Template talk:Locations nav

Why is the river Elon on here?Alari 01:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. As for an answer, I have no clue. Cress Arvein 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Because rivers are locations? Lord Belar 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but all the other locations listed are regions.Alari 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a big river. Lord Belar 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Istan

All it does is redirect to the main Elona page, which has a link on the template it self. Isn't this slightly redundant?-- anguard 03:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i say remove it >.< --Blood Stain 21:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Or it should have some kind of link to the actual Istand Island.-- anguard 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Same issue goes for the Kourna link. I say just link to GW1W - but I gotta ask, why do we even have Elona on there when GW2 was said to be only in Tyria? -- Konig/talk 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for a delete - gw1 is where it's at for this info. They certainly shouldn't be on the nav bar of important gw2 places. -- Aspectacle 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maguuma Jungle, Wastes, and Tarnished Coast

I was indeed wrong in my summary edit - I didn't mean Blazeridge, I meant Shiverpeaks with being divided into the Northern, Southern, and Far (which, in gw1, was done for levels for the first two, and expansion on the later - just as the Tarnished Coast was split for the expansion). Don't know why I placed Blazeridge Steppes, though that is a possibility of how it could turn out (the two being mere areas akin to Queensdale and the Blazeridge Steppes that is, within the country/region of Maguuma Jungle). I did consider that compromise before, but I thought it looked weird with the Shiverpeak Mountains being just one page. *shrug* We'll figure it out eventually. -- Konig/talk 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Move template to Locations?

Most of the references to this template are to [[Template:Locations]] (which redirects here). Wouldn't it be better to move this template to Locations, and avoid all the unneeded redirecting?--Lon-ami 16:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the suffix "nav" identifies this as a navbox template (ref. consistency within Category:Navigation templates (although a few of those are not navboxes and thus don't end with "nav")). Rather, the pages that use Locations should all be updated to point directly here. —Dr Ishmael 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Three rows

Without any context, it's unclear what the difference is between the three rows. The first row includes regions in the game that can be explored, the second are regions that cannot be explored. The third row includes regions outside the continent of Tyria. I don't think it matters what the rows are called as long as a reader doesn't have to prior knowledge to figure out why Woodland Cacades is on the list at all and why Cantha isn't included in the same row or why Cantha is included with The Mists, since one can be reached in the game, but the other cannot. 75.36.181.195 07:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the second row should be included at all, see discussions here and here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The second link has nothing to do with this outside your complaining to me. Which isn't really necessary to do.

The second row being separate was meant to be the clarity that there's a difference - though I think in the past the second row was marked as "Unexplorable regions". Santax complained on my talk about lack of sub-regions being mentioned or bodies of water - to either, I think they should be mentioned. a ;Bodies of Water line is easy to add, and subregions were previously (done like this) but was removed at some point.

I think it'd be pretty obvious why a region isn't put on par to a continent.

If we don't list these unexplored regions - like Santax wants for some reason - then why do we even bother listing Cantha and Elona since, by his reasoning this article should then only show places that exist mechanically. Which is, imho, outright wrong to do. Konig 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with the second row being defined/clarified. The first row would be fine w/o the "explorable" since the second line shows the exceptions being listed. --JonTheMon 14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Zone nav

Should we merge {{Zone nav}} with this one? —Kvothe (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think moving this one to "Continent nav" would be more appropiate. Maybe remove "Zone nav" from region articles, it doesn't look quite right.

Still, I'd say the problem with nav templates in general is that they aren't wide enough. If they were wider they would also be shorter, and thus having two or even three navs one after another wouldn't feel so clunky. So much wasted white space to the left and to the right is really bad.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the size for the exact reason that it makes you think what you put inside. —Kvothe (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, all that wasted white space feels uncomfortable. Making these templates 50% wider would make them far more comfortable to the eye.

We don't need full width like {{Lion's Arch nav}}, that would be too much.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This vs. Template:Region nav

{{Region nav}} just got slapped on a bunch of region page and it's pretty much an exact duplicate but different formated version of this template. We do not need both, suggest removing one in favor of the other? I personally prefer Region nav's format. Alternatively, make one template about lore region navigation, and the other about mechanical region navigation. At the moment, both try to fulfill both. Konig (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)