page length. It doesn't even duplicate data that much - like I said it's concise and neat, just a little alternative. I believe having both, see my example page, gives wiki users the best options for usability without really duplicating data - it's not really any different than having a table of contents at the top of the page and detailed information under that section further down the page. — Andrealinia 06:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The table in your example is excellent. This table is one of the best data layouts I have come across on this wiki. Simple to use. Easy to look at. Takes up very little page space. The list... not so much. Wall of text. Too much reading to find anything. Too much time wasted when I need a quick answer while gaming. DISlike doesn't mean unusable. — Malacon on Blackgate — 06:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Simple to use. ... Too much reading to find anything." Are you looking at the same table I am? Because the table I see in Andrealinia's example makes me read more, because it's not as clear. One has to scroll over each icon until they find their target - it's a hit or miss scenario. Say you're looking for the Doric's Shrine in Malchor's Leap - it's hidden by a waypoint on the map, so you can't recall the zone it's in. You then, with Andrealinia's example, have to move your cursor over each and every single PoI icon until you happen to find it. How, pray tell, is that "simple to use" - whereas with the list, you can ctrl F and type it in. @Andrealinia: I have nothing against table use. I have things against excessive table use and unclear tables. Current situation is the former (as is your second to last suggestion of 1 table per area), your preferred table is the latter. The compromise should not be in the use of both. Konig/talk 07:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This comment isn't meant to be discourteous and I hope you won't take it as such, but just because you find it unclear doesn't mean that everyone finds it unclear. Malacon and myself find it very easy, quick, and efficient to use and we find it gives us all the information we need. Yet we're taking your thoughts into account and saying 'have the lists too' because we're aware that not everyone will find the same things usable. — Andrealinia 07:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I just thought about it. I think the question we all had is, what am I searching for, when I look at the wiki page. And usually our and I want to say the anwser will be: A Point of intrest or a waypoint, etc. As I said before a list is good to read, when it isn't to long. So we could split the List, and list all points of intrest by area, than list all waypoints by area, than all vistas by area. Yes this will multiply the area information, but is highly usable without being a wall of text (ok, the whole article is probably than a wall of text, but each section is good readable, and therfore highly usable). The area maps on the other hand wouldn't obviously need a by area listing, but when you are there you know what you are searching for. Thoughts? - Yandere 07:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is true, I made an example page of what I think you mean. This is definitely more readable to me. [edit] I even put some pictures on to help balance the page, though I'm not convinced it worked — Andrealinia 07:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the is still the letter and the infobox. - Yandere 08:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(reset) I like the new look, definitely more readable than the giant list. However what about the areas that don't have anything within them. How are they going to be listed? Also if we do it like this we can keep the levels in the Hearts section. ~~Preau 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I added in the changes you suggested, though the "Level x" text might want moving. — Andrealinia 14:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Which sandbox are we on? lol I hope not the wall of text one. :( — Malacon on Blackgate — 15:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This sandbox - I don't like it as much as the look up table, but I find it a lot more usable than just a long list, hence a possible compromise solution — Andrealinia 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Makes me feel like it's the 80's again. Fun times on the BBS. :P I'll finish collecting tables then since a consensus of 3 out of 2000+ editors have the power to get things removed. Thanks for all your hard work. — Malacon on Blackgate — 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing's being removed at the moment, it's a discussion to try and come to some sort of an agreement on the layout of the pages. Do you want to see the look-up tables stay that badly? — Andrealinia 18:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that by this point I'm probably starting to sound like the naysayer who dislikes everything but my idea, but that divide lists by type is not something I want. In fact, I'd say that's as bad as our current situation - multiple lists is just as bad as multiple tables. If we do indeed do multiple lists, I'd rather leave out the areas of those subsequent lists as that's just redundancy at its finest.

"just because you find it unclear doesn't mean that everyone finds it unclear" Just so it's clear, I am not nor ever was speaking on my behalf of whether it's clear. I find it clear, you find it clear - but the thing is, you made it so of course you find it clear, you know how it functions. I know where most things already are, so any format's clear to me (just annoying or not). I was speaking of a casual player who isn't a major wiki editor - the kind of person who should be the target audience with our formatting, the person who comes on the wiki to look things up they don't know. And if you don't know something, then undescriptive images don't help. In short, I stand by these two simple facts for what our format must uphold to: 1) It must show text - if it hides it, it must be quick and simple to show it, and preferably show all the text at once (so collapsing by area, or having to mouse over each individual icon doesn't work here, imho). 2) It must be concise - if it's all over the place (e.g., current format or the list division) then it's not helpful.

@Malacon: Regardless of how many editors are on the wiki, it's only a matter of how many people are discussing the matter (of which, there are 5 editors that frequent this discussion, not 3). Konig/talk 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"I know that by this point I'm probably starting to sound like the naysayer who dislikes everything but my idea" I am so glad you said that because, to be perfectly truthful, you were starting to sound like that. Until you fully explained as you did just then. I understand exactly where you're coming from now but, by your own definition of what you're saying - surely the table in the very first example on this page (the first or the second, but the ones in the purple table) is the best. For the average wiki user the last thing they're going to want it so ctrl-f to find something that they don't know. I mean, how are they going to look up a specific point if they don't know the name of the specific point or what area it is. Instead, the average Joe is going to have to scroll through the whole long list and sift through all the information present to them. Those tables offer the text that is required, has all the information in one place, is concise and shows it in a quick and simple manner. Instead of scrolling through an entire page of lists, they have the information shown to them in a manner that is easy to understand and (I do believe this is a key point for an average wiki searcher) in a manner that is easy to see. I believe it being easy to see, or "easy on the eyes" if you want to say it that way, is a key point as if it's something unpleasant to look at the average wiki user will immediately close down the tab and pick the next result in Google. I know I've gone to many a wiki, before I became a contributor, and closed it down if the information on the page was badly displayed. — Andrealinia 05:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"surely the table in the very first example on this page is the best" - of the tables, excluding color, yes those would be the best options (preferably the second) and if you notice the only complaint I had on them was the inclusion of events and by the time that got fixed you folks moved onto another idea which were worse (then we kept going on this). Though I personally would still prefer either lists or at least non-sorting tables. Don't think that width is needed so I'd go with the second purple table if I had to chose among any table thus far presented. But personally, I don't see an issue with the list so long as they denote what they're referring to - which the last ones definitely do. But at that point it's not about whether someone is good or bad with wikis, it matters on how they learn and register information - which is something we simply can't cater to one way or another.

My final comments, for now, will just be this: In the end, given all the possible solutions we've thought of, I put my hands down to one of two options: The very second purple table above - but change the colors to match the second set of tables (and make sure it's one table the entire way), or my subpage list. I'd prefer my list but meh at this point. Thing is: that table I'd prefer only reduces the list's length by 1 line per area. So I don't see much difference between the two other than format... Konig/talk 08:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank you for contributing to this. I really appreciate the effort you've made to ensure that these wiki pages are the best they can be. I, too, prefer the second and I agree that the colour should be changed, for some reason the location part of that template is purple so that can be changed via the css on the template. I think the main reason I prefer the table over the list is really because of the format - the table is easier to read. Seems so trivial but format can make such a big difference on the usability of a page. I'll change the colours to make them less obtrusive, try to remove the sortable column from the details and (unless anyone has any objections) work on putting these into practice. Again, thank you everyone for taking the time to be a part of this discussion and, hopefully, the usability of these zone pages will increase. — Andrealinia 08:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I want the table as the final format, but it's a better alternative to the present situation and a damn good way to organize things now. I think it might be best to pick this discussion up after other things get moved - if there's reason enough to do so. Just make sure the sorting and colors get fixed. :p Konig/talk 09:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that table, but I say keep the levels with the hearts because that's what they really belong too. The level for an area is too hard to define: hearts, downscaled, events in the area, events passing through the area. Just better if we keep the levels to the events and hearts instead of trying to define the level for an area. What I do know is that I would like this discussion closed for now, I have been saving up the data in a textfile until we get the final design. ~~Preau 10:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the level comment, looking at the design right now. — Andrealinia 11:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Finished, see Caledon Forest - The table is sorted by 'general level' so the lower levels are at the top, but the area column is sortable so it's easier to find an area by name. — Andrealinia 11:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I really don't like that format now, not because of how it looks, but because of how it has to be coded - you have to force line breaks with &lt:br>'s all over the place instead of letting one of the built-in list formats work automatically. That is definitely not a best practice. [EDIT] Suggestion: I can't do this immediately, but I can create a new CSS rule or two specifically for these tables, so that any ':' lists inside them don't have any indentation. That way we use a standard list format instead of raw tags, which is always preferred.

Also, as I just stated in a section above, repeating (Level X) all over the place is horribly redundant; just giving the number is all we need to do. If people can't figure that out (because it's exactly the same as how heart/event levels are denoted in-game), then just give an explanation at the top of the table. —Dr Ishmael 13:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Also the sorting looks totally random now, I vote for sorting by name. ~~Preau 13:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wall of text with boring grey background is still just a wall of text. :( The table sorting needs to be sorted out too. Default sort is how the data is coded so IMO any table like yours should be alphabetical in the code. In the case of locations alphabetical by name. Since it is just a basic text list sorting isn't really necessary. — Malacon on Blackgate — 13:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to change the colours, it seems to be coded into the CSS. Dr Ishmael, that CSS rule would really come in handy, I keep forgetting to add the br's and have to go back and redo them. If people want it sorting by alphabetical, then okay. I quite like it with low level to the top and high level at the bottom, with the option to sort via area name if wanted. — Andrealinia 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that you mention it I see the order. But you had to mention it. Just looking at the table it wasn't obvious to me why they were in that order. I just saw a random list of names and text. The level is just a blip in the text. 1/3 of your items don't have levels. This is a locations table. Seems logical to me to sort it by location name. But that's just me. — Malacon on Blackgate — 15:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Areas do have an assigned scaling level that characters are always scaled to while in that area. I think we should document that as the area level. As stated before, this is not the same as the levels of hearts/events/NPCs that appear in the area, which are usually the same or lower. Example: While in Village of Astorea, all players are scaled down to level 4 (i.e. the area level), while events and most NPCs are level 2.

I've added the CSS rules and updated Caledon Forest to use them. —Dr Ishmael 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'm fine with using downscaled level for areas, hearts get their own level listing. Is this our final design then and do we sort by area level or area name. If we use downscaled level I'd say sort by level then by name within those levels? ~~Preau 17:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to lack of levels in the locations table not the game. — Malacon on Blackgate — 17:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of map markers attributed to wrong area

I noticed a lot of Hearts, Waypoints, Skillpoints, POIs and Vistas get attributed to the wrong area because the text is closest to it. However if you go through the zone uncovering areas 1 by 1 and seeing which pops up as you uncover the area you can clearly see they belong to a different area. I did this for the Bloodtide Coast but they keep getting changed. ~~Preau 11:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they don't realise? I recommend just putting a message on their user talk page just saying that the text closest to the place isn't always where they are. I know that when you're just looking at the map it's hard to remember which they were in. Thank you for changing them to the correct place though! — Andrealinia 11:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the guilty culprits, and I apologized to Preau. But I must say, there's obviously a heart in Momoztli Grounds, and there's obviously a heart that sits on the west coast of Stormbluff Isle. Regardless of what route one takes on the map or in what order one uncovers the areas (I can't imagine everyone does it the same), the map is clear, and listing locations by how it appears on the map makes the most sense imo. Perhaps they keep getting changed, because it makes more sense to others, as well? I've completed Bloodtide Coast, and my point is that map areas conflict with the locations (hearts, poi's, etc.) as they are currently listed on the Bloodtide Coast page. My concern is that this will only confuse players looking at the wiki. Rest assured, I won't touch the locations again, and I will remove the map images I added, because they don't jive with Preau's perception of locations. Just wanted to offer up some food for thought. Not trying to cause problems. I was enjoying contributing to the Bloodtide Coast areas, but I'll move onto something else, if anything at all. :/ Hazel 13:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to contribute Hazel and this is a good discussion point. Do we list by location on the map or by the location the game says? Personally, I would look at the map and if I was looking for something in Momoztli Grounds I would look for the text that says Momoztli Grounds. Like I said in my point before, when you're looking at the map you can't tell which area they're in, just which text their closest too so maybe it makes more sense to list them that way? — Andrealinia 14:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The most certain way to check is to take your character to the point in question, then mouseover your compass and see which area name is shown. The closest name on the map is not the correct way to list these. —Dr Ishmael 14:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we'll list via area location. Thanks for the tip on checking after obtaining them. — Andrealinia 14:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A great suggestion indeed Dr ishmael, in the future I will try and stand on the exact spot and hover my mouse over the map. What I did now was as I explained in my initial post. ~~Preau 14:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your method is also accurate, but it only works if you are exploring a zone for the first time. The benefit, though, is that you don't have to stand at each point and check them individually. —Dr Ishmael 14:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

POIs

While I was doing the POI pages for Lion's Arch I found a lot of text cluttering explaining in what area it is etc. I've made a very simple infobox which contains an image and the location of the POI. If anyone has ideas feel free to improve or suggest here. Do you think this is good enough? : [[Template:Poi infobox]] ~~Preau 16:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The region (Kryta) gets it's own line while the zone (Lion's Arch) is only mentioned in brackets behind the area name (Grand Piazza). In my opinion the fact that the PoI in located in Lion's Arch should stand out more then the fact that it is located in Kryta. Bart M 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the infobox idea got nixed (consensus: just use {{Location infobox}} for everything), I'm hijacking this section to discuss something else about PoIs. I've noticed that on some of the PoI pages, like Edenvar's Homestead, the page has NPCs and waypoints listed. This doesn't feel right to me - a PoI is just a point, it doesn't contain anything. It is contained within an area, and that area also contains NPCs and waypoints, which is where those should be listed. That's just my thoughts, anyone else? —Dr Ishmael 14:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree they shouldn't be there. On a side note, why is there even a page for POIs? None of them seem to have any data on them other than a line saying "This is a poi called 'x' in 'y' ". — Andrealinia 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel NPCs could be, but not waypoints or other kinds of locations/map completion objects. As to why PoI have pages, that's because most have actual lore behind them. For instance Shards of War is one of the few remaining crystals from gw1:the Searing, or there's Moran Memorial which has text on it that I hope one day will make it onto the article (I recall there being a translation of it already, but don't recall where it was else I'd add it), then there's also places like Guutra's Secret which is a norn homestead that houses a secret Order of Whispers base in it. However, then there's PoIs like Ashford Gate which is just... a gate. Nothing all that special about it. It would be weird to have articles for some but not others, so all get them. Konig/talk 16:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PoIs also are usually a "thing" that we can show a screenshot of. That makes them distinct from waypoints, which all look exactly the same. —Dr Ishmael 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh cool! Is this lore in-game? I've never seen any. Thinking about it, I suppose the PoI page could contain state the nearest waypoint - after all it would be handy to know which waypoint to travel to if you're going after a specific PoI. — Andrealinia 05:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of it is, some of it is just nostalgia places from GW1 (such as Shards of War). You usually have to talk to NPCs around the area, sometimes to heart NPCs before completing the hearts (sometimes after), and sometime you learn it from events or under other special circumstances (you'll only know the purpose behind Guutra's Secret if you're a member of the Order of Whispers). I wouldn't say "nearest" waypoint either - only if one is right next to the PoI. Though I think most of those PoI were removed from the game between the betas (hence the purpose of me introducing landmarks), though there should still be a couple if memory serves me correctly. Just can't think of any atm. I don't think it's necessary to know the nearest waypoint for heading there either, since just knowing where the PoI is, you can find the best waypoint on the map (sometimes nearest isn't best because they can be contested, or you could be trying to save money). Konig/talk 07:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think POI pages should definitely have NPCs because they have something to do with the POI a lot of the time. For example at The Cauldron of Searing the two NPCs are from the Iron Legion and the Priory and constantly fight about what they want to do with the POI. ~~Preau 11:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

New layout proposal

New layout proposal (arbitrary convenient subheader)

See Caledon Forest for final, agreed upon, layout :) — Andrealinia 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO, area levels should be (lowest heart/event) - (downscaled level). Why? If we list only the downscaled level, people will think they must be that level to decently survive there. Also, I'd rename "details" - that just feels off. Also, something not about the table: why are we linking the section titles? That seems relatively pointless. location has nothing to do with Caledon Forest, in the grand scale of things. Also, is it possible to remove the Caledon Forest#Vistas and Caledon Forest#Jumping Puzzles sections? Details on how to get to the jumping puzzles are on the individual pages, so they just need to be denoted in the locations section's table. Vista's the hard part unless we give each one its own page (which I'm not against, but how do we name?). Konig/talk 19:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a level range is necessary, the heart levels are listed in the next column anyway. I also renamed the column label to "Effective level" (which is an in-game term) and linked it to Dynamic level adjustment so that new players can easily learn about that mechanic.

Wikipedia has a style rule that section headers should never contain links. Obviously we don't enforce it here, but it's still a good guideline to follow where possible. I agree that the header links on Caledon Forest don't add much value to the page, and if people want to keep the link, it could easily be moved to a leader sentence within the section, like I just did for the Jumping puzzles section. —Dr Ishmael 20:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that details feels off, I don't know what else to call it though. The linked headers has been bugging me for a while. Everyone knows what a location is and the images links to their respective pages if people want to know more about them. I also agree that vistas and jumping puzzles should be removed and instead just mentioned in the table. I don't believe vistas need their own page since all pertinent information can be displayed on the area page - that way we also get around the naming issue by just numbering them — Andrealinia 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to come up with a name that covers everything in the current Details column, maybe 'Objectives' could work but they don't really cover POI and Waypoints. I agree with Ishmael on the level disucssion. Maybe it would look better if we used "1 Vista" and "# Vistas" instead of the "x 1" and "x #"? ~~Preau 21:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "Map completion"? With the exception of dungeons, jumping puzzles, and landmarks, everything counts to map completion anyways. Konig/talk 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You used the word landmarks. All these things listed are more or less landmarks, the pois more the hearts less. - Yandere 23:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When I use the term landmark on this wiki, I'm referring to a side project I've set the very basis for and defined at landmark (haven't gotten around to fleshing it out in full due to the amount of work needed elsewhere - though I made mention of this at least twice on this page already). Basically, places of interest which are not denoted by a PoI (and thus will not have a map-completion-related article on this wiki). The hearts are barely landmarks, but some waypoints and many vistas are named after/focus on landmarks. Konig/talk 23:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Maybe it would look better if we used "1 Vista" and "# Vistas" instead of the "x 1" and "x #"?" The trouble with that is then it breaks the formatting. Everything else has the icon and then text and I think it look strange if it suddenly went text then icon.

"How about "Map completion"? With the exception of dungeons, jumping puzzles, and landmarks, everything counts to map completion anyways." I think this is the best suggestion we have so far. Do dungeons, jumping puzzles and landmarks need to go in the table? Maybe having separate sections for them would be the better idea?

"I also renamed the column label to "Effective level" (which is an in-game term) and linked it to Dynamic level adjustment so that new players can easily learn about that mechanic." Would it be a good idea to do this on the area page as well, since I presume the "level" on the area page will also correspond to the Effective Level? — Andrealinia 05:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Prea meant doing 1 Vista rather than x1

I see absolutely no reason why dungeons or landmarks should be in a separate section. Where would they go? Why have a section for something that's so little different from the others. The only difference is counting to map completion. And Jumping puzzle... do we really need more than "this area has a jumping puzzle" - do we need, to use Caledon as an example, a section stating the jumping puzzle's name and where it's at when the jumping puzzle's name links to said jumping puzzle's location which has where it's at on that other page? It feels redundant. Only issue I see is that jumping puzzles and landmarks don't have icons - though that can be fixed by wiki "artists." Konig/talk 06:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, icon # Vista sounds better, and I get your point with the jumping puzzle over details. I moved the vistas off the page this morning and I'll integrate the jumping puzzles into it later as well as fixing the Vista wording issues — Andrealinia 07:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@König Well, I totally overread this. The discussion is kind of long. O_o - Yandere 07:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So are we done here and is Caledon Forest our agreed upon design? ~~Preau 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I remind people not to call anything "final" on a wiki, as it is a constantly growing and evolving beast, but yes, that page reflects the best design that has achieved the widest consensus.

About the table header: a) the "Effective level" label is going to wrap to a second line in any case because of the sort button, so using a forced linebreak in this case makes the most efficient use of space within that label as well as reducing the extraneous width taken up by that column; b) titlecase should be avoided in table/section headers, only capitalize the first word. —Dr Ishmael 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The Caledon_Forest is our current consense status when I got this right. Two things:

1. Why are there pets in the infobox, wasn't there some discussion, that we don'T want pets in area infoboxes.
2. I know I am quick to add items, an the Doc once told me I souldn't just ad icons just cause, and I think he is write. But when I look at the table I think that the Jumping puzzles are kind of missing an icon. I would want to propose that we use this icon for jumping puzzles because the archivement icon is something you really learn to assossiate with jumping puzzles if you made a few. At least I do.

Just two thought I wanted to throw in. - Yandere 20:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1. There's a discussion on the infobox's talk page about that and similar issues. Doesn't seem to be any opposition, but don't have much input, either.
2. I tried using that icon a few days ago, but it seems too small and not "poppy" enough compared to the others. We probably need someone to make a tango version of it to match the rest. —Dr Ishmael 20:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to get into the whole tango thing, but I definitly not far enough to make a good icon. Do you have someone in mind? Because some of the map icons including the contested waypoint would need an update. At the moment I just use some screenshots, but they don't look good at all. By the way, my vote go in for removing the pets from the infobox. - Yandere 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Alfa-R and User:Aspectacle had been the tango masters, unfortunately they're both inactive now. —Dr Ishmael 21:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've incorporated this into Iron Marches but I don't like how close the icons are above each other. The pointy ends of some icons look like they touch, can someone who knows where to edit the css add a bit of margin or padding to these (because I have no idea where to edit this)? ~~Preau 21:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What about User:That Sounds Risky he uploaded this icon so perhaps he can get the job done? - Yandere 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean editing the images to have borders around them but I mean editing the css to put a little whitespace between. ~~Preau 21:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@Yandere: That's not a tango icon, that's a texture extracted from the dat file. —Dr Ishmael 21:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know. But find a guy who is good at tango standard is difficult. - Yandere 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, the is quite illegible and looks just like a blob. Even a tango icon at that level of complexity (mountain plus laurel wreath) will not be ideal, I think. Why not use something that's generally associated with puzzles, like a puzzle piece? Like this: --Zerebruin 10:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an icon is needed hear. I updatedhe Caledon Forest a the page looks better imo. But the icon is a blob you are totally right. I like the puzzle piece, and I think it is important that the icon is green. So yeah a green puzzle piece like the one you posted. I can totally see that. - Yandere 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I really like the puzzle piece too [edit] I changed the image, but I still think it needs something doing to it — Andrealinia 11:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just want to note that I altered the format agreed upon for cities since there's no effective level, it'd be pointless to put 80 for them all, and thus removed that column as can be seen at The Grove#Locations

I just wanted to say that I really really like the Caledon Forest article as it is right now, I only would remove t pets from the infobox, but that is a minor issue. And since we areot discussion like crazy as we did the past few days. I guess we have reached consens here and can implement the new standard right? Bythe way nice catch with the cities, yeah the effective level coloum doesn't fit there. - Yandere 00:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I will start fixing the zone and city articles tonight to match Caledon Forest and The Grove. The pet thing in infobox is a separate topic (and in fact, so is everything else at this point). Konig/talk 02:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Here's something else: Asura gates, do we want to denote those too? It'll mostly only affect cities and the Order HQ's zones (10 places total off of my head), mind you, but it may be helpful to people, perhaps? Konig/talk 03:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I just would add these. They have a map icon, this red thingy. We can just add this to the Template:Map icon an here comes the problem: Listing them under macompletion doesn't seem right, because you don't need the asura gates for this. - Yandere 08:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, we don't need jumping puzzles or dungeons for map completion but it's listed. The term in the table's header could be improved, but it's meant to be a locations table. The asura gate thing was just an idea since most zones/cities with asura gates have them mentioned in notes. Thought we could reduce some size by going <asura gate icon> Lion's Arch asura gate listed in Divinity's Reach or something and thus remove the notes that're there for the two gates going to Ebonhawke and LA. Konig/talk 08:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are totally right. I would add them like this: {{map icon|ag}} [[Lion's Arch]] in the zone they belong - Yandere 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Intermission: I scaled the puzzle icon down to 18px, since I think it was too big in comparison to the other icons. Any thoughts?

That's not necessary, MediaWiki has functionality to resize images: . The issue is whether {{map icon}} should be returning 20px images or 18px images. Currently they are all 20px. —Dr Ishmael 14:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I know, but any resizing will make the icon fuzzy. Also, not all icons are currently 20px. The Heart and Waypoint icons are 18px. The vista icon is 20px but looks more like 18px, due to its geometry.--Zerebruin 18:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New layout proposal: Area pages

After adding an area page: The Narthex, I noticed the headings for map icons were redundant since there were only one of each icon in each category. In this case (sorry it's a space hog):

Waypoints

• Arah Waypoint

Points of Interest

• Gates of Arah

Dungeons

• Arah

Would look better as:

Arah Waypoint

Gates of Arah

Arah

--MajFauxPas 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be true but in same cases there's quite a lot and it's better to keep a consistent layout for all area pages rather than chop and change between different ones. I think the way it is in pages like Gunbreach Hills works perfectly well regardless of whether there's one or more of each item — Andrealinia 07:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I thin MajFauxPas has a point here. We list it like this in the zone table, so we could just keep the layout for the area page. Just my 2 cents on that. I have no strong opinion about this topic. - Yandere 10:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would disagree because we also denote events in the same section (e.g., Godslost Swamp), as well as how to get to Vistas (e.g., Koga Ruins). Similarly, akin to Wizard's Fief, we'll be adding landmarks to area pages. So in some pages you'd end up getting:

<event name>

<meta event name>

<event name>

<event name>

<event name>

<heart name>

<waypoint name>

<point of interest name>

<skill challenge name>

<vista name>

<description of how to get vista>

<jumping puzzle name>

<landmark name>

Which really doesn't work due to its inconsistency. Normal events are fine, but meta events don't have icons. Nor do landmarks unless we go about adding an icon for one like we did with jumping puzzles, but the vistas break the mold as well unless we don't add descriptions of how to get to them which is a major no-no based on everyone's desires for wanting to know how the hell to get to certain vistas. However, the current format allows non-icon sections such as events, landmarks, and so forth as well as creating a space for a simple but efficient description of how to reach vistas. Konig/talk 10:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As another sub-issue, on the area pages should we list environmental weapons? I ask because as I was finding the info from other places on the wiki to converge onto Gunbreach Hills, I ran across the Metal Bar environmental weapon. It seems like something that should be on the area pages but I'm not entirely sure which subheading to put them under. Also, I created a new subheading for this discussion. Edit: btw, on the Godslost Swamp the events really shouldn't be under locations. They're not locations. I've been listing them under a subheading of "events". — Andrealinia 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes, just as we denote interactive objects (white text things such as Book Carts in Divinity's Reach) on area articles, I think we should list environmental weapons that are always found there (read: not spawned by NPCs, events, etc.). They should, imo, go under their own heading ala ===Environmental weapons=== underneath ==Interactive objects==, which should go directly under the ==NPCs== section.

As to events, well I don't think there are enough events per area to give them their own section. At best, they'd go under the arbitrary (read: imo unnecessary and redundant) "Goals" section that seems to have been created without discussion sometime in the past for area articles (whereas what was discussed was the Godslost Swamp format, though that was prior to release, and in that discussion included events being listed in the same area as hearts since they're functionally the same once you remove map completion, which we shouldn't have dictating our formatting). Konig/talk 12:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's quite possible we need to come up with a standardised formatting for pages. I've only seen one or two with events under the "locations" so it wasn't implemented very far (not under the Ascalon ones anywhere, which is where I started). I've been making them look like Village of Smokestead and so no longer have an NPC header, though it's pretty easy to put one in and downgrade the "Allies" and "Foes". The header "Locations" could be renamed to '"Locations & Objectives" thereby covering both and allowing Events, hearts, waypoints, skills, pois, vistas, jumping puzzles and dungeons to all go under one header. — Andrealinia 13:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know who started not having an NPCs section, but there always should have been. Your right in that the placement of Events under locations didn't get implemented very far, but that's because when it was implemented there weren't that many area pages yet due to it being pre-BWE, and those I implemented that format into didn't have events denoted on the page. I don't mind dividing things between a Locations section and a Goals section, though I'd prefer a shared section, but everything that's something to do or somewhere to go should be under those two (or the one shared) imo. Locations and objectives (no &) is fine with me though. Konig/talk 13:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It was quite possibly me that got rid of it in the first place. I remember being confused why there was NPCs and then allies and foes under it, makes more sense if there's interactive objects too. Anyhows, I made the changes to Village of Smokestead so we've got a visual to work with and others have something to see too. — Andrealinia 13:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're doing this, could we begin implementing a simplification of some terms? "Interactive" is an unnecessary qualification for object (anything that isn't interactive shouldn't be considered an object). "Environmental weapons" are more commonly referred to as bundles (cf: Rune of the Engineer; update notes; when you hold one, the weapon swap button is called "Drop bundle"), not to mention it's a lot easier to say or type. —Dr Ishmael 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing against dropping interactive. I prefer environmental weapon over bundle because bundle, to me and perhaps other GW1 vets, has a different connotation to it - something that removes weapons and slows you down, rather than being an alternative weapon set object that you can pick up. Plus I think it'd be weird if we have a section titled "Bundles." But that's me being nitpicky. And I don't think Environmental weapons is that much harder in the grand scale of things. Konig/talk 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think that environmental weapon is more descriptive than 'bundle' — Andrealinia 15:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all bundles are "environmental" aka "found in the environment" - a lot of them are obtained from speaking to an NPC, especially for hearts. Not all bundles are "weapons" - some don't give any skills at all, others you can only eat or drink - although one could argue that we already have a loose enough definition of "weapon" that this isn't important. Finally, it doesn't fit in the skill infobox, ex. Lava Axe - but we could simply display "Bundle" there and treat them as synonyms.

Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the discussion, I just wanted to step in with this before the overly verbose terms got propagated all over the location pages. If you still want to keep "Environmental weapons" as a header, I don't suppose that's a huge issue. —Dr Ishmael 15:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't derail the discussion at all. I believe that the same term should be used consistently throughout the wiki. We could have the header "Bundle" and then sub-categorise further using ;Type (ie, ;Weapons, ;Food and Drink). I just feel as though having 'Bundle' and then leaving it at that could be really confusing. Especially if food and drink and dumped in with weapons and other interactive pieces. — Andrealinia 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Functionally, it's a weapon you can pick up but not place in your inventory - thus "weapon" - while some are given directly by an NPC, and others produced via skills, they are found in the environment, thus "environmental" - furthermore "environmental weapon" is an official term used by ArenaNet to describe these. "Bundle" is used in a single kind of rune and a single button, however "environmental weapon" was used in various blog posts, interviews, and so forth. I'd say that "environmental weapon" is far more common than "bundle" - in actual usage, understanding of what it is, and in what it represents. I can guarentee that if you ask in any map that people will know what an environmental weapon is compared to what a bundle is in the game. I would not doubt that people suspect "bundle" means something that's in a bundle (e.g., the Lemons in Bulk items can be considered a bundled item to some). (Side note: the drinks and food environmental weapons are still technically environmental weapons as some of them you can bash a foe with a skill offered - it varies of course, however food and drinks are not the same and are instead actual inventory items that count to two particular achievements in Community). Konig/talk 17:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If environmental weapon is the official term then I would much rather use that. After all, isn't it wiki policy to use AN official terms? — Andrealinia 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, so I was playing around today and what do you guys think of Gunbreach Hills as opposed to Village of Smokestead? It has all the same headers, I'm just trying to find a comfortable, consistent look and feel to the page. — Andrealinia 07:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed some mistakes on both. I don't like reusing the map icon template per location - per kind of location is, imo, more preferred. There's really no need to reuse, for example, for each PoI. Once is enough. Konig/talk 10:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I like how you "fixed" the style change with the headers I was actually talking about :P Anyway, I'm not sure whether the hearts, waypoints and PoI's even need a map icon. It's in the infobox so does it need repeating on the page? The only reason it's on the zone pages is to differentiate. If it is needed then I would rather it be used as a bullet point substitute (keeping in line with the way the events work) rather than in the header as it feels out of place. I've took map icons out of Gunbreach Hills for a visual comparison. Edit: Okay, just realised that wouldn't work as vista's are numbered not bullet-pointed. So now I'm just not sure whether I prefer it with or without the map icon. — Andrealinia 10:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The icons were originally added because someone (forgot who and can't find the discussion) thought that some terminology may be unknown to players (e.g., "Renown Heart"), though I don't think that's a very valid explanation. Also, who said vistas are numbered? The only ones I've seen them numbered don't have the intended description. How I've been denoting vistas on area pages would be:

Vistas

• <area name if 1 vista; closest PoI if 2> Vista

<short description of how to get there>

The only ones were I've seen them numbered have it simply as:

1. Vista

Which, imo, is not a good format especially since we're removing the how to's sections from the zone articles (and good riddance at those ugly things). Konig/talk 11:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, I've been classing them as # <How to get to Vista> because vista's don't have a name and someone (can't remember who) was getting really annoyed about vista's being inappropriately named. — Andrealinia 12:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)