Template talk:Poi infobox

region

Region is not really necessary for this level of detail. In the future, when we have Semantic MediaWiki installed, even zone won't be necessary, since SMW can query that information based on the area name. —Dr Ishmael 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on region, removed it. ~~Preau 16:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

map

How about adding a map section, too? It's not strictly necessary since POIs should be marked on the maps of the area, but it might still be useful in some instances.--Zerebruin 19:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundency is redundant

Why have this template, when {{Location infobox}} works perfectly fine and is already used on an amount of PoI articles? This template serves no purpose other than increasing the amount of infobox templates used, which will only confuse the less knowledgable editors. (plus, the capitalization's annoying me). I suggest deletion and just sticking to the area infobox, which was created and is easily a all-purpose location infobox (despite the name, it is not intended soley for areas). Konig/talk 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well how am I supposed to put the area and explorable zone in the area infobox? For example: Lion's Arch, Grand Piazza ~~Preau 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

|within= for the zone/city. Due to someone putting auto-categorization for that parameter, area - which used to go there - doesn't have a place, but that's easily fixed. We can easily change |within = to |zone = with auto-categorizing and add |area = parameter. Konig/talk 22:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If that will be possible I see no reason to keep this. However don't delete this before the change happens so I can switch to area infobox where I've used it. ~~Preau 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on template codes, so I'd rather let someone else do it. I'll see if I can figure it out enough to do so though. But a lot of pages will need being altered. Konig/talk 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to keep within so we don't have to edit all pages? ~~Preau 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep within and use it for whatever level is appropriate. Semantic MediaWiki will allow us to lookup the location type of the page given by within and then do appropriate things with it, e.g. simply display that location's type, apply a category to the current page only if within is a zone, or even lookup THAT page's within value to display an area->zone->region hierarchy. Of course, until we get SMW (which was requested over 4 months ago), it'll be ambiguous, but other than the autocategorization, it doesn't seem like that will be a huge problem. —Dr Ishmael 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added Area to the Area Infobox. So now within can still be used for the explorable zone (Lion's Arch) and the area for the area within the zone (Grand Piazza). This can then be deleted. EDIT: Switched all current users of this template to area infobox. ~~Preau 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not so sure if it is a good idea to use the same presentation/look for all locations and you do not know easily see, if this is an area, PoI, etc. (only if it's written in the text). I think the different locations should be distinguished by color and type name. This can be done with one template of course, by adding a new parameter "type" or with different templates. At least I would like to see immediately if the article is about the e.g. "Vault waypoint" or the "Barradin's Vault PoI". The type is espeically important if you haven't discovored the location yet, because the name of the location is not shown on the map before that. I personally would use just one template and add a new parameter "type". - 80.122.96.58 rubberduck

It's different article types (item, NPC, location, story step, etc.) that are distinguished by color. A weapon and armor item share the same infobox. I don't see why this couldn't. Also, waypoints don't have articles, so there's no need to differenciate between waypoint and PoI articles. They only exist for Regions, Zones, Areas, Dungeons, Points of Interest, and Landmarks for using this template. Which, imo, should be how it is. Konig/talk 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood regarding color codes. Still I would distinguish betweent the location types. Two main reasons: (a) Category pages, i.e. with a type parameter we could have all locations of a certain type automatically add to an overview category page for regions, zones, PoI, etc. (b) As mentioned above, for players having not discovored the locations they might no be sure if they view the right article. The name of the location is not know to such players, only after discovery. - 80.122.96.58 rubberduck

We decided a while back not to do your point a at all. Reason being is that it led to a very huge mess on GWW where we had multiple redundant category listings. The only location type that gets a category is dungeon - and arguably personal story steps (depending on if you'd consider that a "location" or not). I would argue that the line for the type of location is enough indication - if someone isn't sure if they need it for map completion, they can click on the link. Konig/talk 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So the problem are not the categories itself, but the fact that there was no consistent location type classification. But I see that now, if you use only the location types listed in Location. So I still do not see the problem with categories, and by using the template it can be done automatically (just use type parameter). In addition I read the discussion about the categories but did not find a consistent point of view of decision. However, I agree regarding this template here. There is no reason anymore to keep it. - 80.122.96.58 rubberduck

delete or save?

Should this talk page be deleted, saved in-place (by tagging with Category:Orphaned talk pages), or archived on Template talk:Location infobox? I can't decide what would be best. —Dr Ishmael 19:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As this discussion may be relevant only to the users having used this template earlier and may now wonder where it is gone, it is best to have the talk page still around, so those users will find it. All other users could not care less. Therefore I'd keep the talk page here, add it to the category with orphaned talk page, and I also suggest to add a link from the area infobox talk page to this talk page as a cross-reference for historical reasons. - 80.122.96.58 rubberduck

Doesn't matter to me - it does hold merits but not enough imo to keep it (especially in the long run), but there's little harm in it. Adding the category to the page for now, still can be deleted. Konig/talk 23:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)