Template talk:Location infobox

Icons in one row

I suggest putting all of the 5 Icons for vistas, skill points etc. in one row. That would look a lot better and should be enough space for it. - Zerebruin 12:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. Unfortunately, the CSS that defines the layout for infoboxes was defined before vistas were implemented, and the defined width is not wide enough for vistas to appear on the same line (there is no explicit linebreak between the skill challenge and vista elements).

However, I've noticed many cases where a wider infobox would be beneficial, especially for pages with long names. Adding a mere 20px (from 230px to 250px) would be enough to fit all map icons on the same line here. I don't think anyone would object to such a small change, so I'll go do that. —Dr Ishmael 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Zerebruin 20:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition of wikilinks on title bar

How about adding links to location name in infobox title bar? I'm talking about this white word on purple bar. At first they might sound redundant, since the link on word "Queensdale" in infobox on Queensdale won't be clickable, since it's the same article (It'll be bold), but it won't hurt, and may eventually come useful if for any reason the page will be transcluded into another page. For example, you could click the words Salma District and Queensdale on this very page - and that's where I got this idea from :).
—Faalagorn☎/✓ 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Prevent categorisation

The example is causing this template to get placed into a location category. I can't seem to find or remember the if-check for namespace to prevent the category from getting applied... -- ab.er.rant 07:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I recalled {{Spoiler}} had it so I looked. {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Spoilers]]}} is its coding. Konig/talk 07:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What should be included in the infobox

Why are pets included in the infobox? IMO the infobox should contain only general information about the location, and pets are too specific to the Ranger profession. The Zone formatting guidelines already includes a section for pets, and that seems good enough. On a related note, why are resource nodes (mining, logging, gathering) not in the infobox? Buttonmasher 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered at why pets are in there too, it's redundant with the pet section of the article, which is necessary in order to describe exactly where to find them.

Resource nodes are linked to the level of individual areas per the crafting tiers, so I really don't see any reason to have any general documentation about them at all. Specific things like rich ore veins and harvesting farms should definitely be in the article, but I don't think they belong in the infobox. —Dr Ishmael 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Dr. Ish. Konig/talk 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If i'm looking at the Harathi Hinterlands page, for example, I think it would be nice if I could see, at a glance, what kinds of nodes I might encounter in that zone, without having to look that information up elsewhere. (And conversely, if I'm looking for gold ore, it would be nice if there was a list of zones where I could mine some). I, for one, have no idea what the level range is for gold ore (and I don't think such info exists on the wiki currently). In any case, pets in the infobox -- should something be done? Buttonmasher 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note about it being redundant for areas, I'm wondering if it would be better to list pets for zones in the description of zones rather than the infobox. However your argument against having pets in the infobox also applies to nodes, to a certain extent - they're specific to crafting disciplines Notso (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is a year old, you may want to start a new section if it's necessary.--Relyk ~ talk < 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Give direction for 'connections' + portals

I think it makes it much easier to orientate if we add the direction (N, S, E, W, NE, etc.) behind each zone for the parameter 'connections'. Also I would add connections via portals but clearly mark the connection as portal (e.g. Dark City (portal)). I have added this suggestion to the parameter description but marked it as optional until there is a common understanding on this. - 192.168.104.83 rubberduck

I suggest doing something similar for areas, I found it to be a bit inconvenient to keep going back and forth from the large map (e.g. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/9/9d/Diessa_Plateau_map.jpg) and the Zone overview (e.g. Diessa Plateau to get to the next area's article. Having this in the infobox would allow a user to click from one area to the next. I'll start going through Diessa Plateau (the zone I'm working on completing atm) to see how easy it is to add and how much space it takes up in the infobox. If it works I'll add it as optional. Notso (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

All these autocategorizations

They're starting to screw up the examples, and are listing various sandboxes into the categories. That's easily fixed, but I really do not like over-autocategorizing in a single temple. That's one of the reasons why this is such a mess. I would highly advise against further auto-categorizing especially with trivial things that don't need autocategorizing. Konig/talk 10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As for me I think autocategorization are plain and simply the best way to go. Every categoristion tag I don't set from hand is one mistake less I can make and one step further to better maintainability. It is just important the autocategorization will categorize everything as I want to, but this is a more global discussion, so let's discuss this here: Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Projects/Cartography#Categories. - Yandere 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

interaction with map icons

The infobox messes with the float on map icon for certain pages such as Flame Temple Tombs--Relyk ~ talk > 18:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not the infobox, it's the image thumbnail. They screw with everything, the most obvious being section-edit links. I moved the thumbnail. —Dr Ishmael 19:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

adding to infobox

Is there any plans/ desire to add dungeons and jumping puzzles to the info box area containing POIs and vistas? Or is there a way to do this that I don't see here? Yoe Dude 02:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That section is specifically to denote the items required for map completion in the area/zone. There's no room to add anything else (cf. Ascalon). —Dr Ishmael 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, Thanks for the speedy reply. Yoe Dude 03:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs historical parameter

For Molten facility and any future similar. --Claret (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Done--Relyk ~ talk > 19:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As ever, Relyk is the man. --Claret (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Levels

→ moved from Talk:Area

I think it would make more sense if the formatting was simply "| level = x" (instead of "levels"), and it specified the level you were adjusted down to if you are too high a level for the area. Is it possible to change this (or add it so the previous "| levels = x" formatting isn't invalidated)? Notso (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The usage you mention is how we are using it for areas (if it's not, that area should be corrected). I modified the label "Levels" so that it adapts to "Level" for areas. As for actually renaming the parameter, does it really matter? The benefit of doing so would be pretty small, but it would require a lot of edits to update every page that uses it. —Dr Ishmael 14:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a wiki noob. I don't know how parameters work, I didn't realise you could change the parameter and the text it produced independently, although it's bleedingly obvious it's possible, when I think about it. I've started correcting the parameter where I find errors - it seems with some of the older area articles it was giving the level range of the mobs. Thanks Doc. [ : Notso (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like it's broken - it's reverted back to "Levels" for areas Notso (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Derp, I forgot one of my cardinal rules - never trust the case of input values. Condition is now case-insensitive. —Dr Ishmael 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Boy am I wrong, I've been listing the level(s) of foes found in each area... Sorry Yoe Dude (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Connections for areas

I've added connections for about half the areas in Diessa Plateau, and looks pretty neat except for when longer area names are combined with two-character compass directions (e.g. Halrunting Plains (NW)), as then the compass direction gets shoved onto the line below... Is it possible to widen just the right-hand margin for the "| connections =" code? Notso (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

its restricted by the width of 125px, rather than the margin or padding. 145px is the maximum it could take without harming the width of the infobox... but if we change the width once, then there will almost always be a usage case with the longest area name which needs that much extra width on top. -Chieftain Alex 09:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a list of areas? I could just look at that and work out how long the longest possible name is. It may simply be better to find a section within the area article to list connections (to reduce the length of the infobox), but it feels like the sort of info that should be in the infobox rather than the main page Notso (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Lists of this sort (connections and pets here, locations for NPCs, etc.) don't fit well in infoboxes. But people still try to cram them in anyway. —Dr Ishmael 12:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. There are always exceptions like Freewain Pastures which have 9 or so connections. I'll go back and move them to the main article then, and keep the ones which connect to different zones. Notso (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been using the connections part of the infobox only in areas that have portals leading to a different zones so I am guessing that is the normal usage. I could see the point of perhaps listing hidden POI entrances not accessed from the area they are on, and also the start of jumping puzzles. Yoe Dude (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

map objectives parameter

Call me silly but wouldn't it be more intuitive to reverse the y/n for the map completion parameters. y as required, n as not required? Just seems logical. --Claret (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

the parameter is like that, my description was totally backwards though. :D -Chieftain Alex 11:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer objectives instead of map objectives'' because its meaning is clear in the context of the templates and to avoid multi-word parameters.--Relyk ~ talk < 17:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Within parameter

It would be nicer if the Within parameter used the enclosing area's canonical name. Thanks. --Claret (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not possible. Input has to be guaranteed unique, so it has to use article name. —Dr Ishmael 23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it not have been a case of using a silent #set for the Has location and then putting the rest in {{cname}}? (almost midnight, perhaps I missed something..) -Chieftain Alex 23:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what you missed was ishmael saying it was not possible. Now move along. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I was not clear enough - the Scarlet's Secret Lair infobox has Durmand Priory (location) as its enclosing area (within) - I am sure it's possible to display the canonical name for "Durmand Priory (location)" as "Durmand Priory", judging how other infoboxes behave. Correct me if I am wrong. --Claret (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I got exactly what you were saying - I just think that it is possible. brb.. -Chieftain Alex 00:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Claret (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You weren't very specific - I thought you meant canonical name as input, but you meant as output. If I hadn't misunderstood, I could've done it myself. —Dr Ishmael 04:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Its ok taht alex is better at templates than you fishmeal, you don't need to feel so insecure. Psycho Robot (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I rather thought that you had misunderstood, Ish, hence my added appeal. Thanks anyway. And thank you, Psycho, for keeping us in touch with reality, or at least your take on it. :) --Claret (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dungeons

Currently, the template adds waypoints and poi from dungeons (Plains of Ashford counts those from Ascalonian Catacombs). Was it intended? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raljeor (talk • contribs) at 11:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

Dungeons really aren't "within" a zone, they just have a connection to a zone. We should probably remove the within parameter from their infoboxes. —Dr Ishmael 05:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I found a user, Trapita, adding manual WP + POI counts to Plains of Ashford. I'll kill the parameter. -Chieftain Alex 15:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Effective level

Just to be sure. In areas, we use the effective level when we are lvl80, not the level found in the api, right? A few like Dolyak Pass uses the api. Raljeor (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the effective level is easier for players to identify and add to the infobox since they can get it from in-game. The level in the API can be derived since it's effective level - 1 iirc.--Relyk ~ talk < 14:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Which API provides level data for "areas" like Dolyak Pass? -Chieftain Alex 14:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

https://api.guildwars2.com/v1/map_floor.json?continent_id=1&floor=all

or https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/continents/1/floors/1/regions/1/maps/28/sectors/216 if you prefer Raljeor (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually effective level is API level + 1, but sometimes it's equal (Tangle Root Aurora's Remains) Raljeor (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple map paremeters

I would like to see this template get three 'optional' map parameters added, given that we now have 10 maps with multiple layers (The Grove, Rata Sum, Divinity's Reach, Caudecus's Manor, Twilight Arbor, Honor of the Waves, Arah if counting story, Verdant Brink, Auric Basin, Tangled Depths), and likely more to come in the future. Currently, we're placing the 'non-standard' layers in a gallery section or placed on the side along the article. I think it'd be best if we place them within the infobox. Konig 23:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't do this in the infobox. If you want to view the different layers of a map, the infobox is a terrible place unless you are an ant. I would love to use the overlay for viewing the map layers instead:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

... further results

--Relyk ~ talk < 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It'd need some kind of caption if we were to do it like that, I had no idea what the dots were initially.

Also, lol the "further results" thing is still broken i see :( -Chieftain Alex 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember where I saw it, but I know it was definitely a wiki. The top image you could click to see how a person looked later, maybe we could have something like that to click on a text link to go between the different layers of a map and upon clicking on it opens up to a bigger image like Relyk's image above? - Do_odleplex 17:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

levels in area infobox

Heya,

so in the docs for this infobox, it says:

• levels:
  • Zone: The level range for the zone. Separate minimum and maximum levels with a single hyphen "-", e.g. 60 - 70
  • Area: The effective level of the area

However, putting a hyphen in the infobox yields an error. See Catacomb Entrance for an example. The same issue is also present in the Living world infobox, see Braham - Eirsson. -Darqam (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Seems like this error occures when the "| type = " was not properly defined (i.e it was set to "Area" instead of a good value). -Darqam (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems like any area infobox breaks if the |type is set to "Area" and a range of levels is put in. I can't figure out how to fix this in the template itself. -Darqam (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. I hadn't thought of dungeon areas when i hardcoded it to expect one value. Separate multiple levels with ", " if you need to. -Chieftain Alex 18:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you give the same treatment to Template:Living world infobox, so that pages like A Future in Politics work out nice? I'm worried I'll butcher things if I try to apply the change myself. -Darqam (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we even still have that template? Wasn't the story infobox template revamped for all future story instances since S2? If not they should be. Konig 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried looking at the same pages with the story infobox template, and I believe that the same issue with multi levels is there anyway (unless I'm just bad). -Darqam (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why we bothered recording the level req. Removed it. -Chieftain Alex 19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

{{Story infobox}} shouldn't be used, and {{Personal story infobox}} should be single level. -Chieftain Alex 19:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Property:Has improper value for is now much happier, thanks! -Darqam (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait... so we have not two but three infoboxes that do the same exact thing (effectively)? Can't we just simplify it to one? Konig 20:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the entire point of splitting them in the first place was to simplify the code in each and therefore make them easier to maintain later when everyone_who_does_wikicode_is_gone. I'd happily delete relyk's but whatever. -Chieftain Alex 06:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

'within' should allow multiple values

Per title. Pages such as Dragonbrand don't recognize ; or , as a valid separator. —Ventriloquist 13:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

or don't use the area infobox? -Chieftain Alex 14:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a handful of "very large landmarks" (such as Dragonbrand and Skrittsburgh/Mount Gnashington) which consist of multiple areas. Given the small number, I think it'd be fine if we just put the "smallest applicable denominator" (in this case: Tyria and Brisban Wildlands respectively) if we even use an infobox. Konig (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Zone screenshot

Can we exclude '| type = Zone' from Category:Locations missing a screenshot? Currently we are not creating screenshots for zones. —Kvothe (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, I hope I did not break something. (Although I probably didn't, so that's fine.) DJemba (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What about the other location types, e.g. Contient, Region, Raid... should we exclude this category there too? I added a list of location types, maybe those can be marked with {{yes}} and {{no|red}} for setting this category or not.

Use {{#ask: [[Has location type::Raid]]|?Has appearance#250px|limit=250}} to preview possible appearance images. --Tolkyria (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Since this seems like a good and welcome change, I preemptively changed the checking function to #switch for easier parameter adding. (Also marked few basic things on the list.) DJemba (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Added no to "Continent" and "Region"; formatted list. --Tolkyria (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kvothe, thanks for pinging me in discord. I think most of these could be "no" due to their scope and cataloguing through PoI and areas, but I think landmarks can be catalogued since they refer to a specific place, and usually the scope can be fully imaged. I guess in some cases like forts, that might be harder, but I've put "yes" next to Landmarks for now. I guess I kind of associate them with PoI, so they seem doable to me. Other items on this list seem to be around the same size as most "area"s, but may have thematically different subsections, eg: city, lobby, activity, raids, guild halls, strike mission, most instances, guild puzzles, JPs, minidungeons. I'm a little more hesitant for those because one image may not really encompass the full scope of the "feeling" of the area. Regarding Conquest/PvP maps, I think we can do it. Most of them are pretty small, and have a central theme. Before I sign us (collectively) up for that work, I need to do some research, so I'll leave them grey for now. AnastashaRomanov (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the essay last time. I would say that the conquest, stronghold, and team deathmatch pages are about equivalent in size to an "area". Many of the pages already include a gallery, which I think works out for those maps. What does "PvP" refer to? AnastashaRomanov (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I copied the allowed values from Property:Has location type, so "PvP" might be historical/never used, honestly I don't know.

The overall idea it is to remove unnecessary pages to find wanted ones more easily. Note that right now we are only excluding types from setting this maintance category, i.e. 0 doesn't set the category and 1 and 0 (undecided) does.

So only marking them here as 0 (and DJemba editing the template) will remove the categorization.

Beside that, I don't have so much insight where a screenshot would be nice and where not, I fully trust your opinion here. --Tolkyria (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Type "Lobby" and "PvP" are unused. They can be removed?

Added to 0: Lobby, Pvp (untill removed from possible values), Dungeon, Raid, Guild Puzzle, Conquest, Team Deathmatch, Stronghold.

Not sure what to do with "Instance" and "Mini-dungeon". —Kvothe (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Updated the template. It might need some purging/null edits to work. DJemba (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

List of location types

1 - yes, set category

0 - undecided

0 - no, do not set category

• 0 Continent
• 0 Region
• 0 Zone
• 1 City
• 0 Lobby — unused
• 1 Activity
• 1 Guild hall
• 1 Area
• 1 Point of Interest
• 0 Dungeon
• 1 Strike Mission
• 0 Raid
• 0 Instance
• 0 Guild Puzzle
• 1 Jumping puzzle
• 1 Landmark
• 0 Mini-dungeon
• 0 Conquest
• 0 Team Deathmatch
• 0 Stronghold
• 0 PvP — unused

Objective totals

If you remove the "objective" parameters (hearts, waypoints, etc.) from e.g. Tyria and use the automatic generated result it is a much higher total. Should we go on a little hunt to remove erroneous usage (setting objectives twice)? —Kvothe (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The manually hardcoded objective values in the Tyria infobox are those that are required for world completion while if you remove the hardcoded values and let it sum up automatically you get the objectives from all zones that are technically in Tyria, starting with Southsun Cove released in 2012, followed by LWS 2, etc... Below, the query lists all zones that are located in a region that is located in Tyria, which shows their region, whether the objectives contribute to the region sum (Has map objectives = true) and their total number of objectives. Recently, there we got some new instanced zone pages, that set Has map objectives = true and hence contribute to the region sum, e.g. Temple of the Forgotten God (zone). We might want to set this to false. Otherwise, well I haven't checked it in detail yet, but I doubt that there are many duplicates, etc..., it's just that core Tyria world completion is dated back to 2012, ignoring all maps added inbetween. --Tolkyria (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favor of using the actual values in the infobox and note the total for map completion in the section you linked.

Side note: Is the parameter description for objectives flipped? "Defaults to "n". Only set equal to "y" if the location has map objectives that contribute towards world completion (core tyria)." —Kvothe (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Flipped? Not sure what you mean exactly. But definitely the part "that contribute towards world completion (core tyria)" isn't applied anymore, in general we are now somehow setting it to "y" in all open world zones/regions (see the query below, see above where I asked to disable it in instanced zones).

The question is what objective values should region and continent infoboxes display? E.g. Ruins of Orr, should it be only the three core Tyria zones or should we include LWS3 zone Siren's Landing.

Alternatively formulated, should we still apply the current "objectives" parameter description stating "[..] set equal to "y" if the location has map objectives map objectives that contribute towards world completion (core tyria)" or should we rewrite the parameter description to "[..] set equal to "y" for open world location maps" (that's how more or less it is currently used)?

Related, this year Alex suggested the following:

"Calculating the number of objectives within a given Continent is annoying to do accurately on the wiki when you consider the geographical/mechanical aspect of the Regions. I believe currently that if we set the number of objectives on a Region page (achievement mechanical or nearby geographical), then the parent Continent page will (if not set manually) sum the region pages and potentially lead to incorrectly higher values. However that's pretty much it. The total on 2 or 3 pages will be wrong.
Considering "does it matter" - probably not that much. I doubt many people will be precise enough to go verify the totals.
Perhaps a better question would be "Should we actually be displaying the number of objectives on any Continent pages anyway?" It doesn't really mean much in a game where core map completion is the only total map completion thing that matters; the rest is tracked at the zone level. I propose we disable showing the number of objectives on Continents, and possibly on Regions too. Is it useful?" (Source)

So, everything we wrote above aims at the following question: What's the purpose of the location infobox parameter "objectives"? --Tolkyria (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Does "objectives" default to "no" or "yes"? Because if I remove '| objectives = n' from Enchanted Snow Globe 'Has map objectives' is true.

Either not displaying objectives on continents or distinguishing between "Mechanical region" and "Geographical region" sound like good ideas.

(The 'objectives' parameter could be removed and instead of 'type = region' we have 'type = geographical region' and 'type = mechanical region'.) —Kvothe (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The default for "objectives" is: take the objectives option from the location set in the "within" parameter, else set it to "n". Here Enchanted Snow Globe (objectives parameter not set) is within Wintersday Celebration (objectives parameter not set) which is within Tyria with "objectives = y". Hence, for Enchanted Snow Globe it's "objectives = y" on default. So e.g. if you set Wintersday Celebration to "objectives = n", then Enchanted Snow Globe will default to "n" (after purging).

With a broken Has location type property we are kinda handycapped and can't really change it right now. Furthermore, all geographical region location infoboxes have been removed already, so not sure if this is a still thing.

However, I would like to focus on what I think is the main question of this discussion: In which way should we reconsider the "objectives" parameter usage?

Answer 1: Stick with the parameter description: "[..] set equal to "y" if the location has map objectives map objectives that contribute towards world completion (core tyria)"

Answer 2: Stick with the current mainspace usage, namely set it on all open world zones (not instanced), open world mechanical regions and continents, no matter when they were released (e.g. this will add Siren's Landing (LWS3) into the objectives sum from Ruins of Orr, Lake Doric (LWS3) to Kryta, etc...).

Answer 3: ???

Note that the geographical and mechanical regions doesn't really affect the answer, as for both answers we will set objectives to mechanical regions only (if answers 1 only core regions, if answer 2 all regions). So we can add this split later, especially when we have a working poperty. --Tolkyria (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explaination on how it works! So it comes down to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs#Property's allows value are stuck to work again. —Kvothe (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the bandaid is in place, do we want to proceed here? —Kvothe (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask a basic question here. Would it be easier for editors if the total in the infobox for a Zone was also manually input? (it is after all, the number of objectives displayed in the world map key when standing in a given location). I still think displaying it on continents is pointless, it's too high level. I'd actually question whether putting it on region pages is worth it either - why bother? -Chieftain Alex 01:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

"Would it be easier for editors if the total in the infobox for a Zone was also manually input?" That's unnecessary extra work in my opinion, that needs to be reconsidered when updating an area page (e.g. split zone releases) and might be easily forgotten to update. Furthermore, it's a good indicator if all the area pages are correctly set, although I have to admit that fixing it might not be obivious for normal wiki editors (but at least they can use a talk page to note the discrepancy).

Regarding showing on regions and continents, I already tried to take your opinion into account, Alex (see the long quote above). The problem is that the initial idea isn't working anymore, namely that initially all the classic Tyria regions sum up to the world map completion numbers (continent Tyria). As I already mentioned above, due to the LWS maps being part these regions, the numbers are way higher than the at release in 2012.

On the other hand displaying the map objective numbers don't hurt, as we get them for free (calculated automatically). To be consistent let the Tyria numbers calculate automatically too (and clearly state that these numbers aren't the map completion - list those too in a note - but the total number of all zones located in Tyria). In the end by listing those numbers on region and continent pages we are simply documenting what's happening in-game. --Tolkyria (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So, more specifically, do we want to remove the "objectives" parameter and just let everything count? -Chieftain Alex 11:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is to enable ("objectives = y") it on all open world areas, and thus on all open world regions and last but on least on all open world continents (Tyria and Elona). In order to do so properly and have full control I would use the current parameter "objectives". Furthermore, to make this clear to the wiki users I would suggest to add some hover element next to the objectives, e.g. ^[?] stating Total number of all open-world objectives which are mechanically located within this {{lc:{{{type|location}}}}} (at least at the region and continent pages, not sure about the area pages yet). --Tolkyria (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox map for mini-dungeons?

Can we update this template to display the infobox map for type "Mini-dungeon" as well? Trial of the Elders has coordinates set but doesn't get an interactive map for that reason. It may not be useful for all mini-dungeons, but Trial of the Elders has a single entrance at an exact location, which would be nice to show with the interactive map. Heillos (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, updated. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Heillos (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Points of Interest category via the template

In my opinion, Points of Interest should be also categorized via the template, such as basically all other location types: from zones to landmarks (which are basically unofficial PoIs). Sure, the category will be massive, but I do not think that's an issue, and them not having a category seems like a big oversight. ~Sime 01:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Apparently there used to be a Category:Points of interest but it was deleted. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)