Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs/Archive 5

Skill trainers

I just saw that there are free trials available now. Maybe we should use some of them to find out what skills the skill trainers initially offer. If we plan it good, we can even get some new character rushed to the Eye of the North or something like that. What do you think? poke | talk 01:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nvm. Gaile just pointed out that it is Prophecies-only... poke | talk 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! I made an account by accident by clicking that thing! I should have not... T-T... Fortunately my usual account was unaffected. That was one hell of a fright, like when a weird bug made look as if my characters disappeared.MithTalk 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

NPCs in quest-specific zones

I've noticed that a lot of articles for NPCs in quest-specific zones incorrectly use {{NPC location|<name of zone which shares map with quest zone>}} (only during [[<quest name>]] instead of {{NPC location|<name of quest zone>}} (only dunig [[<quest name>]]. Could we include a specific mention of quest zones? -- Gordon Ecker 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah *ahem* I'm guilty of removing quite a few of those :P you mean that should be how it is? It just seems a little strange to be using "NPC location" for a quest area... but then again... ah well... I just don't understand why Anet couldn't try to stick to the obvious mission and quest separation. It just feels very strange to see entries like "Warband of Brothers" or "Attack of the Nornbear" or "What Must Be Done" listed under Locations... -- ab.er.rant 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But when you zone into do some of those quests it's not called the normal name, but instead the quest name as a special zone. - BeX 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Nornbear and Warband of Brothers are zones, but What Must Be Done isn't. -- Gordon Ecker 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But since we have a special "Missions" for mission appearances, wouldn't it make more sense to adapt "Quests" for this purpose? Rather than location? We could change it such that "Quests" would be for all quest-related appearances, and leave "Locations" for permanent appearances. -- ab.er.rant 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd that mission and quest-related spawns aren't under location. -- Gordon Ecker 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What we know fr sure is that the name that appears in the loading screen is the name of the 'instance', regardless of if there are other areas or quests with the same name or other areas using the same map. Remember than many missions use the same map as many explorables, as many cinematics (and some are loaded as separate maps) and many dungeons share maps with many others, with some changes. It may be sound strange when an area is named after a quest. For example 'A Land of Heroes' use the same map as 'Cliffs of Dohnjok', but it has its own separate layout. It's a different 'Instance' that Cliffs of Dohnjok. Just like missions that take place in the same area as Explorables. Same area, different name. Troublesome, eh? We could call them 'Instanced quests' or 'mini missions' or anything like that. I think there is one ingame text with a name for them during A Land of Heroes. MithranArkanere 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we split of one type of map zone in it's own section, while all the others share the first? Just copied from guildwiki? Backsword 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to mention this in another section, but since this is already started, I will add my comments. I have seen many NPC (mostly boss) pages lately that seem to be missing a Location section. I have also seen many that have "Location X (but only during the following mission/quest)". While it doesn't appear to be clear one way or the other, personally, I think that the location section should be included with the relevant information, and not just use the mission section for that. If anything, the mission section should be the only one potentially not there; the location section always applies. 42 - talk 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Flavor categories

Moriturus has created several flavor categories (as opposed to "mechanical" ones) for several NPCs, such as Category:Researchers and Category:Artists and Category:Dejarin Family. I've tagged some of them for removal or rename but it might be just me that we don't need to add flavor categories that don't really offer much, so I'm asking for more views on this. I'll go an revert if more people think it's fine to keep these - just bear in mind that if we do keep them, I believe we need to specifically state that these are not in-game mechanics or classifications. -- ab.er.rant 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think ones pertaining to lore would be okay. I like the family ones. As for their "professions", I don't think they are necessary or of any benefit. - BeX 01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed w/ bex. although having that category would seem to ask for articles like House of Dejarin. dunno if there's enuf info for that. --VVong|BA 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean by "flavor" — ク Eloc 貢 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those not related to any mechanical or technical categorisation. -- ab.er.rant 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

However, we simply must keep Category:Mimes. It's mimes! -- Hong 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep all these categories -- they're interesting to at least one person and they don't cause any harm. —Tanaric 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone would agree with you Tanaric, see discussion pages for Category:NPCs with elite skill and Category:Drops unique for specific examples of the lame arguments against having categories that "at least one person" thinks they are useful or interesting. These two actually do qualify for Aberrant's distinction between "flavor" and "mechanical" types, on the mechanical side. 42 - talk 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Tanaric has left the wiki long months ago. These flavor categories are around and about still, so as he says, there's no harm. -- ab.er.rant 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

hard mode skills

there appears to be an inconsistency in how to show hard mode vs normal mode skill sets. this page isn't clear on how they should be shown. Is it:

• Enfeebling Touch
• Faintheartedness
• Rigor Mortis
• Wail of Doom (elite) (hard mode only)

or

Normal mode

• Enfeebling Touch
• Faintheartedness
• Rigor Mortis

Hard mode

• Enfeebling Touch
• Faintheartedness
• Rigor Mortis
• Wail of Doom (elite)

also, you include (elite) for non-bosses? —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say do the former when only a skill or two is the difference between normal and hard; only do the latter when the skill sets have a large difference, e.g. if they use another attribute, or many of the skills aren't included in both modes. -- Brains12 \ talk 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One skill's difference doesn't warrant a new section, but if there are two or three different skills, I'd do a new section. - anja 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, technically, hard modes skills are not a seperate skill set, but an addition to the base set. Backsword 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with both Brains and Anja, if there is only an additional skill be it normal or elite it only needs to be added the first way but when there are multiple new skills or when there are replaced skills and/or attributes then the second mode makes more sense. --Kakarot 10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jedi Rogue, personally, I think that all of the skills shown, if they are elite, should be tagged as such, otherwise some people might go bug-eyed looking at what they aren't sure is a yellow-ringed skill box. It shouldn't matter if it is a boss or even an NPC ally type. I do agree with the argument that if it is only a skill that is used by that boss in hard mode and not normal mode, then it should be marked as such, because it is a change from normal mode, even if it doesn't replace any other skills. 42 - talk 03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quest region

In the "syntax and example" it notes that quests should be listed like this:

*[[Region]]
**[[Quest name]]

Does that mean that quests should be listed under the region they are acquired from (which would be redundant for NPCs that appear in one region as the Locations section would list that region already) or the region the quest is completed in? For example, should the Quests section in the Dinja article look like this:

'''Quests given:'''
*[[Istan]]
**[[All for One and One for Justice]]
**[[Chasing Zenmai]]

or this:

'''Quests given:'''
*[[Kryta]]
**[[All for One and One for Justice]]
*[[Kaineng City]]
**[[Chasing Zenmai]]

--Silver Edge 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be the region (or other category) it's listed in under the quest log. IMO we should probably make region optional unless the NPC is in multiple regions or offers quests in multiple categories. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for including that in the forst place would be to disabiguate for NPCs that offers quests when they spawn in one zone, but not when they spawn in another. Ofc, in that case, region might not always be a good way to seperate them. As Gordon says, consider it optional, not something that has to be followed in every case. Backsword 08:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually ignore when it's redundant (for example, NPC appears only in a single location). -- ab.er.rant 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a formatting change

I have created two templates made specifically for use on the NPC pages (depending on their acceptance, I might make more with a similar purpose on other pages where they would be usable) somewhat based on the idea behind the userbox tags that many of the wiki users have on their pages (mine is one). These templates are Template:Elite and Template:Unique, and respectively, they add the usual ([[elite]]) and ([[unique]]) ID tags already used after the appropriate skill or item on the NPC page (the template needs to be placed specifically after each entry). These templates also have the added benefit of adding [[Category:NPCs with elite skill]] and [[Category:Drops unique]] to each page they are used on automatically.

Existing skills area

==Skills==
(20 [[Domination Magic]] in [[Hard Mode]])
* {{skill icon|Backfire}}
* {{skill icon|Power Block}} ([[elite]])
* {{skill icon|Power Spike}}
* {{skill icon|Shatter Enchantment}}
* {{skill icon|Shatter Hex}}
* {{skill icon|Resurrection Chant}}

Skills

(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)

• Backfire
• Power Block (elite)
• Power Spike
• Shatter Enchantment
• Shatter Hex
• Resurrection Chant

Proposed change using template in existing NPC page

==Skills==
(20 [[Domination Magic]] in [[Hard Mode]])
*{{skill icon|Backfire}}
*{{skill icon|Power Block}} {{elite}}
*{{skill icon|Power Spike}}
*{{skill icon|Shatter Enchantment}}
*{{skill icon|Shatter Hex}}
*{{skill icon|Resurrection Chant}}

Skills

(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)

• Backfire
• Power Block (elite)
• Power Spike
• Shatter Enchantment
• Shatter Hex
• Resurrection Chant

This has the benefit of not having to have someone go through and manually add these pages to each applicable category, and if this change is done by a bot, can implement the change wiki-wide relatively simply.

The end result is that the page does not look any different in the top area, and the only difference is one or two new (to that page) category tags at the bottom. 42 - talk 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Small spacing change proposal

I propose a change to the current "guideline" of the spacing used in the NPC pages (this would apply to the other pages as well), of adding a space after a * or a : to make it easier to read for editors. Examples listed below.

Current

===Level 20, Aeromancer===
12 [[Air Magic]] (15 Air Magic in [[Hard mode]])
*{{skill icon|Air Attunement}}
*{{skill icon|Lightning Bolt}}
*[[Hard to read link]]
*[[Hard to read link]]
*[[Hard to read link]]
*[[Hard to read link]]
*{{skill icon|Lightning Javelin}}
*{{skill icon|Lightning Surge}}
*{{skill icon|Whirlwind}}
This text is on a regular line
::::This text is indented.
:::"'''This is indented and formatted bold.'''"
:::::''This text is just in italics.

Proposed change

===Level 20, Aeromancer===
12 [[Air Magic]] (15 Air Magic in [[Hard mode]])
* {{skill icon|Air Attunement}}
* {{skill icon|Lightning Bolt}}
* [[Easy to read link]]
* [[Easy to read link]]
* [[Easy to read link]]
* [[Easy to read link]]
* {{skill icon|Lightning Javelin}}
* {{skill icon|Lightning Surge}}
* {{skill icon|Whirlwind}}
This text is on a regular line
:::: This text is indented.
::: "'''This is indented and formatted bold.'''"
::::: ''This text is just in italics.

This is especially hard to read when there are multiple lines of indents, and this change would help making any necessary changes easier to find and effect, saving editing time cost. 42 - talk 08:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No dissent, no opinions of any kind on this. Since it is a minor adjustment, I am making the change to the page. 42 - talk 07:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've done it (and brought it to attention), I strongly oppose it. Looks *expletive* horrible (and I don't swear much, so that's unusual). ~Celestia 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually like it and prefer spacing as well.. poke | talk 13:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It can look nicer to put a space after each initial line formatting, but I don't think that it needs to be hard-coded into the policy; just make sure it's consistent across a single page. --JonTheMon 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Celestia, I am sorry you don't like it. I happen to think it makes it easier for future editors to see issues, especially when it there are multiple lines with huge amounts of indents. I forget which page now I was working on when I came up with this idea, but trying to see which line was where was horrible, to borrow a phrase.

Jon, people who see this first with the spaces will be more likely to put them in if they add new things. It makes it cleaner (IMO) all across if this is done. 42 - talk 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Affiliation

Is affiliation a purely technical thing? Would I have to use a bounty blessing or weapon mod to confirm an affiliation, as the article seems to describe, or is it just a non-technical and overly general thing? For example, is it as simple as an NPC living/born/working in Vabbi and with other Vabbians is affiliated with Vabbians? That would be kind of hard to confirm in a technical sense if it's an ally - can't really use weapons on him or kill him for bounty rewards. -- pling 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed that Category:Vabbians isn't in Category:NPCs by affiliation. Whether that should be the case, I don't know. However, I saw a couple of articles with "Vabbians" in the infobox and I think they were done so by Rezyk, who if I remember correctly was Mr Affiliation. So I'm slightly confused about this. -- pling 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an unofficial term which, for some reason, the users of this wiki have chosen to use to refer to the purely technical NPC trait internally known as army. The categorizations are often speculative, as we can generally only test it with bounties and weapons of slaying, which aren't available for all armies / affiliations. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I put Category:Vabbians into Category:NPCs by affiliation. I think this could be clarified more in the article/guideline. -- pling 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Vabbian was a nationality not so much an "affiliation." 42 - talk 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We were categorizing NPCs by nationality and organization before the army / "affiliation" trait was widely known. Most of the army / "affiliation" infobox entries are educated guesses based on limited information. Currently, the most popular theory seems to be that the armies / "affiliations" of friendly and neutral human NPCs are based on organization or nationality. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the "organization" the preferred affiliation, and then if that isn't know, the nationality? 69.182.192.195 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as Affiliation. I am doing the whole listing of those that need affiliation per the page Affiliation. It is my current project and I think if you don't know the preferred affiliation. It might be best to leave it to one that may know, like others on here. I do appreciate those whom have corrected the affiliations that I have misjudged and messed up on. -- riyen ♥ 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Does everything really need an affiliation? As far as I'm concerned, I don't think 'Tyrians' or 'Canthans' really qualifies as an affiliation. White Mantle and 1,000 Daggers are affiliations, but I think some things should be left as 'Not specified'. --★KOKUOU★ 09:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the the Npc box, the Affiliations are required. If you know of what they are affiliated with, please do correct. However, not specified does not help them being in the 'needing affiliation'. When they are like say this girl is from cantha. She's a canthan. So, what's the harm of 'Canthans' ? it describes her affiliation with her nationality. her 'history' sort of, where she's from, etc. -- riyen ♥ 09:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Now we have things like ghost for the affiliation of celesitals, such as Hai Jii, which is totally inaccurate, and other non-affiliation type things such as Tyrians, Canthans, and even Kaineng City wildlife (for The_Afflicted_Huan_(necromancer)). --★KOKUOU★ 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An affiliation is not a nationality. I am not affiliated with Canada; I am Canadian. I am affiliated with, say, my university or a corporation I work for, but a nationality is not an affiliation. As for the affiliation 'needing to be set' in the NPC infobox, I always thought it of along the lines of, "If such and such an NPC has an affiliation and (someone) knows it, then it needs to be set, otherwise it's 'Not specified'." --★KOKUOU★ 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So where you work, go to school, etc. 'affects', but not where you 'live'... Okay... Here's the thing, part of the time you're at work or school, etc. you 'live' there, you 'deal' with it. Please read the Affiliation. Tell me then, why were 'Vabbians' there? Nationality is an affiliation, it's where you live, part of you, what you deal with. I'm an American. I deal with America, because I LIVE there, I vote. I help change, voice my opinion, etc. be apart of the 'nation', whether it may be due to a job, etc. I'm sorry you're wanting to 'limit' the 'game' taking out what's already there... Why are 'species' then labeled as wildlife in affiliation? -- riyen ♥ 10:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what affiliation means. An affiliation, as defined in dictionaries, is a partnership of people working together. If I work with the Am Fah, I'm affiliated with them whether I'm Tyrian, Canthan, or Elonian. A nationality or species, in my opinion, is far too wide of a scope for an affiliation. In fact, having 'Not specified' is kind of helpful, because it tells me that this particular creature or person is not affiliated with any army.

As a side note, this is from the Affiliation page itself:

"In terms of observable in-game behavior, affiliation is equivalent to the "army" field used within ArenaNet's creature development team. ".

--★KOKUOU★ 10:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what's on the Affilation page - wildlife, Vabbians, etc. You'd have millions of pages to go through, if you want to remove the 'where they live'. -- riyen ♥ 10:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if affiliation is equivalent to the "army" field used within ArenaNet's creature development team, then it makes sense for some NPCs you fight to have an affiliation, and for those within towns and outposts to be left as 'Not specified' unless we're sure that a certain in-town NPC is a follower of the White Mantle, for example. And it also makes sense for some out-of-town creatures to be unaffiliated; the Am Fah are trying to kill you for a purpose, whereas celestials are just aggressive. I guess what I'm trying to say is being affiliated with some group requires intention, where nationality and things like "wildlife" do not. If everyone wants to use the affiliation category for those things, that's fine, but my opinion is that it shouldn't/needn't be. --★KOKUOU★ 10:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure that according to the storyline, celestials do have a purpose - to test if you are worthy to become weh no su. Wildlife just try to kill anything they see. Pika Fan 10:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant that they haven't (it seems) consciously formed an organization to take down our heroes, unlike the White Mantle, who work together for the purpose of Tyrian domination. --★KOKUOU★ 11:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Kill and test are two very different concepts, and you are not limited to want to kill in order to gain some silly affiliation. Pika Fan 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That's true, but it seems redundant to have things like 'Celestial' for both type and affiliation. --★KOKUOU★ 11:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, what people really care about is how fast they can kill these NPCs, not who or what they are affiliated to, so it's ok. Pika Fan 11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"the Affiliations are required. If you know of what they are affiliated with" I don't believe that the intent of the infobox guidelines were to have affiliations be randomly added because they are required. There are many unaffiliated NPC's in the game. I see this field as being more descriptive of organized groups (The White Mantle, the Jade Brotherhood, etc.) and lore based, rather than some random classification by nationality. I do not agree that all Canthan peasant NPC's be listed as Affiliation = Canthan, etc. The infobox already categorizes them as Canthan, iirc, so having this duplicated in the Affiliation field is totally redundant, and in some ways misleading. -- Wyn talk 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Before adding 'Canthans' didn't categorize them as Canthan. After, did. Affiliation, puts them in 'category' as well as directing them to the page too (like this is where i'm from and this is what it's about) -- riyen ♥ 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, can we get a consensus on this before Ariyen and 42 finish their affiliation-adding rampage? --★KOKUOU★ 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to reach a consensus before people just randomly put "affiliations" to NPCs...I prefer to leave it as not specified if they don't have a very clear affiliation, or make it an optional field with the default being it being removed. It's ridiculous to just go to an NPC page and say "Oh this NPC is a ghost because he's in a spectral form", etc. For instance Sogolon is/was a member of the Sunspear Order- excellent his affiliation is correct, he's should not be affiliated with ghosts because he's a ghost. It's also looks horrible to have affiliation as x (Norn, Vabbian, etc.) and their type as x aswell (i.e. the same). ~Celestia 09:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you in that the type shouldn't be the same as the affiliation. For example, the Norn, Asura, and Forgotten, are Species, yet they are their own groups and creatures, as stated in the Affiliation. -- riyen ♥ 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because they are Norn [species], does not mean they are affiliated with the Norn. They could be outcasts, they could be traitors, they could not even know who the Norn are. Just because they are a certain species, it does not automatically make them affiliated with that. You told Kokuou earlier to read the affiliations page, well maybe you should read it too- "They often, but not always, correspond to social organizations or common mindsets, including tribal identities, armies, and political groups (emphasis added)". As for an example of why this affiliation mess is, well a mess, here you changed the affiliation of the Gretch from 'Grenth' to 'Far Shiverpeaks wildlife' for the reason that "they usually hang out in the far shiverpeaks[sic]". What?!...Oh and yes the IP is Ariyen so don't try to IP sock. ~Celestia 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Celestia. Just because someone is Norn, doesn't mean they are affiliated with the rest of them. Personally, I think we should leave affiliations as 'Not specified' for those that we don't have a reasonable certainty of, even if only for the purposes of lore and canon. Choosing something arbitrarily (Ghost for celestials and wildlife for afflicted? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?) because you don't understand that 'needs to be set' doesn't necessarily mean that 'it has to say something' isn't a good reason to go in filling in the affiliations for EVERY NPC. --★KOKUOU★ 09:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the previous ones who have gone through adding Norn to affiliation. I've done a few, but not that many and the others are less likely of saying they are affiliated. Celestials aren't 'living wildlife creatures' either as well as Afflicted aren't 'undead' as many have set them to be. I do agree and wish Affilation was 'Optional', but it's not and though I don't know why it's 'not'... It's not. -- riyen ♥ 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, I see that others have put affiliations such as Undead for afflicted NPCs, and I honestly hadn't noticed it until now (because of the mass number of edits you are doing). However, didn't it strike you as odd that when you click on Undead, it's all skeletons and mostly enemies from Prophecies? Just by my knowledge of the GW universe, it's fairly obvious that Afflicted aren't Undead. As for the required part, I'm not really sure why the project page states 'Required'. It's not even in the example usage box, and it's obvious that not all NPCs are going to have affiliations. Perhaps that should be removed or changed to something like, "Required for NPCs whose affiliations (White Mantle, Jade Brotherhood, etc.) are known and set to 'Not specified' for those that aren't or have no affiliation." --★KOKUOU★ 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this issue is still under contention, people should altogether stop adding the objected-to affiliations until a consensus is reached - you don't carry on doing it. -- pling 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea! Let's change the word Required to Optional. Am I brilliant or what? Stop nitpicking Aryien. -- Wyn talk 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't nit picking, just fixing the pages the others that had not done affiliation at yet (like Norn, Forgotten, Asura). Especially ones that were obvious. -- riyen ♥ 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Optional sounds like a good idea to me. Still, I think we should refrain from adding things like "Vabbians" and "Kaineng City wildlife" for affiliations, and only fill in this field for NPCs that are part organized groups like the White Mantle and Am Fah. --★KOKUOU★ 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What about NPCs like Prince_Bokka_the_Magnificent. You're saying to removing Vabbians, to remove them from NPCs like that? -- riyen ♥ 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

42 is adding affiliation no matter what's going on here. -- riyen ♥ 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

+1 Optional information, not added unless an affiliation is clear and distinct. ~Celestia 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The problem I see is that 42 uses "affiliation" to mean "affiliation", but the wiki uses it to mean "race". The first one is a matter of lore and naming, but the second deals with game mechanics; I think 42's project would be excellent... for a different field ("category..."). However, it would be a terrible idea to list the lore version in the box we've been using for game mechanics. For example, "FoW wildlife" has no game mechanic, and is only determined by its location; "Margonite" has a game mechanic and is testable by many means, and can apply even where it doesn't make sense (affiliation = a Margonite is a Margonite is a Margonite, even in Shing Jea; what's an Armored Cave Spider in Istan? FoW wildlife??). These two should not be mixed. Why would Zombies be affiliated with Zombies in Kryta, but everything whose type isn't a game mechanic be "Kryta wildlife"? Aren't Zombies Kryta wildlife? And what about ambiguous cases, like Rotscale or that one Margonite boss that doesn't fall under Servants of Abaddon? Affiliation should not mix lore and game mechanic--even if it unfortunately took the best name for what 42's doing. | 72 (UTC) 13:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some like Asura, Norn, etc. are game mechanics and Lore mixed. I don't think we should use it for wildlife, etc. -- riyen ♥ 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How are Asura and Norn game mechanic? But yes, some are bound to overlap. However, if you use one (parameter) for two things you get into the kinds of problems we're into, especially when -- as is the case with 42's edits -- this one parameter meaning "Race and Affiliation" is by analogy taken to mean both when it's only in fact one, as with FoW wildlife, for example, and you can no longer identify which only one it means. And worse when one is not just unspecified but also different, as I said with the Zombies in Kryta example. | 72 (UTC) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Asura for those that deal with one another, they talk as one, etc. If you remember the things where they're all discussing, etc. It's not just race or culture, it's how they deal with one another. Same with the Norn. -- riyen ♥ 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I see (of course my main point is elsewhere). Though that's intriguing. I wonder if they have a (something like a) checkbox "Asura" that triggers the application of dialogue, much like they do for races for which there are player bonuses and stuff, or if they just added the same dialogue to all Asura...would raise an interesting epistemological point about "game mechanics by nature" vs. "game mechanics by nurture" ;) | 72 (UTC) 03:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Just because they are Norn [species], does not mean they are affiliated with the Norn. They could be outcasts, they could be traitors, they could not even know who the Norn are." I am pretty sure that if they are Norn, then they know who the Norn are.

I have no problem with using the affiliation to show a particular "army" or military unit affiliation. However, the affiliation section has an added benefit. If the information is added that they are from a specific region in that affiliation tag, then the user can look up the category of all potential monsters they might deal with while in that particular region.

While not specifically a military affiliation, I do not see how, if there is no other already classified link (figuratively speaking), how it can be bad using the region the particular NPC is from to label them. It shouldn't be the specific map area, since there is already a category Category:Map area NPCs autoadded. This would allow the region to have it's own as well.

In this case, the army unit (or whatever) should take priority, but the affiliation tag is useful for far more than just a military type unit. 42 - talk 08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am against wildlife being in affiliation. Because we are not describing where they are from that's Location. We are describing what they do, who they are, whom they relate to, etc. -- riyen ♥ 08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote clearly, 42, while "affiliation" means that, the wiki does not use "affiliation" to mean that, just "race (as related to game mechanics)". If you mix the two, you get confusion like we have. What you are proposing seems is a fine and helpful idea, but is better--no, perfectly--implemented with one or more [[Category:some grouping, e.g. location, quest involved in, dungeon bosses, etc.]] tags, rather than approximating the affiliation field for a different and incompatible use than the one it is in now.

You could even go beyond that and add an extra field to the infobox with a more specific category, like "FoW wildlife", but while "affiliation" is a good word for that, it is currently in use for something else. | 72 (UTC) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like adding a "region" section to the infobox template? If that is how you mean, I think I understand 72.

BTW, I still disagree with affiliation being "optional." It can let people know that there is information still not there. It might not always apply, but assuming it doesn't just because it isn't there yet is not cool. It makes it harder for people who want to help to be able to add missing information if they can't tell it is missing. 42 - talk 06:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OMG, are you serious? LOL... See, that's what the Formatting guidelines are for. Changing it to Optional isn't totally removing it. It'll be in the guidelines, etc. People can look up the information and go "Hmm, Affiliation. Optional." They can look up what affiliation is and if that character needs it. Add it." I did that and I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but information is there to find. Making it optional, would help not show up the horrible tag "Not specified", It wouldn't be removing any of the previous tags either. It'd be like the other optional key words like type, etc. that we use. -- riyen ♥ 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Redefining affiliation

For the sake of making it clear for everyone, i would like to hear feedback on the following change to the meaning we give to words (and their use on the infobox):

• Species: the visual look of the NPC. Simmilar to current use
• Army: the relation of the NPC with others, as per game mechanics (what we use currently for "affiliation")
• Affiliation: the relation of the NPC with others, as per game lore (to match up with 42's idea).--Fighterdoken 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Affiliation covers more so game mechanics, but not quite so much lore. I don't honestly think we need to cover lore as much as mechanics to not only help the page, but the player. The basics, not the details that many may not really care about. -- riyen ♥ 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, these particular mechanics are not only pretty unknown to players, but they're simply downright useless because all enemies are aggressive. It doesn't matter if it's an afflicted or an Am Fah; both groups are going to attack the player, so knowing the mechanics of which "army" they are programmed as by ArenaNet devs is useless information. Therefore, I think that if anything, affiliation should be used for more lore (or just general information) purposes than anything else. --★KOKUOU★ 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still useful for bane weapons/shield, skill requeriments and... well, that's pretty much all the use the parameter gets XD.

I agree on the second part, though. Lorewise is pretty pointless and should be in the bodypage anyways.--Fighterdoken 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lore should belong in the body, because it'll have more detail. The mechanics in the side. They all may be very similar, but there's a difference to it as well. Wildlife, I'd consider as lore and should be a lore type detail in the body of the page. Not off to the side as that could confuse a simple minded person. -- riyen ♥ 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wouldn't all the mods like that fall under species, though, and not affiliation? --★KOKUOU★ 07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. We have exceptions already as far as i know, at least of undeads not being "undead". I think i remember seeing it the other way also, but was unable to find an example (otherwise, the whose "affiliation" entry would be redundant and unneeded).--Fighterdoken 07:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving "affiliation" -- as your idea proposes -- to lore/region/etc, is a good idea (and in line with 42's editing). I also note that like "species" is a subset of "army" ("Undead" is army, and game mechanics. "Skeleton" is species). In which case, if we don't drop it altogether, we should format it to look like a subset. Besides that, I approve (now who'll implement it...) | 72 (UTC) 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On a purely pragmatic note, it might be preferable to avoid actually renaming the template parameters (i.e. continue to call affiliation "affiliation" and find other suitable terms for the new fields). This would reduce the amount of "up front" work which would need to be done and would allow changes to be bled in as time and effort allow. Also, I suppose it is conceivable that the template parameters might be used in some DPL somewhere.... --DryHumour 16:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen a subst in a template, much less am not sure that is possible. It wouldn't be hard to change affiliation to Army, but I have seen many parts where species is changed to type. Basically both of those words be used, but each word on a separate npc page. I think species was changed to type for a reason, just that much I can gather. However, affiliation may not be needed for wildlife - leave that in the notes, I think. Affiliation may not be needed with duplicates, with exception of like say that big char boss in Saul's story - I think he's the one that defeats the charr or one of the others you get books on. It should only be used when needed, but noted on the example pages, etc. I don't see a problem with it being optional, but do we really need a lot more in the box to define the character that we cannot do on the pages, like the changes proposed anyway or adding in more that could be added on the page it's self? Not every character is going have a lot of that information, such as the npcs you'd see at Lion's arch, Divinity Coast, Kaingeng Center - humans for example that don't have much information. -- riyen ♥ 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By subset I mean like

Army: Undead

Species/Type: Skeleton

Affiliation: Kryta Wildlife

And in the new system, yes, affiliation would be applicable to every enemy (with very few exceptions), and wildlife would probably be the biggest receiver. The current affiliation is moved to Army. | 72 (UTC) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You can mess with the sandbox that I have - on the npc box, but with the coding as it is, I honestly don't see how we can add the subst like that or move the species type to being subst under Army. That's why I'm saying that while a good idea... Is it workable? I'll look about on wiki pages and see if there's a possibility of a subst. in a template, etc. -- riyen ♥ 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I don't know what "subset" means :P I just mean like indent it and make it smaller so it looks like a more specific field | 72 (UTC) 21:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

yea, but not finding out about the indent, etc. yet. -- riyen ♥ 21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Did you have in mind something like what is done for the infoboxes of solo or profession specific quests, etc.? --DryHumour 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Was asked to comment here. Affilitation was picked as the name for an internal field in the creature database, after what it best correlates to. This based partly on testing, but mostly on information directly given to us by various Anet employees. Thus it is part of the game, and documenting it is part of documenting the game. There is no need to make up a bunch of involved theories about it. Backsword 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So, what should and shouldn't be included in the affiliation field, then? Is it reserved for things like White Mantle and Am Fah, or for broader categories like Canthans, too? --★KOKUOU★ 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither, by the most basic definition. Which is exactly why we have subcategories, and the mixing and overextension of the latter is what caused this confusion. Backsword, we know what affiliation is. We are not making up "involved theories"; we are categorizing NPCs by logical groupings, such as White Mantle and Am Fah (and on the lower level, "FoW Wildlife" and such) because it helps people find things. For those of you who are still confused, true affiliation is "Undead", "Zombie", "Margonite", and the like. If you haven't read the above wall of text, Backsword, please read it. | 72 (UTC) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, we started using the term "affiliation" before we knew that army was used internally by ArenaNet to refer to that trait. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

All the same, we used it to denote what is now known to be "army", or at least seems to be the case on any pages that declare affiliation. | 72 (UTC) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We started using it beacuase it was used internally. Backsword 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

72, I was refring to this thread. Backsword 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We use it for groups we know exists, or for groups whose existance can be derived from general principles we know. We know the Mantle exists, so we use that. If there is a group we would like to call "Canthans", then we do that. If not, we don't. Backsword 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NPC location

Why are NPCs categorised using one name even if that name is shared for an outpost, a mission, and/or and explorable area as well? For example, categorising NPCs in the Eternal Grove mission and the outpost and the explorable area into Category:The Eternal Grove NPCs. I wasn't sure about changing the categorisation (via the NPC location template) for Bujo from Category:Kaineng Center (explorable area) NPCs to Category:Kaineng Center NPCs as they're technically different locations. I've looked over some archived discussions, but I didn't really see much about keeping them together - Dirigible, for one, seemed to prefer to keep them separated, and I didn't see much opposition. That said, I looked through the archives by section titles, so I might have missed something.

Also, slightly unrelated to this, should missions be ordered by availability, similar to how quests are listed, instead of alphabetically? The former makes more sense to me, and it's also consistent with the quests section. -- pling 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't looked through the archives I'd say separate the NPC categorization by outpost/mission/explorable would be better since some only appear in one or two and not all (eg: Mission and outpost but not explorable); hopefully I've understood you correctly. As to the mission order, I'd say by availability would make more sense. --Kakarot 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is more in response to the quest and mission order. I think that they should have an order, if it applies, Primary quests and missions should be listed first, then secondary ones. I think alphabetically would be better. I know there is a preference to have dialogue listed in campaign order, but since they would all be in the same campaign if listed on that page, keep them alphabetical otherwise. 42 - talk 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Missions should be listed in availability order, imo. --JonTheMon 05:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Skill list

I am proposing a change, and putting it here only because it is more apppropriate than where it is "guidelined" on the formatting professions section.

I propose changing the format to have it, if not under multiple skill sets, to only sort skills alphabetically, including any "monster" skills. It makes it much easier on editors all around. 42 - talk 06:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Armorer pages

Ariyen, in going through NPCs and adding affiliations, has removed some of the formatting for the armorer NPC pages here, here, and here, as opposed to, say, Tsukare. However, this new format is inconsistent with the rest of the armor formatting for those from Factions, Nightfall, and Eye of the North. Personally, I prefer the original (coloured boxes) formatting. What do others think? --★KOKUOU★ 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Only main changes I've made is taking out the colors on the bottom two lines so people could read them. Even those who might be color blind. I don't see any harm in this. It helps the reader, ease of the reader. It's like this on the perfect page, the pre page, the suffix page, etc. of weapons, and there's no issue of colors being a problem on the material page for crafting armor. -- riyen ♥ 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And that's fine if that's what's decided. However, arbitrarily changing it on the few pages you're working on, and in doing so destroying the consistency that was already there, is not fine. --★KOKUOU★ 08:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the way it is on here to the others, with the gray background for the headers and the white table. I dislike the rainbow formatting especially on such narrow columns. -- Wyn talk 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. It helps with my eyes and I can actually see that it's 15k and not 16k as my eyes were deceiving me with the colors. -- riyen ♥ 08:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with this change. | 72 (U|T|C) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, but as Kokuou noted, I'm for consistency too. Change a few, wait for objections, change another couple, wait again for objections, then if you're up for it, change the rest :) -- ab.er.rant 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really what I was doing. Changing some while changing a lot of affiliations - basically adding the affiliation to a lot of npc pages. May not be accurate on that, but trying. -- riyen ♥ 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Then someone objected, now we have this. Anyways, I opt for the gray headers and white background. Less whatever, easier on the eyes. de Kooning 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the colored backgrounds. - Mini Me talk 21:07, 3 December 2009

Taking those colors out does make it easier on the eyes. The first chart on Tsukare's page doesn't have colored boxes, so there's already an inconsistency. (Xu Davella 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

I like the colored columns too, and the colors themselves are quite pale, so I don't find them distruptive at all, I think it's actually easier to find what I need that way, but that's my personal opinion, and seems to be in minority in this section. Rose Of Kali 17:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we use lighter colours for the 15k links, then, as it seems we need to come to an agreement between people that like the colours and people that want it to be easier to read? --★KOKUOU★ 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are three different levels of color available, just use the lightest. That is almost white anyway, and it keeps the profession color there for the people that want it, and it is light and almost not even there for the people that don't. 42 - talk 07:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just show what colors are wanted and I'd be glad to add them. -- riyen ♥ 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the colours in the Tint column here? --★KOKUOU★ 07:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not too bad. I can go with that over the background color. -- riyen ♥ 07:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me. | 72 (UTC) 16:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll change them , if and once I get the Okay. No problem for me. -- riyen ♥ 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Locations in the example

Locations

• region1
  • Location1
  • Location2
  • Location3 (explorable area)
  • Location4 (during quest name)
  • Dungeon1: Level 2
  • Dungeon2: Levels 1 and 4
  • Dungeon3: All levels
  • ...

This example shows several dungeons in the same indentation as several other locations. This is very unlikely, because Depths of Tyria contains all dungeons, and only a few other areas. Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I don't want anyone to get confused. I also think the example should show a more complex situation, one with an NPC in several campaigns. I propose the example should look something like this:

Locations

• campaign1
  • region1
    • Location1
    • Location2
    • Location3 (explorable area)
    • Location4 (during quest name)
  • region2
    • Dungeon1: Level 2
• campaign2
  • region3
    • Location5
    • Location6
    • ...

Manifold 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I made the sections subsections just for the sake of demonstration on this page. (Undo if you want.) I think this is a good idea and I advocate its implementation. | 72 (UTC) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit worried about the formatting here, thank you. Manifold 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a preference either way. Some people seem to want to get ridiculous on the separation on things, especially on things that it is hard to tell at quick glance that they should be separated, or even tell how they are different. On this, I think if you made a section title "Dungeons", then that would make it work the way you want, and still keep the identifying mark. 42 - talk 07:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Should the campaign levels start with a semi-colon (for bolding) instead of an asterisk? That's the way weapon articles are formatted, so it would be consistent to do it for NPCs. I think it separates the campaigns more clearly, too. -- pling 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The dungeons were just tacked on. Doesn't mean anything. Can't think of a single case where the campaign stuff would be useful, so skip that. There are only very small number of cases of a region being used in more than one campaign, and I can't think of a single case where a NPC is in both. Even if there is, how much use would it be? Backsword 07:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

UW, FoW, and DoA

I've seen some inconsistencies among these areas. UW and FoW appear a few different ways currently. Some list The Mists before UW/FoW, some have the individual area(s) after UW/FoW, such as Ice Wastes. For example, assuming these are multi-campaign:

• Core
  • The Underworld
    • Ice Wastes
      • some creature

• Core
  • The Mists
    • The Underworld
      • some creature

• Core
  • The Underworld
    • some creature

Which should be used? Or should it even be 5 tiers with both The Mists and individual area?

For DoA, some NPCs list Domain of Anguish as a sub-area of Realm of Torment:

• Realm of Torment
  • Domain of Anguish
    • Stygian Veil
      • some creature

and some don't:

• Domain of Anguish
  • Stygian Veil
    • some creature

which should be used? Manifold 21:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)'

Individual areas of The Underworld/FoW are kinda lame. On the other hand, I guess it's true that the monsters aren't throughout the FoW/UW; though any unique NPC listed as in a location isn't "throughout" it, either, and they don't get "Majesty's Rest -- the Big ol' Hill." If we were to drop the other side, the wider one, "The Mists" pretty much = "Core", and maybe we only need to keep one. | 72 (UTC) 03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal preference, not having spent much time at all in either location. But what I have seen, and is apparently accepted, is the map location, and then one level up, the region it is in. 42 - talk 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and include sub-areas of UW, FoW, and DoA, as they have seperate pages, and already have NPC location categories. I'm also going to consider DoA as a sub-area of RoT. Also, if I'm reading this correctly, only The Ebony Citadel of Mallyx (the final part after you do the other 4 areas, the equivalent of the dungeon Duncan is in) is considered a mission. Which I don't think a single NPC page reflects. Manifold 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not fine

If it was fine where it was, then I wouldn't have moved it. It was fine where I moved it to. 42 - talk 05:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It clutters it up and there is more than one person saying so. Also if you look the almost all other talk pages have the TOC where it is now. It lets you choose where you want to go and keeps you from having to read a big jumbled mess. Drogo Boffin 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason that the TOC is where it is is more than likely because no one has bothered to have an opinion about it. I do so, and I get (figuratively) slapped nine ways from Sunday for it. Never mind when I use the same points that others do to prove my side (not on this one, on others) then those points are totally useless, yet the people who are voicing their opinion against mine can use those same exact points, and then they are perfectly fine. 42 - talk 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add this in last post. It being where it is keeps people from getting to read any of the first part of the page until they either click or scroll down. With the TOC to the right like I had it, at least they can get to reading the posts right off. 42 - talk 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with TOC and the Talk page, please discuss it here. -- riyen ♥ 09:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue

For NPCs outside outposts who are found in multiple locations, I don't think the current Dialogue structure is clear enough. One example is the Dialogue section of Justiciar Hablion's page:

Prophecies:

"The swamp is still befouled. Clear out the undead."

The Rise of the White Mantle:

"You have led us to the true faith. Kryta will never be the same."

That NPC is found in three missions, but only displays the "Prophecies" dialogue in one of them, something which isn't noted in the section. In some ways, this is a mission specific dialogue (not only in the meaning that it's limited to a mission, but it's also about the events that happen during a mission).
I suggest changing those cases to the following structure (using the same example):

Prophecies

• Kryta
  • Gates of Kryta

"The swamp is still befouled. Clear out the undead."

The Rise of the White Mantle

• Kryta

"You have led us to the true faith. Kryta will never be the same."

Or alternatively...

Bonus Mission Pack

• Kryta
  • The Rise of the White Mantle

"You have led us to the true faith. Kryta will never be the same."

Erasculio 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why all that would be needed. We don't really have any standard, but what we generally do is provide just enough info to isambiguate it. In your example, just changing it from prophecies to gates should be fine. Backsword 08:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)