Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-1845428-20160327003110/@comment-27101389-20160331005505

Loopiz wrote: In my opinion, notable locations should have their own articles. If someone visits the Wiki and is looking for more information about a specific location, it would be easier for them to find if they got their own article. . . How would it be easier to find? Someone would have to use the search bar either way. Same with links: whether we link to (for example) Rajan's office or Spice temple#Rajan's office, it's the same thing. A location that has its own article is no more easy or difficult to find than a location that is a sub-section on a larger page. Loopiz wrote: instead of dumping everything on a single massive article. On massive articles, the table of contents aids in navigation.

Loopiz wrote: Of course when I say "notable", I mean locations that are essential in jobs. Places that exist but are visited very briefly and can't be interacted with (like Guru's cave in Search for the Guru for example) shouldn't have their own articles. Reiterating what I said in my first post: Despite some locations being important on certain jobs, the pages for some of them would be (and are) too short (short in terms of actual content - not infobox, appearances, references, or other "fluff") to warrant entire articles for them in my opinion. That said, maybe we should all talk about some sort of criteria for locations that takes into consideration both notability and page size; or, just list locations and discuss if they are suitable for their own article like Teenbat mentioned.