TaRapedia talk:Formatting/Locations

Terminology
I need some clarification on semantics. Or maybe we need to establish some standards. You see, I know what a planet is, I know what a continent is, but in this wiki should we call each individual piece on that continent a map or a zone? And what of an instance -- should we call it a map or a zone? I mean we "zone into" each map/instance...but each map has named areas within it (at least with the 6/12 patch, not sure about the 7/3 patch) that I hope no one wants to call zones. I vote that anything you zone into is a separate zone (it may also be a map, and instance, etc) while parts of zones are areas. I think this jibes with Template:Location so the template can be used in instances (description of an area could be put in the Remark field). --Clatra 20:00, 4 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I was the one who came up with the current terminology, but I'm open for discussion. Unfortunatly I found no ingame reference for the locations below the continent level. Maybe we should ask the devs what they call them. If you browse the Tabula Rasa directory on your HDD you'll see that the level below continent level is called "map" here. I think I've also seen CuppaJo refer to them as "maps" on the forums. As for the areas within a map, I don't mind. We may call them "zone", or "area" or "location", or "district", or whatever. Anything is fine for me as long as we use ONE name on this wiki, consistently. Last but not least, an instance isn't really any different from a map. The tree in the map window puts them on the same level with non-instanced maps, and technically they work exactly the same as non-instanced maps, except you don't run into other parties here, and mobs don't respawn. --Tetris L 03:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Tetris L, thanks for the responses. Planet>Continent>Map>Area sounds good to me. Because some folks might be used to the term "zone" for what we will be calling a "map", I will tweak Template:Location a bit (I also think changing the X, Y, Z coords to X, Z, Y makes sense for consistency considering mousing over a map ingame now displays the X, Y coords of the mouse pointer). --Clatra 12:01, 5 July 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm okay with renaming "zone" to "area", but please do not change the order of x, z, y. I know this is a very uncommon order, but it is the order in which the game displays the coordinates if you use the /loc command. And whatever the game does should be our standard. -- T ETRIS L 03:04, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Oooops, looking at the template again I see what you mean. There was an error. Of course altitude is Z and east/west is Y. Thanks for the correction. :) -- T ETRIS L 03:07, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Layout
Currently we have two layout drafts: Our future standard should be a polished merger of both, combining the good aspects of both.
 * 1) Wilderness
 * 2) Bootcamp

The Bootcamp layout was drafted by myself, so I'm obviously biased. ;) However, I'm not 100% happy with it either, so there is definetly a lot of room for discussion.

Regarding the Wilderness layout, a few thoughts:
 * Listing the locations of each individual store, logos shrine, etc in the zone article is overkill. The location template is very "bulky" and clutters the article. Simply put in a link to the store, logos shrine, etc. The location can be given in the detail article.
 * I wouldn't make "Stores" a separate section. It's one of many NPC services and can be convered in the "Allied creatures" (NPCs) section.
 * The sections for Exits and Instances are redundant. An exit to an instance is also an exit.

Please comment. -- T ETRIS L 04:31, 6 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Regarding the pros/cons of Wilderness and Bootcamp layouts:
 * The location templates, while bulky, give folks quick access to the info they need. For example, if someone is looking for a store that sells a certain level equipment in Wilderness, they can get that info quickly. If Wilderness's format was converted to Bootcamp's format, someone may click links to all 5 stores (or 10 stores if someone is looking for both weapons and armor), and click back several times, before determining that there is one store that sells level 5 stuff and 4 stores that sell level 10 stuff. Granted Wilderness is sort of an odd zone since it has so many stores in it. Of course other zones will have more instances/exits -- but the same argument applies to instances/exits -- having the location of these on the Wilderness page saves many clicks when someone is trying to figure out the best place for them to go next.
 * Instead of using location templates, maybe we could make a location table? I think this would come in handy for an instances/exits table in each zone article. I would make it into a template but I have no idea how to let the the number of table rows in a template be variable. :/ I think I can make a plain table. :)
 * It is not intuitive to me that NPCs that run stores would be under Creatures like they are in the Bootcamp article (see my other comments, below).
 * Combining instances/exits into the same part of an article makes sense to me.
 * Since I drafted the Wilderness layout, I'm obviously biased here, too. But Bootcamp is definitely an odd zone and since folks are pretty much lead around by their nose, I am not compelled to make its format match the format of other zones (i.e. it should be uber-noob-friendly). That said, the only other comment I have about the Bootcamp layout is that the names of areas within a zone are rarely important. It is fine to list the areas, but I would probably not put them first.
 * Even though there is a table of contents, most users who are seeing the article for the first time will probably browse/search the article top-down until they find what they want and/or until they get used to what type of info is in the article. So I tend to put the most often-referenced info toward the top and the least-referenced info toward the bottom -- obviously until there are a decent amount of page hits, it is a judgement call regarding what info is "most important."
 * Personally when I enter a zone the first time, I want to know about missions, stores, and trainers. Then logos, instances/exits, and teleporters. Then maybe areas and NPCs/critters in the area.
 * I think it is fine that clicking the name of the NPC running a store sends folks to a typical NPC page but I still think separating store NPCs near the top of a zone page from the other NPCs near the bottom of a zone page makes sense. But let me qualify that statement by saying I am not sure what an NPC page about, say, Ranger Carson would include other than the "flavor" message he tells you the first time you talk to him. If it is just the flavor text, I would say folks can read that ingame so I do not see the reason for Ranger Carson having his (her?) own article in a wiki like this one.
 * Yet another option for organizing stuff, probably in succinct tabular form, would be a Points of Interest section in each zone article. Just brainstorming here, it could have 5 columns:
 * Point of Interest (name hyperlinked to its article)
 * Notes (mission giver, level X weapon store, tier X trainer, logos shrine, instance/exit/teleporter/wormhole, waterfall, cave, spawn point, nice view, cool statue, etc)
 * Last 3 columns would be /loc
 * --Clatra 20:53, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


 * Commenting on your comments:
 * Yes, it's nice to have all the information right in the location article, without having to click any links. But I'm afraight that the article will become overly long then. It's already very long now.
 * A location table is a good idea. I was thinking about the same for the Exits section.
 * I'm undecided about giving vendors a separate section. I'll think about it.
 * Yes, NPCs should be sorted by "relevance". Vendors and mission contacts at the top, the less important ones at the bottom. That's what I did in Bootcamp.
 * It's a given that a vendor NPC page would look a lot different to a mission contact NPC page, let alone an NPC page about an NPC who has no real purpose other than "extra". We should draft TaRapedia:Formatting/NPC as soon as possible.
 * The Points of Interest section sounds like a good idea to me.
 * I'm a big friend of tables myself, as they look very clean on screen. The problem about them is: They are very unfriendly to wiki-newbs, because the table markup code is a real b*tch.
 * I'll draft "my" example version of Wilderness in User:Tetris L/Wilderness. I'll put in some suggestions of yours and put in some more new stuff. Then we can compare. -- T ETRIS L 02:51, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Here are my thoughts: ( Imper1um 08:53, 17 August 2007 (EDT) )
 * I'm fixing the Template:Location. It's no longer just a variable template. That allows us to easily use the wiki format, since all you really need is the |- - and |} tags.
 * No offense, Tetris, but that article is very 'clunky'. I would be very confused if I read that template. Unfortunately, the 'MySpace' scroll right to see it all is so...Myspace. :p
 * NPCs should be sorted by Level then Name, period. There's no other way to sort them, is there? You can categorize them by relavance (Vendor, Guard, Quest Master, etc), however, NPCs can only be sorted by Level, then Name in a list.
 * Points of Interest should be limited to what is not included in the Sub-Articles already. So, if I say that something is in Alia Das, it should not be displayed in Wilderness.
 * Points of Interest should not be displayed in any level higher than Zone. That gets WAAAAY too clunky and big, even if it is just one page that takes care of it all.
 * I'm going to work a little bit on the Location Aspect. One thing that has to be done is the conversion of the articles post-change with the Template:Location. Something to work on today while I'm at work ^_^


 * About that new location template: HAKKER 10:58, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I updated some of the contacts and enemies with the new location template. I'd fix the rest, but I should get to the work I'm paid to do.  Can't there be some kind of script to automate this, though?  Make it easier on us humans.
 * Comments from ( Imper1um 11:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT) )
 * I added Category:Locations that need updating to the template if Location = NOT NULL, so we can go through the list and update the Locations. Make sure were communicating the update to the script with anyone that puts on a new Location.
 * One thing to remember, the difference between a Zone, and a Location/Area. A zone is a place with it's own map. Basically, if you can find it's name in the Map List, it's a Zone. A Location or Area is a place with a Title on a Map, but it's not the Title of the Map. Alia Das is a Location. Crater Lake Research Facility is a Zone. This eliminates some confusion on this aspect. Don't call a Location/Area a Zone and Vice Versa, just so we can keep the wiki clean.

Layout (more)
Regarding the current instance/exit table for Wilderness, it is quite unsightly and I daresay completely unnecessary. Coordinates for instances and exits are not needed at all, they are clearly labeled on the in-game map and it is quite difficult to miss them. I much preferred the old way of just an instance section with a simple list of the instances, it was very quick and easy to get to the instance pages that way. As an added bonus, you can do it all by effortlessly copy/pasting a simple DPL block, see Abyss for an example.Mrspathi 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Adding new section for separation in time and space). The location system (like most others) is still in a state of beta disrepair. Right now the discussion is pretty fragmented and there's no clear direction. Are you enthusiastic enough that we should kickstart the location project and get a proper system in place? - Dashiva (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)