User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archives10

Area

In response to your revert: Just below the titles in-game there is the progress noted with e.g. “175/175 areas”. As such, I’d say that the term is quite official ;) poke | talk 10:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So it is. Forgot 'bout that. Konig/talk 10:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Crazy Vistas

Just finished the "cattapult" (with difficulty), which brings up the following:

cattapult, cow flies

through air with greatest of ease

screams cow-a-bunga

Also, just looked at the "proposed" setup of vista data in "local area" WIKI file with following comment:

Consistency is the greatest benefit in any project, so whichever way (separate file for each area or a single file with links) is fine BUT:

Whichever way is chosen, the data MUST consist of more than (1 vista) without ANY additional information provided. - The example you show is just a basic "it's here, you figure out how to get to it"-------no hints, no loci, and (if it's underground, under water, or otherwise in a "strange" location") no help whatever!!Undouble 19:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Vista detail information will be going on area pages, e.g., Koga Ruins. It is unnecessarily stretching of a page to put them all on zones in the manner that they were originally, with a gallery of rather crude or unclear images with a paragraph of explanations when such isn't necessary. Area pages are, imo, more fitting. Either way, this would be better suited for a page such as this where multiple people can find it with ease. Konig/talk 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

umad?

somebody needs a hug, maybe from a warm and cuddly tengu--Relyk 02:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

fucking shit up

It's good to be passionate about the wiki, but that's not really an acceptable edit summary under any circumstances. If people are wrong, you can tell them they are wrong; belittling them is crossing the line, though. Even a wrong contributor is valuable to the community, whereas someone who quits in disgust leaves behind more than just an empty space. A big part of what made GWW great (and it's really lacking on GW2W right now) was the people - the sense that contributors were appreciated as long as their intentions were good. I can't claim to be an expert on the issue, and I don't follow the contributions of Santax, but he seems like a well-meaning guy that also cares a great deal about the wiki. It would be a shame to discourage him from participating in future discissions. So just remember: a harmful edit can be undone with a single click, but hurtful feelings can linger for a lifetime. Vili 点 03:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? Oh, that. Well, both of them provided their reasons for reverting in their previous edit summaries: [1] There's definitely an area called Dominion of Winds in Caledon Forest, as much as there's the tengu city of Dominion of Winds. And the city actually exists, too, it's just inaccessible, according to some developer interview I read a bit of. But yeah, just thought I'd let you know. Mediggo 06:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

While I admit I was unnecessarily annoyed, I had already told Santax he was wrong and why - however he completely ignored me twice stating that I gave no reason other than "this is how i think it should go" (which was never a reason I stated). When you're insulted, you tend to get unnecessarily annoyed and have a chance to lash out. He was doing similar on another page at the same time, once more ignoring my reasons. He has had a habit in the past of adding speculation and false information to articles and reverting while ignoring that it was speculation (something he's recently done and created a huge pointless scene out of it when removed where he made a similar claim as before despite the complete lack of said claim being correct - that is, my sole reasoning behind doing stuff is "because this is how I think it should be"). I have no ill intentions to him, but repeating the same annoyances tend to get annoying. Konig/talk 17:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bahltek

Has anything in GW2 shed light on his comments in GW1? I thought there might a connection with the Elder Dragons; for example he talks about planes of existence (which were traversed by the mursaat to escape the Dragons), and he's investigating the stars (which the jotun used to detect their awakening). He also says something about Nightmare, and he speaks an awful lot like an asura :P. pling 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything, other than a book by Norgu, regarding Bahltek yet. The "place of Nightmare" most likely refers to the Realm of Torment, and I doubt the others have (direct) ties to the other elder races (or the dragons) - keep in mind that this is all supposedly lost information until after GW1's time. Though if his dialogue was nothing but easter eggs to GW2, that'd be sad. Konig/talk 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Bahltek's comments on the stars and dimensions don't show any relation to the jotun telescope or mursaat respectively (or the ED for the former - as they're tied to the gods, which are not directly related to the ED as shown in certain areas of Orr). Konig/talk 15:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I thought it was a long shot. Thanks. pling 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hello, you recently reverted the Queensdale page as I had added a list of hearts. Just a couple of points. I can see (after a lot of looking) that there are templates for zones and areas and I assume that these are part of the consensus that you refer to. But these templates both seem to have at least a link the the area/zones hearts which I can not see on your reverted page which you say follows the template. Also, I personally found the format of a Hearts' table to be very useful but if those who spend time and effort on the wiki disagree then I'm not going to argue. At least can you point me to the quick link to the hearts' list if I have missed it. Thanks Bernardus

Not sure which templates you refer to or "the area/zones hearts" - as things stand, the consensus (agreed upon here) is the format that Caledon Forest utilizes. The list of hearts (and PoI, vistas, and skill challenges) were removed in favor of merging them together with the list of areas and waypoints so as to reduce the amount of scrolling, since it still shows the most relevant information (heart name, heart level, and heart NPC location) - any other information is best kept to the heart article (the list of heart articles' format is a remnant from the earliest demos where we weren't sure if hearts would get individual pages and thus the lists were made under the assumption they wouldn't).

For a quick link to the lists of hearts (which are likely to get reformatted), there's Renown Heart#Lists of renown hearts by region. Konig/talk 17:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, the templates I found were obviously older ones. I guess you feel that the function of your layout is fine, I will have to disagree, it's just a terrible layout from my point of view. Still, you can't please everyone and I guess the newbs like me will find our way to the information we need eventually. I often think that people who know the game and where everything is forget those new to the game. It's a pity that you feel the information was laid out poorly, it was so useful to me and those others I play with. I hope that you don't "mess up" the current lists of hearts too much in your revisions but I don't think I should be too hopeful. Bernardus 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, why do you disagree with it? What information that you would find helpful that you feel must be on an article about locations? Keep in mind we can't have all information about everything in one place - as the articles would just get bloated. We need to keep information on articles on which its most relevant. Though without knowing what information you find lacking that should be on zone articles, I cannot agree or disagree with your disagreement - or explain our reasoning for going in a direction you disagree with in regards to that particular situation.

In regards specifically to the list of hearts, what I find unnecessary is the description and the reward, as well as individual pages per zone ([[List of hearts in Ascalon]] is more useful than having List of hearts in Plains of Ashford, List of hearts in Diessa Plateau, List of hearts in Fields of Ruin, List of hearts in Iron Marches, and List of hearts in Fireheart Rise). So I'd merely be removing 2 columns, and keeping it to a single page per region. I hope that's not "messing things up" too much - since the reward and description are a mere click away - keep in mind that all information is (or will be) on the wiki in one form or another irregardless. The changes is merely where that information is placed - and our goal is to group like-minded information together, with lists holding only relevant and helpful information. Making people click one link more is far from harmful and shouldn't be intentionally avoided (like what the current, and imo bloated, List of heart articles are).

However, also keep in mind that this is a wiki, so everyone's say is important - these things are primarily my opinion, and what I hope to go through. There will be, if deemed necessary, discussions just as there were with the zone and area article formatting in order to determine the best coarse of action for the majority. Konig/talk 17:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no, that wouldn't "mess up" the list of hearts if you remove the "lesser" fields, however, not grouping them by zone, why on earth not - that would be more readable I think. I also see your point in not repeating the list of hearts in each zone's page, I don't agree with it but I do see your point in removing it. What's irritating and fiddly is that there is not a one click link to the hearts' list as a minimum. I am fully aware that the hearts are listed in the locations list but they are "mixed up" with other stuff which makes them, in my opinion at least, less easy to work with. I really can't see it being a problem to repeat information in several places and I guess your idea of "bloat" differs from mine. Again, if you can't see your way to making a link, then I and my fellow players will have to work round it, a text file we keep would be a substitute. I guess I'll leave it up to you to give my request some consideration but I fully realise that eventually you have to go one way or another. Thanks for your attention. Bernardus 04:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me (or I misunderstood you). I merely intend to reduce the number of pages and two columns - that's my future plan, should others not disagree. They will still be separated by zones within their region listings as they currently are (or in some other manner).

In regards to the hearts listed in the location table - it was a very long and near no-consensus discussion on how to settle it. The outcome was that the heart icon () should be enough to indicate the hearts themselves and, while not separated and indeed intigrated into the other location types, should be easy to notice when looking through the table. The only loss, really, for the important information is being unable to reorder the list like with the List of heart articles.

In regards to lists of hearts, I personally find it most beneficial to link from Renown Hearts as it is done - linking to the List of hears in <region> and removing the List of hearts in <zone> articles - with the latter done (the removal of the redundant lesser articles), direct linking from zones - albeit possible - would be less substantial. The same goes for skill challenge articles. This is, of course, my opinion. I just don't see a need to list the hearts in an isolated section on zone articles, nor do I see it necessary to link to a list of hearts by zone when the hearts of the zone are already listed in full (the only benefit there is in the other list is finding the NPCs, scout, and being able to reorder the list alphabetically of any of the four attributes (name, NPC, scout, level)). Konig/talk 06:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is my renown heart infobox on the renown heart article, there are many like it spread around, but this one is mine. You shall call him fluffy.--Relyk 06:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bernardus, you've come to the right place and are asking the right questions but the discussion is at a stalemate. This wiki operates pretty much on consensus, so if you think you're not getting anywhere with one particular user, try opening a discussion at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for comment. Remember comrade - we are all equal (except sysops who are slightly more equal and bureaucrats who take equality to a whole new level.) — snograt 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, if really desired for discussion, it shouldn't be to Request for comment, but the project page I had already linked which originally held the discussion which had reached consensus and is, in fact, created for discussion such issues, complaints, and desires (made the link reeeally big so it's not missed by accident!). Konig/talk 06:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Malchor's Fingertips

The game lies and says you're in Malchor's Fingertips instead of Malchor's Fingers in the scrollover on the minimap.--Relyk 23:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, it's the map and NPCs that count most. When you uncover it, it says Malchor's Fingers - on the map it says Malchor's Fingers. At best, just redirect Malchor's Fingertips (which, btw, makes no sense in a name). Same situation with the Infinite Coil Reactor ("also" called Infinity Coil on the mini map). Konig/talk 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just pointing it out since you moved the page and tagged it for deletion ^^--Relyk 00:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be double checked, since I don't recall seeing Malchor's Fingertips even on the mini-map. Konig/talk 01:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked just now, I checked it the first time as well when I saw Malchor's Fingers and not Malchor's Fingertips.--Relyk 01:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots

Why on earth did you remove the move template that I put on all those screenshots, and move the original one I uploaded so it didn't have screenshot in the filename? You realise that adding "screenshot" after the name ensures that the image automatically appears in the infobox (and so it is the preferred format), and also prevents ambiguity and duplicate image uploads? You would have known this if you had just stopped to leave a message on my talk page before reverting all my edits (yet again) and seemingly trying to start yet another revert war with me. --Santax (talk · contribs) 07:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It seemed silly, furthermore maps have been consistently named or renamed to include map - I altered the infobox to reflect this. There was never any discussion on the "preferred format" - everything is a screenshot. It's redundant and unnecessary nomenclature. I simplified it, and changed the infobox to reflect the true consistency (that maps aren't just "File:<location>.jpg" but rather "File:<location> map.jpg") that's been around. Konig/talk 07:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you're the one who's starting the revert war by reverting me despite commenting on my talk page - ironic, isn't it, that you do what you said I shouldn't have done. Konig/talk 07:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

When was this decided? If someone has a problem with an edit and it gets reverted, surely it is better to attempt to start a discussion on it than to just continually revert it? Since maps take precedence in the infobox, why should screenshots lack a disambiguation qualifier rather than them? And why is it necessary for me to have to fight with you yet again over such a minor thing? Can we not simply agree to disagree for once? --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

When was it decided to use "screenshot" in the name of images - of which almost everything is a screenshot? It wasn't. And most images uploaded do not utilize that naming convention. "surely it is better to attempt to start a discussion on it than to just continually revert it?" The same can be said for you, who was the first to provoke such alterations. As to why screenshots should lack a disambiguation qualifier - it's simple. Everything's a screenshot. A map is a screenshot, an image of an NPC is a screenshot, an image of an object is a screenshot. They're all screenshots. By your argument, every image of the game should be labaled "screenshot" at the end. It's redundant and unnecessary. As I have said. And indeed, why fight? You're the one who's initiated this, and the one who's even reverting others besides me. I think that, even without a discussion, the obvious consensus for those images uploaded which are screenshots is to not bother with the term "screenshot" in the name - especially since there's a template for such (changed link, was to Template:Screenshot).

You know, objectively, you're a true riot. A killing joke. Why? Because you're complaining to me about my actions, but you do the exact same thing while complaining about that. I believe the term for such people is "hypocrite." Konig/talk 16:52, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Furthermore, I gave plenty of time for a discussion to occur. It is standard to wait 3 days to a week for a discussion to begin or progress after tagging. None was started. So I was in full rights to act. Konig/talk 17:05, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

I have a job and a reasonably intensive college course, between those two, a social life, and, you know, actually playing the game, I unfortunately have little time to edit the wiki, the majority of which (and this is no exaggeration; I feel as though I have a lot to offer the wiki but am being prevented from doing so) I seem to have to spend justifying every single one of my edits to you, lest they be reverted (and they often are anyway).

To the actual matter at hand, I think it's incredibly disingenuous that you would accuse me of being the "the first to provoke such alterations" when all I was doing was bringing the images in line with precedent established by the template. If you're going to (again) going to revert to name-calling then I'm not going to have yet another argument with you, especially over such a petty thing, but for now all I ask is that you leave my edits alone while I seek arbitration. If someone else has a problem with them, like Relyk did with me changing the image on Mad King Thorn, then that's fine, but being as you and you alone seem to have a problem with the majority of my edits, it is difficult to tell whether you genuinely take issue with an individual edit or whether you are simply reverting because of some personal problem with me (which your recent edits to Cantha and Elona definitely suggest - why does an actual in-game GW2 screenshot of Elonian architecture belong lower down the page than a 250-year old map, exactly?), and whenever I try to start a discussion it doesn't seem to get anywhere. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Considering you were the first to tag or move things to the otherwise-unused outside of alpha and demo images naming style of adding screenshot - irregardless of the use in the template - you are, in fact, the progenitor of the matter. Furthermore, you reverted my reverts while stating that it should be discussed first. I explained myself, I gave time. Not just for you, but for others. You had, in fact, edited the wiki between my response to you and my reversions of your reverts. I am not alone in the matter considering that Dr. Ishmal reverted you - even if out of simplicity for reverting your whole edits to fix the broken pages caused by your edit (of which, the map images are not the only ones, by the way - you broke some otherwise fixed images too).

I have no outright issue with you. I just disagree with the vast majority of your edits. Consider it a difference on a wide-spread opinion. Though with the Cantha and Elona articles, I merely used your very argument against you (consistency among pages), and I will admit that I am peeved by this particular situation - which is where most of your edits are. I think the images you upload are of far superior quality than others. I found your system for concept art image naming on GWW to be superb, so it is in no way a qualm with you. I just disagree both with the act of and your reasoning of having "screenshot" in the image - which again, is where a majority of your edits end up in, irregardless of my intervention. Other edits I changed because I find them outright false - e.g., your removal of "Mad" on Mad King Thorn's article. He is indeed the "Mad King" - it is a nickname given to him and only him.

Specifically of that Elona image - I moved it down to history because it is something on the culture of Elonians. However, we have no such section on that article. Furthermore, as I stated, all location articles have the map up top. Though I greatly disagree with the use of GW1 maps, it is better than nothing for sure. And seeing how "history" fits better with culture than "geography", I decided to put the image of a street of Divinity's Reach in the history section. However, that image is, imo, completely irrelevant. Its focus is off - a terrible example, imo, of Elonian architecture, and is in fact not an example of Elonian architecture in the first place but rather an example of a mixture of Elonian and Krytan. If the Elona article had a section on the various cultures of Elonian civilization, I would have put the image there. However, I feel it is more appropriate on Ossan Quarter or some other such article, since it is not truly Elonian but this is of my personal opinion and as such did not act on it.

And to be absolutely clear - my sole qualm with you, if anything can be called such, is that you blame me for the same thing you yourself do. Konig/talk 18:16, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Rylek

R-e-l-y-k --Relyk 12:00, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Rylek's better. Konig/talk 13:04, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Rylek sounds like a Vulcan name. 13:10, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

That may be why I prefer it. I grew up to Star Trek (mostly Voyager and Next Generation). Konig/talk 13:15, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Sounds more like our Tyrian amphibian friends to me. — snograt 14:48, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Hylek / Rylek, icuwutudidthar--Relyk 16:56, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Events

I noticed that {{Event infobox}} has events in zones were being categorized as <Zone> events, which were put in Category:Events. That's inconsistent with {{Heart infobox}}, so it was amended [2]. Will we end up turning the Category:Events into those subcategory lists you see in Category:Renown hearts?--Relyk 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the Category:<zone> categories (e.g., Category:Queensdale) is for locations - so hearts, skill challenges, and events shouldn't be there. I don't know when the heart infobox was altered for this, but it's actually the event infobox which was more right. However, this is a topic the discussion of which never reached a conclusion, I believe, and was abandoned. Though I think there were two sides at the time - one was for renaming the Category:<zone> categories into Category:<zone> locations (e.g., Category:Queensdale locations), the other was for just simply removing and keeping hearts/skill challenges/events out and into their own category (e.g., Category:Queensdale events).

The sub-category lists of hearts are for a different system which, as it stands, will not exist for anything but hearts (once clean-up has been done, that is). At least to my understandings. And even then, the lists of hearts will be reduced in quantity and hopefully improved in quality (though I have no qualms against making the heart category tree akin to how the event category tree was, I find it unnecessary due to the number of hearts). Konig/talk 19:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think Category:<zone> would be limited to just locations, rather it would contain everything related to the zone and then you put contents to their own subcategories. From the user standpoint, Category:<zone> is more useful if it contains all the elements in the zone, as you can then assign each element a subcategory. Putting hearts and events in a separate category dissociates them from their locations, where you end up having to list their location again on the other category (i.e. the Events category). It seems more logical to have a subcategory of hearts for each zone and then generate the list for that subcategory in the same way you would do for any of the other elements (i.e. the locations that are associated with the zone). Having just locations listed Category:Locations isn't useful is it? The actual locations have more properties than simply a place found on the map. I'd much prefer a zone was not just a subcategory of location and more like a subcategory of Category:Game mechanics so you didn't have to differ a zone being a location and a zone being an entity (entities being grouped into regions on the map if you will) that contains locations, events, hearts, landmarks, enemies, etc. People don't think of zones as locations you see on the map but an area the player exists in.

That said, I can still see that if a zone is treated literally as a location and put as a subcategory of Locations, you don't want to include non-locations information there.--Relyk 20:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Being the one who originally designed the category tree for Category:Locations, they are not meant for "everything related to the zone" - besides, that'd get messy as all hell. "Putting hearts and events in a separate category dissociates them from their locations" And? A category isn't meant to create ties between multiple things based on placement, but based on what they are. An event is not ever a location. Therefore, it should not be a sub-category of Category:Locations, which currently thanks to your change they are. Same goes for hearts. Why, can you fathom, would it make sense for such to be a sub-category for Category:Locations? The best argument to uphold would be "counts for map completion" - but events doesn't fit this, and hearts/skill challenges are more akin to events than to PoI and areas.

As to the notion of having a category for each type of location within the zone's category - unnecessary. There are only ~20-40 PoI per zone, and ~15 areas per zone, with even fewer landmarks (once those get documented in full). That's a small amount and unnecessary to divide. But events are extremely numerous.

"I'd much prefer a zone was [..] a subcategory of Category:Game mechanics" But that creates a far too generic category tree. Smaller, sure, but what if you're searching through the categories (yes, folks do this, this is why categories exist) looking for a specific event? You'll have to find whatever category you'd place Category:Queensdale etc. under - but what if you're not looking for a specific event in a specific zone - that is to say, you want to look at events on a more general scale than being divided by zone? You'd have to go through each zone irregardless. This isn't an issue for PoI, Areas, and Landmarks since they're so small, but there's a lot of events in each zone, so it's a different matter entirely purely due to the quantity. And what if you're looking for skill challenges but not sure what zone they're in? Or how would you categorize a skill challenge which is in multiple zones - that is to say, Statue of Grenth etc, which have associated skill challenges in 4 different zones. Or shared-name events (e.g., Halloween ones)? Where would those go? They're not tied to a zone.

Seeing the issue yet?

And actually, locations have very few mechanics outside being a place on the map. Areas count for Explorer while PoI count to map completion, the former has a name on the map and the latter a square icon that can be highlighted, but outside this... there's nothing beyond being a place on the map - and even then, that's just about how they're places on the map. They're all "go there and you're done" - there's lore to them, but this is irrelevant to categories. Same with which NPCs are there.

Furthermore, if you're going to use the zone categories for catch-alls of what's relevant there, then you'd be including NPCs which are located there, resource nodes located there, objects located there, and so forth. It becomes a huge mess. Konig/talk 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Relyk about the category names: "Category:Queensdale" is for everything related to Queensdale, but "Category:Queensdale locations" or "Category:Locations in Queensdale" are specifically for locations in Queensdale (I prefer the second phrasing). That's what a noob user would most likely think. —Dr Ishmael 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm just arguing about the current set up. If you guys feel the need to arbitrarily reformat the category tree be my guest so long as it makes sense because it doesn't matter how it's set up if it works. I just pray you folks don't go repeating the Gordian Knot that is GWW's Category:Locations. Konig/talk 21:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see zones as the basic building block. These blocks are the the objects that characters exist and interact in. These block are grouped into regions and all have the basic attribute of being a location you can see on the map. When I look at the categories, I see zones being the common starting point rather than the attribute of them being locations as the point. Putting them all in the Locations category only functions to simplify navigating to them easily.

Points of interest, Waypoints, Renown hearts, Landmarks, Skill challenges, and Vistas are all properties of an area. These areas are simply subsections of a zone, so any elements in an area are elements in the zone. If you want to look at all the elements of a certain property in a zone, you would look in all the areas containing that property. You don't do that yourself, you have an article that does that for you, or something like a DPL-generated list. That's what categories and subcategories can do for you. Events and meta events are not properties of any specific area, they are properties of the zone. If you want to get a list of event and meta events, they will of course be a subcategory of the zone. Regions, zones, areas, points of interest, and waypoints all have the attribute of being a location, but this isn't really useful when categorizing articles.

So what I'm implying is that individual Points of interest, Waypoints, Renown hearts, Landmarks, Skill challenges, and Vistas should be categorized by area, just like it's done on the actual area pages. Any events in the zone will be categorized into the zone page. We can generate a list of waypoints or renown hearts based on the category of the items in each area category (which would be done by infoboxes).

Your problem with this, that I agree with (if I'm not misinterpreting), is that categories aren't really supposed to be used this way, you would have multiple category tags (like renown hearts), and it makes it less than useful for navigating the categories themselves. However, the categories shouldn't really be used for viewers to navigate to articles although you can implement it that way. We have better ways with communicating that information on actual article pages. I don't completely understand issue with the way categorizing was done in GWW, but a zone be considered a game mechanic rather than simply a location in the category tree avoids the issue doesn't it?--Relyk 21:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So... you want an individual category for each area? That seems... immensely unnecessary. Especially given that waypoints and vistas don't have articles. And that fact alone completely destroys "We can generate a list of waypoints or renown hearts based on the category of the items in each area category (which would be done by infoboxes)."

A zone isn't a mechanic, however, but simply an aspect of the game - it is, quite literally, in mechanical sense, of no higher value than a Point of Interest. If one were to look at things purely mechanically and program wise, then the category system would be vastly different. I disagree upon the notion of structuring categorizations for the favor of DPL-generations. Manual editing isn't that hard, we don't have to be lazy. And given what I've seen, DPL-generations are fairly limited in design and we end up with huge bullet point lists. Konig/talk 22:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As a wiki, we don't have to base the structure of the wiki on the game, so we can give it "a higher value" if it would be helpful. DPL looks fine in User:Relyk/Jump list and Map completion/table, although I still have very little experience with actually implementing it. All the infoboxes list the area while event and heart infoboxes list the zone. We would have a Category:Queensdale with Category:Queensdale locations, with subcategories of Category:<area> and Category:Queensdale events. I think that provides better navigation since everything related to the areas and everything related to the zone are all categorized under one branch. The Category:Queensdale page would contain articles for a list of hearts and events.--Relyk 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to categorizing by area, you'd still have a Category:Queensdale renown hearts, Category:Queensdale skill challenges, and Category:Queensdale events. That's still better than assigning two separate categories and ending up with redundancies trying to list by location again.--Relyk 23:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, well, as I said: if you guys feel to reformat the category tree be my guest so long as it makes sense. (Though TBH, I've never been a fan of DPL - but then again, I don't see an issue with manually updating stuff). But I'll just repeat one thing: There are too few absolutes for what's within an area that the categories, if based off of area, will either be small in size or potentially chaotic. For example: hearts and events can cover multiple areas, moreso with meta events - NPCs as well, even objects. The only absolutes you truly have are PoI, vistas, and waypoints and of those, only one have articles - even landmarks can cover multiple areas and even multiple zones and regions. Furthermore, going to such precision is rather unnecessarily precise.

Either way, why is this on my talk page and somewhere where more folks can chime in? I've not really put any effort into event/heart pages, let alone the event and heart infobox/categories. Konig/talk 23:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Because I love you--Relyk 23:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)