Talk:Forsaken Thicket

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

location hierarchy[edit]

According to the API, it looks like each wing of this raid will be a distinct map/zone. The raid itself is a "meta" location that doesn't actually appear in the hierarchy - it's not a region, because the Spirit Vale map is in Magus Falls (region 10).

What this means for the wiki:

  • This page should not have an interactive map - that should be on the Spirit Vale page.
  • This page should not list Spirit Vale as an area (sector).
  • Spirit Vale's infobox should show it as a zone located within Magus Falls.
    • Should we rename the page to match the API's name: Forsaken Thicket—Spirit Vale? In this case, I think it's better to keep the short form. And today, the API shows simply "Spirit Vale" as the name.
  • "Raid" probably shouldn't be a location type. I'm not sure we even need an infobox for it.
    • Perhaps "Raid wing" could be a location type, though, and use that for Spirit Vale.

Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's easier for documentation purposes to treat Spirit Vale as an area and Forsaken Thicket the same we do dungeons but as raid instead. Konig 17:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Why? How does that simplify documentation? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
How does one define a "meta location"? How would we document Forsaken Thicket? Would we just scrap it entirely and rename each wing "Forsaken Thicket - <wing name>"? You just put up changes to be done for Spirit Vale which could be done... but what are we to do with Forsaken Thicket? By your suggestions, we don't even need it, but it is clearly the name of a place related to the raids, so it should be documented. People will look up Forsaken Thicket and get... well, you can't redirect so you need a page that is either a disambiguation or functions as a higher location in the location hierarchy - and it's clearly not a region so it would by your suggestion be placed between region and zone which is a non-existent figure.
In other words, if you look at the whole picture you get a whole bunch of 'ifs' and 'hows' that it becomes simpler to just do it as it is visually seen - Spirit Vale has its name listed on the same level as areas, and Forsaken Thicket has its name (and level) on the same level as zones. To most players, Spirit Vale is just an area which comprises the first wing within the raid called 'Forsaken Thicket'. I'd argue that this is a case where we take what we visually see over the completely new or odd definitions found in the API.
For the same reason we list Maguuma Jungle as region for Caledon and Mount Maelstrom, etc. it'd be easier on us to just document these with a clear hierarchy. Rather than the utter mess I see the whole being with your bullet points (again, where do you place Forsaken Thicket in the hierarchy?). Konig 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is based on a strawman. I never said we should get rid of this page, merely that it shouldn't be structured like a location page. Raids are a new and completely novel type of content, and I feel they shouldn't be shoehorned into our existing documentation models. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that I was using a strawman argument but that's irrelevant. "it shouldn't be structured like a location page" then how should it be structured? And why take the API over what we see in-game, when you recently stated that precedent is that we shouldn't? People look at the world map and they see Forsaken Thicket on par to zones. They look at the world map and they see Spirit Vale on par to sectors. So why should we not follow the format that the game shows and instead follow the format that the API shows? Raids might be a new type of content, but we see it in-game differently than how you're proposing to structure it. I'd argue that it's simpler for the standard wiki'er - who will not know what the API lists it as - to treat Forsaken Thicket as on par to zone (e.g., "Raid") and treat Spirit Vale on par to sector (e.g., "Area" or if needful, "Raid wing"). Konig 02:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You must have missed where I made a second response in that conversation and said that maybe the precedent should be changed. Also, that was only in regards to sector names - in all other regards, I've always been in favor of following the API.
I don't have HoT, so all I know about this is that {{zone map}} will only work on Spirit Vale, not Forsaken Thicket, ergo Spirit Vale is a zone. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't miss that, but you didn't answer the question of how you think Forsaken Thicket should be categorized - again. It's clearly a location and it's clearly bigger than Spirit Vale. As for how it appears on the map: [[:File:User Konig Des Todes Forsaken Thicket map.jpg|Quick image]]. Konig 16:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I would remove the infobox until the second raid wing come out and we have a better idea how the maps in raids are organized. I suspect we'll define a raid as a set of zone instances located within a region. It's not important to consider a raid a location and right now the infobox doesn't provide meaningful information on the raid itself.--Relyk ~ talk < 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)