Talk:Area

Questions involving Quest list

I have two honest questions about Areas and lists of quests. But first the discussion:

Currently the Boilerplate:Areas suggests that Quests should list Starting and Involving. But it does not state whether that is for all quests within the area, or just those quests that are not bound to a landmark or settlement.

Perhaps wrongly I interpreted this as "all quests within the area", the union of quests for landmarks and settlements, plus the unbound quests for the area. Scanning a few areas I notice different interpretations, so I am not really alone of different understandings ;)

We all understand the importance of listing quests for smaller or larger regions, certainly quest-givers, but I guess to an extent also "involving". However, it is questionable if this quest/starting|involving lists should be at the Area article, or if it should be compiled at the pages for regional quests (and if those does not exist for certain areas they can be created). Or something in between perhaps?

Question 1: Is there anything said or thought about Area-quest-lists? Should they be all-inclusive? Or not?

Suggestion: On Area articles, refer people to the Category:Area Quests where we gather information from landmarks, settlements, and roaming quests of course. OR, transclude lists onto the Area article only when they are short enough. I am not yet a big fan of the <categorytree> thing because it does not convey information about level, fellowship, raid, skirmish, seasonal, etc. Rather we walk over these categories and compile these lists manually to be displayed and/or transcluded.

• If people put together special articles for regional/areal/etc. quests they can transclude from these too, if they want to.

Question 2: On the area articles, how important are the "involved" part?

If not that useful I suggest we skip it for Areas and above. I want to inform you that it takes quite some time to gather that particular part, certainly when many quests does not properly link to the "involving" location. That will of course be better when somebody has read through and complemented all hundreds of quests (thousands?) with proper links (and removed false alerts from silly-linking-everything). --- Another option is of course to add even more categories (Category:Area|Landmark|Settlement|Interior Involved Quests) and walk over all quests and add to appropriate/narrowest category. Good luck with that ;)

But at least, can we please have some thoughts on the two questions. Tentatively along the lines of least possible work until we have gained control of the shadows of the past, so to speak. -- Zimoon 07:16, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Identifying Sub-region vs Area vs Settlement

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Sub-region, which did not exist at the time this section was created.

Sub-region: In the case of a clickable area name within the region map that opens another map with its own areas. (Ex: Moria) When an Area and a Settlement are the same, use the Template:Infobox Settlements and Boilerplate:Location Settlements (Ex: Bree) When an Area and a World Instance are the same, use Template:Infobox Instances and Boilerplate:Instances (Ex: Ring of Isengard). Do not add the page to the area-category, neither is any comment required. Remember that it is just a technicality that Turbine is using the area-concept for world instances, it does not turn instances into areas. However, should the area cover much land outside the instance it should be handled as an area; see Fornost and Garth Agarwen for examples (those two are in fact areas which contain smaller instances and not world instances in themselves). -- Set guidelines are as above; post concerns or questions here! Rogue (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC) First I would say that "sub-region" is not anything found in-game. It will be a useful "technical" detail here on Lotro-Wiki though. I disagree on the definition of sub-region. A sub-region is not always a clickable area name within a region, most often they are areas, no more and no less. Have a look in the game's DAT files and that will be clear. So we should not bind the definition to existence maps, whether settlements or not. The few use cases of sub-regions we will rather find in Moria and other regions where we find areas as part of bigger areas ... eeh, yeah, what should we call those bigger things within e.g. Moria? It was chatted about 10 years ago or so when we realized we needed something in Moria as region and the lowest level areas. And yes, sub-region or super-area would both work for that purpose. Let's go for sub-region. That leaves us in the situation we have a term but we do not have a crisp and clear definition. Just something fluffy that "something that is needed in e.g. Moria and alike". And I am fine with that because sub-region is not something we should push onto readers unless needed, such as in Moria and alike. Certainly not in Bree-land with The Wildwood which is an area with its own map. Or Angle of Mitheithel in Trollshaws. Let's keep display separate from tech-stuff for the wiki. Not to confuse laymen with non-intuitive terms without bearing on the game. — Zimoon 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC) On Discord it was mentioned to use "sub-region" on region-nav-boxes for "The Wildwood" and "Angle of Mitheithel" because they are expansions and their locations may not be available for all users. That is abusing the intuitive meaning of sub-region. We should rather add expansions to region-nav-box for those use cases. Or do nothing. On maps they are "areas" of the region, no matter users can enter the area or not, an expansion does not become a sub-region because it costs money. That is mixing bananas with apples. — Zimoon 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)