From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Usability & Terminology[edit]

It may be prudent to add a remark to the page in the actual text explaining why an "Explorable Zone" is denoted 'explorable' rather than have it buried in discussion/talk pages throughout the wiki. The reason for this is people are now having difficulty finishing various achievements relating to the word "explore." Having the nav box that appears at the bottom of the page for "Explorable zones" consist of 'explorable zones' literally (by wiki definition) it obfuscates the other 'non-explorable' zones which do actually need to be "explored" in order to successfully achieve explorer achievements. So perhaps some disclaimer or explanation written by someone good at making things clear to people basically saying 'we use explorable zone for this reason' but you still basically need to explore these other zones, and you will end up questing/completing missions/story in yet other zones etc. Just some helpful exposition. Kalea 06:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Explorer achievement requires the uncovering - or exploration - of areas. Zones (or "explorable zone") is merely the map name. I'm not seeing the issue here - technically, you have to explore the whole zones (and cities) for explorer - you just don't have to complete them (as that's map completion). So again, not seeing the issue here. Sounds like you're only confused on the shared terminology, but I don't see why you would be. Konig/talk 07:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
non-explorable as in dungeons? I understand areas within areas Inception-style.--Relyk 07:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There are no "non-explorable" zones, technically (only regions, e.g., Janthir Bay). Konig/talk 07:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe the distinction was made between explorable zones, that had to be explored piece-by-piece, and cities, where you enter from the asura gate and the whole thing is automatically uncovered. So cities are "non-explorable" because it's done for you. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The point of confusion comes when trying to identify, for example, the places needed to literally "explore" to get an achievement (eg, Krytan Explorer). The wiki was unhelpful in doing this. Having not done the other explorer achievements, I do not know in advance if the wiki will remain unhelpful. Not all users are going to delve as deeply into the wiki as I did, from the point of view of as a marginal contributor. To the lay-user, using the word 'explorable' as a label on terminology in this fashion might be confusing. That's all I am trying to point out. If no one else sees it that way, then it may not actually be a problem. The reason I commented here is because it is a problem among people seeking the achievement what constitutes an area to be 'explored' for an achievement. If this clarification belongs on the page for the achievement more than a page containing a variant of the word 'explore' in the title then that's fine. ( Kalea 18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I was looking for Krytan Explorer, I'd go to Krytan Explorer. But not everyone behaves like I do, so redirecting Explore to Explorer should help with your concern. -- User Sig.png 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too "bad" with finding things on the 'interwebz' as it were... and honestlly, I ended up finding information on Explorer after I actually finished the achievement. No idea why; and added the bit about Claw Island and the zone count, which someone shortened (maybe I didn't scroll down?), and I made a separate comment regarding a need for more information from achievement seekers based on what I experienced and read on varied posts. Wherever I landed on the wiki, I kept clicking the Krytan Explorer label that was hotlinked, and ended up on the Kryta page -- which had no information relevant to the achievement itself in terms of needing CoS or story mission steps for Claw Island. I tend to advocate multiple paths to the same information; but really whatever gets decided, I just wanted to raise this as a point and let you all know that other users are not finding what they need and there may be an area of opportunity here. Kalea 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I like having the table with regions/cities/dungeons here[edit]

This is a better solution than what I did, which was add the clumsy explanation on the Region line which told the reader to go to the Region page to find that table. Bottom line: that table is what I wanted to find when I came to the Location page. Otherwise, the page is a rather uninteresting description of terminology. IMHO, most people who come here are looking for details like are in that table, not a glossary of terms. (I'm just pro-actively supporting this change, in case there is any controversy over it.) Ssquester 07:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)