Talk:NPCs - Revision history

imported>An Adventurer at 19:24, 7 March 2008

2008-03-07T19:24:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 7 March 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			So, the NPC section needs to be redesigned I think.

			I like the table of information because you can easily sort it by whatever you are looking for. However, it will end up being pretty long if we eventually include all NPCs, both in game and in story. However, if it does get too big I don't think splitting up the table into sections/pages would be good because it would defeat the purpose of being able to sort the columns.

			I like the NPC index. However, with all of our reworking of categories recently, I'm not sure a formal index is needed. We could simply create a link to the NPC category, which automatically lists them alphabetically. We could also create links to the Quest, Shop, and Crafter NPC categories.

			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 13:24, 7 March 2008 (CST)
			----

	*Consider only entering NPCs by the first letter of their first name only,		*Consider only entering NPCs by the first letter of their first name only,

Line 27:		Line 36:

	I went ahead and made the changes on the dungeon page since the index and table both had no info in them yet. [[dungeons \| Check it out]], and if you think it would be a good change for the NPC page as well post here :)		I went ahead and made the changes on the dungeon page since the index and table both had no info in them yet. [[dungeons \| Check it out]], and if you think it would be a good change for the NPC page as well post here :)

	~~----~~

	~~Any input on this subject?~~

	~~--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 22:33, 29 January 2008 (CST)~~

imported>An Adventurer at 04:33, 30 January 2008

2008-01-30T04:33:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 29 January 2008
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I went ahead and made the changes on the dungeon page since the index and table both had no info in them yet. [[dungeons \| Check it out]], and if you think it would be a good change for the NPC page as well post here :)		I went ahead and made the changes on the dungeon page since the index and table both had no info in them yet. [[dungeons \| Check it out]], and if you think it would be a good change for the NPC page as well post here :)

			----

			Any input on this subject?

			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 22:33, 29 January 2008 (CST)

imported>An Adventurer at 18:25, 28 November 2007

2007-11-28T18:25:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 28 November 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:

	On the main NPC page we create a subsection for each letter. under each letter we insert one of the tables. The name of the NPC in the table would link to that NPC's main page. This would combine the index and table into 1 system which would be much easier to edit than having to add each npc twice. thoughts?		On the main NPC page we create a subsection for each letter. under each letter we insert one of the tables. The name of the NPC in the table would link to that NPC's main page. This would combine the index and table into 1 system which would be much easier to edit than having to add each npc twice. thoughts?

			I went ahead and made the changes on the dungeon page since the index and table both had no info in them yet. [[dungeons \| Check it out]], and if you think it would be a good change for the NPC page as well post here :)

imported>An Adventurer at 17:46, 28 November 2007

2007-11-28T17:46:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 28 November 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:

	--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 18:56, 19 November 2007 (CST) yeah. I agree. The index is better if you know who you are looking for. The table is better if you don't, and its also better as a lore tool. CoD used to have something almost exactly like it, it was great. I figured it would be better to add the table to the NPC page though rather than the lore page. The only problem is having to enter NPCs to both systems. And actually, the index is sort of redundant with the NPC category page, which already lists all NPCs by first letter. But the index is right there and it looks better.		--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 18:56, 19 November 2007 (CST) yeah. I agree. The index is better if you know who you are looking for. The table is better if you don't, and its also better as a lore tool. CoD used to have something almost exactly like it, it was great. I figured it would be better to add the table to the NPC page though rather than the lore page. The only problem is having to enter NPCs to both systems. And actually, the index is sort of redundant with the NPC category page, which already lists all NPCs by first letter. But the index is right there and it looks better.
			----
			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 11:46, 28 November 2007 (CST) I just created a table and index on the dungeon page, and came up with an idea for combining those that could work here on the NPC page as well. It would work like this:

			On the main NPC page we create a subsection for each letter. under each letter we insert one of the tables. The name of the NPC in the table would link to that NPC's main page. This would combine the index and table into 1 system which would be much easier to edit than having to add each npc twice. thoughts?

imported>An Adventurer at 00:56, 20 November 2007

2007-11-20T00:56:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 19 November 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:

	--[[User:Sanguis\|Sanguis]] 12:19, 19 November 2007 (CST)Also, having the index on top and the list on the bottom makes more sense, it would look horrible to have the index on the bottom, having both actually adds a lot more functionality and looks better, the having the entire list accessible and also having the ability to only look for people with a specific letter would be much better than just one or the other, i'd be happy to make sure I add entries to both.		--[[User:Sanguis\|Sanguis]] 12:19, 19 November 2007 (CST)Also, having the index on top and the list on the bottom makes more sense, it would look horrible to have the index on the bottom, having both actually adds a lot more functionality and looks better, the having the entire list accessible and also having the ability to only look for people with a specific letter would be much better than just one or the other, i'd be happy to make sure I add entries to both.

			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 18:56, 19 November 2007 (CST) yeah. I agree. The index is better if you know who you are looking for. The table is better if you don't, and its also better as a lore tool. CoD used to have something almost exactly like it, it was great. I figured it would be better to add the table to the NPC page though rather than the lore page. The only problem is having to enter NPCs to both systems. And actually, the index is sort of redundant with the NPC category page, which already lists all NPCs by first letter. But the index is right there and it looks better.

imported>Zenodice at 18:19, 19 November 2007

2007-11-19T18:19:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 19 November 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:

	--[[User:Sanguis\|Sanguis]] 12:17, 19 November 2007 (CST) I don't think that's a better way of doing it, because it will end up with a giant table and you wont be able to find anyone specific, for example once there are more than 100 NPCs, sorting it wont be the easiest thing, it will strain things and you will have to sort through a huge list as opposed to looking just for someone's name that starts with C. If you're going to add the table in, feel free but don't remove content simply because you "think" your way is better, that's counter productive.		--[[User:Sanguis\|Sanguis]] 12:17, 19 November 2007 (CST) I don't think that's a better way of doing it, because it will end up with a giant table and you wont be able to find anyone specific, for example once there are more than 100 NPCs, sorting it wont be the easiest thing, it will strain things and you will have to sort through a huge list as opposed to looking just for someone's name that starts with C. If you're going to add the table in, feel free but don't remove content simply because you "think" your way is better, that's counter productive.

			--[[User:Sanguis\|Sanguis]] 12:19, 19 November 2007 (CST)Also, having the index on top and the list on the bottom makes more sense, it would look horrible to have the index on the bottom, having both actually adds a lot more functionality and looks better, the having the entire list accessible and also having the ability to only look for people with a specific letter would be much better than just one or the other, i'd be happy to make sure I add entries to both.

imported>Zenodice at 18:17, 19 November 2007

2007-11-19T18:17:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:17, 19 November 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:

	--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:04, 18 November 2007 (CST) I've added the table and for now kept in the index by name. One thing I noticed is, at least for me, the navigation menu was moved to the bottom of the page. any way to fix this?		--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:04, 18 November 2007 (CST) I've added the table and for now kept in the index by name. One thing I noticed is, at least for me, the navigation menu was moved to the bottom of the page. any way to fix this?


			--[[User:Sanguis\|Sanguis]] 12:17, 19 November 2007 (CST) I don't think that's a better way of doing it, because it will end up with a giant table and you wont be able to find anyone specific, for example once there are more than 100 NPCs, sorting it wont be the easiest thing, it will strain things and you will have to sort through a huge list as opposed to looking just for someone's name that starts with C. If you're going to add the table in, feel free but don't remove content simply because you "think" your way is better, that's counter productive.

imported>An Adventurer at 18:04, 18 November 2007

2007-11-18T18:04:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:04, 18 November 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Cons:		Cons:
	It'd be a pretty big table. But this could be cut down some by for example not listing every leather crafter/generic farmer/etc location, and instead have just 1 entry for those and when you click on their page it lists all the locations.		It'd be a pretty big table. But this could be cut down some by for example not listing every leather crafter/generic farmer/etc location, and instead have just 1 entry for those and when you click on their page it lists all the locations.

			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:04, 18 November 2007 (CST) I've added the table and for now kept in the index by name. One thing I noticed is, at least for me, the navigation menu was moved to the bottom of the page. any way to fix this?

imported>An Adventurer at 02:40, 17 November 2007

2007-11-17T02:40:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 16 November 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	i.e: Ben Ten is only listed under B and not under T as well, this is for the purpose of clarity / redundancy.		i.e: Ben Ten is only listed under B and not under T as well, this is for the purpose of clarity / redundancy.

			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 20:40, 16 November 2007 (CST)Idea for the NPC page (posted on the forums but I will add it here as well):

			Instead of the current setup of having 1 page for each letter and listing NPCs by the first letter of their name, why not create a large table with the following categories: name, race/heritage, location, introduced in, and possibly something like status, since there are many lore characters that are MIA or dead.

			Pros:
			This would make it easier to find an NPC, and would make it so we don't need a page like this for the lore section.

			Cons:
			It'd be a pretty big table. But this could be cut down some by for example not listing every leather crafter/generic farmer/etc location, and instead have just 1 entry for those and when you click on their page it lists all the locations.

imported>Zenodice: Clarifying input structure

2007-10-16T04:29:28Z

Clarifying input structure

New page

*Consider only entering NPCs by the first letter of their first name only,

i.e: Ben Ten is only listed under B and not under T as well, this is for the purpose of clarity / redundancy.