#1 Posted by Aishan (1043 posts) -

Came across this as I was just setting wiki links for a region page.

Under locations, there are broad concepts such as mountains, swamp, river, sewer, etc. listed as locations. Should locations not be for a specific example of each? i.e something like the Himalayas or the Alps are a location, but mountains are merely a concept, they are not a location as-of-themselves.

I'm talking basically the difference between the difference between "a mountain" and "the mountain." "A mountain" could refer to any mountain (a concept, an idea), but "the mountain" refers to a specific one (an actual place).

If there's a reason it's currently set-up like it is, I'd love to know the reason; but I seriously think they need to be re-categorized.

#2 Posted by LordAndrew (14588 posts) -

In cases where one location encapsulates another, the association should be made to the more specific location.

The old help page

They're valid settings for games. But if a more specific location is available, you should remove the general one.

#3 Posted by onan (1332 posts) -

It seems like the only time locations are used as concepts are when they're an actual part of the shared game experience, such as the Lava Stage. Using "mountains" as a concept would only really apply to if you can see mountains in the distance (or as a gameplay mechanic), ideally if it wasn't just used for window dressing. Not a video game example, but Mount Fuji is a location, while 36 Views of Mount Fuji uses Mount Fuji as a concept.

Even then I don't think that really merits twinning the entry as both a concept and a location, with very few exceptions such as the Lava Level one, where a location becomes a concept because it has also become a gaming cliche. A good rule of thumb might be "if your character is there, it's a location."