Talk:Alpine Borderlands

This article

I feel like this is a good way to document the borderlands as they are all physically the same and it might be useful to know where stuff is in relation to the other borderlands. This is taken from the February beta so I don't know if anything has changed (some of them are a bit odd; for instance, Bluelake in the green world borderlands, etc.) so I'll do some double-checking in the next BWE unless someone has a more recent video than this. --Eerie Moss 10:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that's correct. The (color)lake and (color)briar are near the border of one borderlands to the other. Mavrande 10:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Decide between this and individual articles

Currently we have this article as well as one, two, three others. Since the borderlands in the last BWE, and thus probably final, were named for their servers, the others either need to be renamed or this one adopted. I'm for keeping this one with a note showing naming conventions for different servers. Any objections? --Eerie Moss 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Skittsfield

I have a screenshot from a couple weeks ago of "Skrittsfield". I don't know which borderland it is, but either Chitterogg, Neuskrittia, or Chitaritta is wrong. Manifold 16:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't think to look at the map. It either changed in the last few weeks, or it's another case of the minimap saying something different than the map. Manifold 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

borderlands nav

some of the pages link to a green blue red borderlands nav template and I have no idea how to go about making said template my thought was to have it show:

borderlands | green red blue

Green | list of maps

Red | list of maps

Blue | list of maps

any thoughts ideas?- Zesbeer 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Split into articles entitled Borderlands, Alpine Borderlands and Desert Borderlands.

“

Even though this will initially replace the existing Borderlands, we have plans to bring back the classic alpine Borderlands. More information on that will come in the future.

— Tyler Bearce, ArenaNet Game Designer [1]

What Moria suggests seems a bit premature, since HoT has yet to be released. However, We know it is coming soon and is currently in Beta-test, so some advanced preparation may be appropriate. When HoT does arrive, it may be more appropriate to move or redirect the current Borderlands article to Alpine Borderlands. All the associated zones, areas, NPCs, events, etc. would need to be marked obsolete, until and unless Alpine Borderlands is brought back at some later time. A new set of articles based on the configuration of the new Desert Borderlands would be required. ~ 1Maven (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, though I wouldn't redirect this article to Alpine Borderlands; I'd give Alpine its own article, and redirect the current article to Desert Borderlands and add an otheruses tag or something for readers who were looking for Alpine. Turning the current article into a disambig page works too. --Idris (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment and modify as appropriate on preliminary information on Desert borderlands now on the wiki. ~ 1Maven (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Instance or Not?

Is each of the 3 Borderlands (red, green, blue) a large Instance or not? Or are all 3 combined into one large instance along with Eternal Battlegrounds? The Artisan (Master Crafter) NPCs change whenever Borderlands are rebuilt by the server (examples: following Weekly WvW reset and new releases). However, unlike a "standard" instance:

• the player maximum is much greater than 5.
• a queue is used rather than "shards" or "overlays".
• Edge of the Mists mechanics are different, using "overlays".

This idea was suggested to me, but there does not seem to be much objective evidence either way. What do you think? ~ 1Maven (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge

It has been suggested to merge essentially identical information in

• Blue World Citadel, Green World Citadel and Red World Citadel into "Borderlands/Citadel".
• Blue World Garrison, Green World Garrison and Red World Garrison into "Borderlands/Garrison".
• Blue World Bastion, Green World Bastion and Red World Bastion into "Borderlands/Bastion".

~ 1Maven (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate each area by the zone, we've done so for other areas in the borderlands.--Relyk ~ talk < 19:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you do, DO NOT make them subpages. —Dr Ishmael 21:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, OK, I promise not to make them sub-pages permanently. It seemed a good, temporary, out-of-the-way place to park them, while waiting for community review and feedback on the basic concept. I feel many of these pages have been largely ignored because no one had had enough interest in keeping them current. I have the interest, but only want to do the editing once. So Ish, if you feel the merge idea has any merit then how do you suggest that things should be handled? ~ 1Maven (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy-paste works wonders for easy editing of multiple similar pages. ;) Tbh, I do prefer your idea, but if we were to go for it then I'd expand it to *all* borderlands areas and not just the keeps: towers, camps, skill challenges, etc. There's a problem with this, though: what on earth do you call the generic page for something like the Cragtop/Cliffside/Dawn's Eyrie tower? "North-east Borderlands Tower" is accurate but awful. --Idris (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A simpler solution for easy editing would be the use of templates. --Idris (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't use templates as boilerplates for entire articles. It's confusing to new editors, and it's just plain silly when it's only for 3 pages.

Honestly, merging these pages is going to screw over SMW. I'm for keeping everything separate. —Dr Ishmael 02:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I had a feeling templates would be a bit much here, but I still see value in consolidating the articles. I mean, Red World Garrison's NPCs section still just says <insert names here> after two and a half years. Actually, I just realized that SMW means Semantic Media Wiki. I don't really know enough about it to understand why it would get upset by a merge here, so I retract my opinion. --Idris (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's rather simple. We guarantee an area is located in a single zone. Sticking three areas on one page means you can't identify which area is in which zone.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Red World Garrison's NPCs section still just says <insert names here> after two and a half years." All it takes is one well-intentioned editor to normalize the information across the 3 pages. I would, but I have little interest in WvW, thus I have hardly any knowledge at all of what the Borderlands are like, and I don't like editing things I know nothing about. —Dr Ishmael 04:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fiiine, hint taken. :p And thanks for the info, Relyk. --Idris (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I'd propose using templates as a way to keep SMW happy and still simplify editing to one location for pages that are essentially identical, thus increasing the chances that all are correctly updated in a timely manner. However. I've been told that templates are not appropriate for a small number of pages or pages that are not frequently updated. Does this bring us back to square one? Maintaining the status quo, where pages like these are largely ignored for years at a time? Is there a better solution? ~ 1Maven (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

1Maven (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC): There has been no discussion lately. Before I take that as implicit agreement that templates should be used to keep SMW happy, I want to ask what the community considers best: (1) status-quo where some out-of-date pages are not updated for years at a time (2) templates to facilitate updating in a timely manner or (3) using a tag like:

This page may be out of date. Check Green World Citadel for most up-to-date information. You can help the wiki by synchronizing and updating all similar pages.

No templates. --Idris (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to take the time to go through each page to copy-paste a template, just copy-paste the correct information instead. —Mora 17:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is what should be done, but as Ish pointed out, is often not for years at a time. To keep SMW happy, I've brought all 3 Citadels up-to-date, but only the Blue Garrison and Blue Bastion. Feel free to do the same for the others. Also, please delete "Borderlands/Citadel", "Borderlands/Garrison" and "Borderlands/Bastion", which I agree do not fit with the existing SMW architecture. ~ 1Maven (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't point that out. And that notice box is ugly. —Dr Ishmael 19:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Ish, my mistake. It was Idris, who has since struck it out. However, I may have stumbled upon a solution of sorts. It seems that whenever I take an interest in an unloved page, others do too. After all, sometimes I make relevant contributions, sometimes they need editing and sometimes (with the best of intentions, mind you) I'm just plain wrong. You never know until you check. Or the more charitable explanation is that there is just better moderation overall now then in the past. I think that I'll go with that one. ~ 1Maven (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't privy to areas or really have to do with SMW. Multiple events with the same name have the exact same issue. We don't have a solution for Defeat Scarlet for example.--Relyk ~ talk < 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)