Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Quests/A1

suggestion
A few ideas for quest formatting. I think that it would be appealing to apply a template infobox to most information pages. With this in mind these are my suggestions for what could be put into the quest info box Is there anyone who has more experience with quest articles who has any other suggestions? --Aspectacle 17:57, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * map/image (Optional, too many quests don't have a coherant map to capture this properly)
 * type = [Primary, Master, Skill, Festival, Optional]
 * givenby = the name of NPC who hands it out
 * prereq = the name of the quest or mission which makes the quest available
 * followup = any quest or mission which is available as a result of finishing this quest.
 * region =
 * campaign =
 * Yeah thats almost right =) Forgot quest reward. Also, NPCs involved in the quests (if any).-- BL ac KG e N e R a L [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]](talk|contribs)
 * ooo And some more things.. Dialogue and Summary/Walkthrough.-- BL ac KG e N e R a L [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]](talk|contribs) 18:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * I was listing based on what could fit into a info box template, so didn't really think about the body. Each of your suggestions would fit well into the body of a quest article. :)--Aspectacle 18:12, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * For type we could use the region info in the quest log. Primary quests are listed as such, non-primary are generally listed as "Region quests."  --Rainith 18:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * OOOOO. I'm sorry lol =) Didn't see the "box" above. (Shhh, im on the computer in class slacking off >.>) As for the info box template, sounds right to me. Could you post an example?-- BL ac KG e N e R a L [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]](talk|contribs) 18:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * sshh! Example will be forthcoming when it is clear I've got majority of the feedback and parser functions is installed for the optional map.  Rainith; I think that you mean Optional type should simply be changed to Region type, but could you confirm/clarify whether your suggestion features the actual name of the region?  Do you think that the quest log designation would override other types I've listed (Skill, Master) which are listed as regional quests (I think!).  I would like to capture these special sort of quests as a type if possible.  --Aspectacle 19:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * Anything is possible dogg, if need be, "special" quests can be changed, and extra sections can be made, its template based (info box). If the box doesn't exist, make one. I don't see why it would be against the rules :P If it is, then. . Oh well lol-- BL ac KG e N e R a L [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]](talk|contribs) 19:26, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Would it be possible to change type=Region to type=Secondary quest, or something like that? It doesn't really make sense to see "Type=Region" in a quest infobox, to be honest. Look at The King's Message for an example, looks completely out of place. --Dirigible 19:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I had a few issues with that field, too. I just looked up quests in my Nightfall manual and it classifies quests as either Primary or Secondary. So I agree that Secondary should be used instead of Region. The other type values I'm not sure about are Master and Skill. I think all Master quests are still Secondary quests and some if not all Skill quests are also Secondary. There may be some Pre-Ascalon/Shing Jea/Istan quests that give skills that are also Primary. I'm not sure. Tedium 20:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Secondary is fine. I wasn't really sure what it call those optional, non-storyline quests.  As to Master and Skill, I wanted some way to differenciate them from the other secondary quests, because they seemed a bit more interesting.  In Nightfall and Factions (I think) all of the quests which give skills are Primary but in Prophecies yea - most of them are Secondary aside from a few in pre-searing.  As it is difficult to add two things to the template field and have it autocategorise properly 'Skill' can easily be dropped and it is probably advisable to do so.  'Master' is also always a secondary quest, yes, but they seem a deliberately different type of quest, if possible I'd like to maintain some way of clearly differenciating it from other secondary quests. ... That doesn't necessarily mean in the info box, but it is an obvious way to give that differenciation. --Aspectacle 03:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


 * So the choices would be: Primary, Secondary, or Master? That seems appropriate to me. --Rezyk 03:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


 * For those quests permanently in the game then yes, those seem like sound categories. 'Festival' or maybe a broader definition 'Event' type should still be there for those quests temporarily introduced to the game, unless people who like to capture event information have a different idea for those. --Aspectacle 04:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


 * From what I've seen, "special event" is the term generally used by ArenaNet, is common enough to be fairly recognizable, and is generic enough that it probably could cover anything we'd want it to. --Rezyk 04:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Should we have "Repeatable" as another valid value for the type field? I know there are several quests in the Jade Sea, Echovald Forest, and Sorrow's Furnace that are repeatable. I think some of the elite area quests are repeatable, but I'm not really familiar with them. For now I've been putting repeatable information in the notes section and classifying the quest as secondary. Tedium 18:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Tedium, seeing as you are putting so much effort into the quest articles at the moment I think that you are the person best qualified to answer your own question. :) I think that it sounds like a fine idea, (I can't think of any type clash problems or anything like that) so you should go for it. :) --Aspectacle 19:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * That might get tricky since there are repeatable special event quests and a repeatable master quest. Maybe it'd be better to use a parameter mechanism similar to "elite" for skills? ("repeatable=yes") --Rezyk 19:37, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Rather than having more than one 'type' of quest (secondary, skill) because it was noted to be tricky to add more than one and auto-categorize, might it be ok to take a note from the NPC template in regards to the NPC being a Boss or not and add a Skill Quest parameter? Something like that? I find secondary skill quests to be very valuable information, especially since some of them are off the beaten path... - Thulsey   - talk 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * |Skill Quest=Y
 * I think all the types should be handled with separate parameters, as is used in template:location infobox, since most parameters are not mutually exclusive. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think some are. If it's a primary quest, it can't be a secondary. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif]] - talk 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course :D. I believe the necessary parameters are primary, master, skill, repeatable, master, mini-mission, festival and region. -- Gordon Ecker 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * festival? It's better as "special event" I think, or just event, since not all in-game events are actually festivals. And region? What is a region quest? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The game groups them under the Festival Event Quests tab. As for region, I was referring to the current region parameter, rather than region as a quest type parameter. -- Gordon Ecker 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As Gordon mentioned, all these different values of "type" are not mutually exclusive. There are primary quests that give or reward skills, secondary and master quests that are repeatable, mini-missions that are both primary and secondary, etc. The current quest infobox only allows one value for type. I agree that indicating quests that are repeatable, have skills, and so on are useful, but I think using the type field is not the best way to do this. I'm not sure how to handle all of these cases, but here are some ideas:


 * I agree with Rezyk's idea that repeatable quests could be indicated with repeatable = yes. Repeatable is more of a characteristic of the quest than a type. I imagine this would be easier to categorize. I'm not sure how we would display this in the infobox or if at all.
 * Master quests could be handle in a couple ways. We could display another row in the infobox that says Difficulty | Masters. "Normal" quests could have Difficulty | Normal or not even have this row. This could be done with another field called difficulty that could take a value of masters. The default value could be normal. Or we could just use masters = yes.
 * I think mini-mission could be handle the same way as repeatable (mini-mission = yes).
 * Region was an old ambiguous value we had until it was decided to replace with secondary.
 * Festival quests are unusual enough that I don't think there would be a problem using the type field. I believe some of them are repeatable, I don't know if all of them are. If "Festival Event" is what's used in the quest log, we should probably use that.
 * After thinking about it, I don't consider Skill quests a type (more like a characteristic). If we allow them, then we may have to allow Weapon quests, Gold quests, Monastery Credit quests, etc. I don't mind having categories along these lines, but putting it in type field creates problems. One thing I did try was using the skill icon template to make the skill rewards stand out. I don't know if it helped, but it breaks up the monotony of text. I suppose we could use separate parameters like gives skills, gives weapons, etc. It will account for the categorization, but displaying it might be best left to the reward section.
 * As mentioned above in an earlier discussion, primary and secondary come from the game manuals. Primary and Secondary are mutually exclusive. I have been using these two for the type field. While secondary is a broad description, it does help differentiate between quests that advance the main the story and quests that don't.

Basically, type would be used for Primary, Secondary, and Festival (whatever it's called in the quest log). The other "types" would be handled in different ways. Just some ideas. Tedium 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox can be tweaked easily. What I don't understand is what you meant by "mini-missions that are both primary and secondary". Your last point said primary and secondary are mutually exclusive, so how can a mini-mission be both? Skill quests (and hero quests) are specially marked because they are what most people look for (i.e. can I get this skill from a quest? and how do I unlock this hero).


 * There is no strong reason for identifying that a quest rewards gold or items, because gold is rewarded almost in every quest, and most item rewards are useless (except a few). Collector items is possible though, to help organise all the quests where you can get a particular Monastery Credit-type of collectible. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ab.er.rant on 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC).


 * I meant to say mini-missions that are also primary or also secondary, not both primary and secondary. My mistake. I'm for indicating quests that offer skills or heroes, but using something other than a type field would be better (gives skill = yes, unlock hero = yes). That way we can still indicate it and auto-categorize the quest. Tedium 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Masters Quests, I think a better solution would be to use something like this as a way to indicate master quests. I mean, there aren't that many, and it mirrors the treatment in the Quest Log as well as adding a category... (thought typing User:Thulsey/Master was kinda cool... :P -  Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif]] - talk 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... what I was trying to get across was that even if you declare a parameter in the infobox, the page could call it out and do something other than simply display it in the infobox...

See my proposal in the "Quest infobox update" section far below. -- ab.er. rant  05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First draft
I've put up a first draft of the quest formatting guide. It is pretty much a copy and paste of the Mission guide. There are a few things which I haven't put much work into; the Categorisation of the quests and what Quest NPCs need to be captured (if any). So if anyone has any ideas please add them in or discuss them here. --Aspectacle 16:03, 3 March 2007 (EST)
 * With parser functions installed I've finished the template and you can see two examples, one with image one with out. Warning Kehanni and Greed and Regret. --Aspectacle 05:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Obviously there is vast amounts of interest in quest formatting. ;) If there are no further changes or suggestions by next wednesday I'll remove the under construction tag assuming that what is here is good enough to apply to the quest articles. --Aspectacle 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Not only in quest formatting I'd say :/ The only small remarks I have are: remove the white space between the ending of the infobox ("}}") and intro text 'cause it adds white space on top of the article. Better remove it for mission articles as well, it looks ugly imo. 2nd: Dialogues. I've been using tables for my mission crusade at GWiki (see this for example). I'm not saying it should be done for quests here as well, but at least use some mark-up (NPC name bold, italics for text or something similar). --Erszebet 07:58, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I think that the table layout for the dialogue looks quite professional.  It is something which needs a global wiki direction rather than being individually specified on each format page - so I'm hestitant to add something like that to these pages. --Aspectacle 19:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I think a section with Bosses that only spawn during the quest would be usefull, if there aren't any special bosses then we could leave it out. Silencio 22:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

objectives bullets vs numbers
I know this is a minor point, but I was wondering if the objective numbers could be changed back to bullets. My reasons are the objectives in the quest log are listed with bullets, it matches the bullets used for the reward section, and some quests don't have to be completed in the order of the objectives. Tedium 00:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Your reasons sound good to me. :) I don;t know why it was changed in the first place.... --Aspectacle 18:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I'll go ahead and make the change in the guide. Thanks. Tedium 19:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Standardizing rewards
Some standardization should be decided on for rewards. For experience should it be Experience, experience, XP or Xp, for gold should it be Gold or gold or ? For skill quests, how should the skills be listed, Profession: Skill, Profession: Skill icon template, etc... Same for weapons gained as rewards. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --Rainith 20:11, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, I don't have a strong opinion, but the game uses 'Experience' and 'Gold' to describe the reward given. So those either in lower case or upper case would be best IMO. Whether we choose in game case or the wiki's case preference (which is lc in this case, I *think*) well I'm not too sure.  Go with lower case? --Aspectacle
 * I'd rather see experience over xp just because xp is kind of like lfg, sf, zb, etc. It's a useful abbreviation that's probably more suited as a redirect and on a list of common in-game abbreviations. As far as case, I prefer uppercase for the reward since it's only one word and is the same as the game. But I'm fine with whatever is decided. Tedium 00:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd prefer to copy the reward verbatim from the in-game description. -- Gordon Ecker 19:04, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Sounds like Experience and Gold is the go. --Aspectacle 19:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * We still need standardization for the weapon rewards and skill rewards then. --Rainith 19:27, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Eh sorry. I got so caught up on the xp and  thing I forgot to think about it. :) Rally_the_Recruits (Tutorial) has a skill list which is simple that appeals to me.  For the weapon I guess directly copying the weapon information and maintaining similar formatting from the quest dialogue seems fine (however, it has been a while since I've done a quest which rewarded a weapon so my memory may not serve me well). --Aspectacle 19:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The reward dialogue for weapons does not show all the modifiers that they have, do we copy the reward straight or list all the modifiers? (I just want us to get this standardized before we get many more quests made and have to 'fix' half of them.)  --Rainith 20:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * What about putting the rest of the stats in the notes section, or in brackets? -- Gordon Ecker 20:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I have to investigate further how much extra information it is, but either of Gordon's suggestions sound fine. If it is a heap of extra information my preference is for the notes section, otherwise keeping it together is nice.  Those which have their own page - the banana scythe perhaps - could just have a link to the extra information. --Aspectacle 00:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what I came up with for a quest that has skill rewards: The Lost Princess. For quests where you receive skills after accepting, I feel they should either go in the walkthrough or notes section since they aren't rewards. I haven't formatted one of those yet, but I'm thinking of doing something similar with skill icons. Anyway, do you guys like this formatting? Do you want the profession icons in there somewhere? Tedium 18:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think that using the skill icon templete is a good idea for showing skill rewards. Is this officially added to the format of the quest articles. If not should we add it for others to see. --Sktbrd341 14:18, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm getting the impression that most people are leaving the decisions to us since we have put a lot of work into the quest articles. Personally, I like the skill icons. I guess we can just add it since there isn't anything there now. If anybody wants to improve the formatting they can discuss it and show an example or something. Tedium 18:02, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I like it. I also tried out adding prof icons to a multi-profession skill quest.  See Blood And Smoke.  --Valshia 17:30, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Hey Valshia that was a good idea adding the profession icon's in front of the skills for the multi ones that is what I was thinking of doing with the multi ones also. This will be the standard for skill rewards. --Sktbrd341 17:33, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * If we're going with how it looks like in-game for experience and gold, why are we not doing the same with skill and item rewards?
 * The skill rewards, in my opinion, looks misleading. It's giving me the impression that if I complete Blood and Smoke, I'm going to get 6 skills.
 * Just my 2 cents :) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:12, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Somebody started using the Profession icon's in front of each skill to show what profession gets what but I guess it really doesn't explain itself to well. So I guess we should come up with some way of making note of it in the rewards section that its only one skill for the mission and what the skills are for each profession that you could possibly get. --Sktbrd341 21:24, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

subcategorize by region
The current infobox template categorizes the quests by their campaign. Would there be any opposition to quest sub-categorization by region? (i.e. Category:Faction quests -> Category:Shing Jea Island quests) --Rezyk 23:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Sounds good to me, would make that category more practical to browse. --Dirigible 23:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Sure. That's why auto-categorisation is good after all - so easy to change. :) --Aspectacle 00:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Heh, I'll admit it has its up-sides... ;) --Rezyk 00:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Dialogues is wrong
It may just be nitpicking but I'd like to point out that "Dialogue" is a noun that has no plural form. "Dialogues" is actually a verb. So... I'm thinking a mass section header renaming is necessary. -- ab.er. rant  01:08, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't have any objections to this. Will the changes be done with a bot or manually? Tedium 15:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I could do it manually if you want. I need something to do. --Sktbrd341 00:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Feel free to start :) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:39, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Quest type
I noticed we do not have a quest type "Mini-mission" yet. Since these are fundamentally different from normal quests (they end if you wipe), we should introduce that. --Xeeron 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the term "mini-mission"; too kiddy-ish. Is it official? If not, I'd vote for something else. How about an "instance quest"? To go with things like "repeatable quest", "skill quest", etc. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an official term. It's in the objectives lists for A Land of Heroes and All for One and One for Justice. -- Gordon Ecker 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Darn. Anet should've asked me about it first :P oh well, a mini-mission it is. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... i just noticed that the quest infobox does not provide for repeatable quests, skill quests, and such. Should they? Also, regarding categories, the guidelines only mentions that it does some autocategorisation, but neither the guidelines nor the infobox mentions exactly what is being autocategorised. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Skill quest" was intentionally removed. I think repeatable should be added through a "repeatable=y" parameter. See the section above for discussion on both of these. --Rezyk 02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What was the reasoning behind removing "Skill quest?" I'm noticing that there is not a category, nor a note here, either. Was this deemed somehow not useful information, or am I missing something bigger? - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif]] - talk 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, all the discussion on that is in the section above. --Rezyk 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Quest infobox update
The proposed update is at my sandbox. Stuffs not mentioned in the usage section plus issues: As always, comments and feedback please ^-^ -- ab.er. rant  05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If master = y, then a "(Difficulty: Master)" is added right below the type, in the same cell. Does master difficulty quests need a category? Categories based on campaign?
 * 2) A row for "Repeatable = Yes/No" is always visible. Should it be hidden and visible only if repeatable = y?
 * 3) Currently, only primary quests have their own category. The other types (Secondary, Festival, Mini-mission) need categories?
 * 4) I noticed some quest articles have the NPC location included in the "given by" row. Should that be encouraged or discouraged?
 * 5) I skipped skill quests, hero quests, and multi-campaign (I still think "cross-campaign" sounds better) quests for now. More discussion needed on how best to represent them (if at all) in the skill box.
 * Nice work.
 * Definitely think repeatable should be hidden if it's not a repeatable quest. That's the vast majority of quests, anyway.
 * Gotta make Difficulty:Master text red. :) (ok, don't have to, but it'd be a nice touch.)
 * I'm a big advocate of skill and hero quests being included somewhere in the quest information and category, if not the infobox, so will love to participate in that discussion when it rears its head. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif]] - talk 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a category for master quests, I also think that the Repeatable should be hidden if it is no because the majority of the quests are not. Primary, Secondary, and Festival should have categories also. I guess the Mini-mission should also have a category too. Also the location of the NPC's should be encouraged because it gives the people more information on where to get the quest. If we don't have it then some people might not know where that person is located. This is my two cents. --Sktbrd341 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments noted. I'll wait for more responses on the other stuffs before editing all of them in at once. As for making "Difficulty: Master" red, that will conflict with the wiki's "missing page link". If an emphasis is desired, maybe bold? italic? But I don't really think it's necessary, that extra line of text should be noticeable right? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about the "missing page link" issue... it's subtle, but the color is different. My sandbox kind of shows what I was talking about (I posted it above, but will post it again just because it's relevant). The category doesn't exist, and the red is brighter. (edit: no, it's not brighter. Red is red. It's just bold :P )
 * Ultimately this is trivial, though - I think the extra line of text is noticeable, perhaps bold for emphasis but not necessarily anything more needed. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif]] - talk 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is pretty trivial, but what about dark red? -- Gordon Ecker 06:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (I've edited the template to hide the "Repeatable" row if not repeatable.) As for the color, I think red (or dark red) doesn't go well with the infobox color. But feel free to play around with the color here: User:Ab.er.rant/Sandbox/Quest infobox test. Maybe there's a shade of red that goes well with it. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes and not really
 * Yes
 * 1) Definitely
 * 2) Not sure here. It looks nice, but I will it work if both the NPC and the location name are long, or mess up the box then?
 * 3) Skill and Hero quests should be represented somehow --Xeeron 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents BramStoker (talk, contribs) 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd say a category for Master quests would be helpful (can it be autocat-ed?), per campaign may less useful since there aren't that many of them (yet), and it'd be possible to follow the article link from the Master_quest category list and see what campaign it's in from the infobox.
 * Yes, agreed with Xeeron
 * 1) Festival and mini-mission category would be useful, I can see Category:Secondary_quests becoming HUGE tho, especially once GW:EN is out, could it be further subdivided in some way?
 * 2) Definitely have NPC name AND location. Is it worth breaking "given by" into two fields: a name and a location, then they be placed/formatted or autotype/cat/link as desired?
 * 3) I'd certainly like to see skill quests categorized/listed somehow, I'm a big fan of them and missed them in factions and NF.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the quest infobox is pretty complete once the issues mentioned here are dealt with. I don't think skill and hero quests are appropriate info for the box, since they are still primary or secondary quests, but these definitely need to be categorized so that they can be grouped for future use and easier reference. I'll think some more and start a new discussion later, unless someone beats me to it. - Thulsey   - talk 12:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think listing skill quest in the infobox is good because there is no other way to mention it but as for the hero quests, I don't think it should be listed in the infobox because its only in one campaign and also we have a requirements section of the article that the hero can be listed in. --Sktbrd341 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's going to be more hero recruitment quests when Eye of the North is released. -- Gordon Ecker 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I look at Skills and Hero recruitment more as the reward for the quest, nothing more. I can see it's a skill quest by looking at the big list of skills in the Rewards section. Important and deserving of a category, for sure, but the infobox is simply the quick-reference what and where at-a-glance. I look at the NPC formatting template and notice and think that if we put something like  (you get the idea) and simply let that template auto-categorize the quest as a skill quest it'd be more appropriate. -  Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Manual categorization should be fine due to the low number of hero recruitment quests, however a requiredhero parameter, like the one mission infobox uses, would be useful. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thulsey's point regarding using separate templates for skill reward seems like a good idea. If possible, I'd like to see a template like to be used to both specify the reward and apply the category. -- ab.er. rant  [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest changes in this revision: You can play around with it using User:Ab.er.rant/Sandbox/Quest infobox test. -- ab.er. rant  03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) All the types have campaign-specific categories (i.e. Category:Prophecies secondary quests, Category:Factions festival quests, Category:Nightfall mini-missions, etc.). Should we have Category:Prophecies quests + Category:Prophecies primary quests? Or Category:Prophecies quests + Category:Primary quests?
 * 2) Added auto-category for Category:Master difficulty quests.
 * 3) Added required hero parameter. I can't use requiredhero because I had to make it consistent with given by, preceded by, and followed by.
 * 4) Added a given at parameter that, if specified, appears in a new line below the given by.
 * Any comments or objections? No? The categories are perfectly fine? :P -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot all about this! If there are no objections, I will be replacing the current quest infobox with my proposal. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 12:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure what the changes are, you added a master section into the infobox and also a repeatable section? --Sktbrd341 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a "master = y", "repeatable = y", "given at = Somewhere ", and a "required hero = Someone". Plus some autocategories and auto wikilinks I think. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So the current "given by" section will be split into "given by" and "given at". I agree with all these changes and also think it is a valuable update to the quest infobox. I support it 100%. --Sktbrd341 07:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quest infobox updated. A recap of all the changes: All changes are to the infobox only. This update does not change the way quest reward is listed (see discussion below). -- ab.er. rant  07:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Auto-categories for campaign, region, and type (primary, master, repeatable, etc.).
 * 2) Added a given at parameter for quest giver location.
 * 3) type is one of "Primary", "Secondary", "Festival", or "Mini-mission" (case-insensitive).
 * 4) Use repeatable = y for repeatable quests.
 * 5) Use master = y for difficulty master quests.
 * 6) Added a required hero for hero-specific quests.


 * I noticed you started changing the infobox's in all of the quests, and i see that it says so and so in someplace. In the past the person and place was split by "at" and not "in". My question is which makes more sense and to me it doesn't matter. --Sktbrd341 08:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh. Most of the time either will suffice. What about so-and-so at Regent Valley? Does that sound weird? I think in works better in most situations. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 08:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea I started with given at... and then I kept reading and re-reading, and felt that "at" just doesn't sound right. So I changed it to "in". Feel free to change it to something else though. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "in" works fine for me just wanted to know what everybody else's opinions were on "in" and "at". --Sktbrd341 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Quest reward
I'm kinda surprised there wasn't already an existing quest reward template to cover gold/experience rewards... The problem I suppose is that there is so much more to rewards now, with items, skills, quest rewards/trophies etc, that I imagine it would be a bit fiddly to program... BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's basically a couple of similar templates accessed from on main template. The only issue that needs to be discussed first before implementation is whether or not there are changes to how the rewards are to be displayed, particularly with skill rewards. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on a template now and trying to decide what actually needs templates, and what can just be inputted manually with a little assistance from the main template... at first I thought calling a skill template would be a good idea to format up all the skills, but I think that adds a layer of complication to the thing that would actually make it more of a pain. I would prefer just having to enter the skill name in the right place (ideally I would love it if the skill name could automatically parse the profession). Question: Can anyone think of an example of a quest that gives an item and a skill reward, or any other duplicates such as Reward tokens and an item? -  Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on your questions, I assume you are designing something like the following?


 * I'm actually thinking of something like this instead:

*      *       *       *
 * It has more flexibility. Skill and item would allow for multiple parameters. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Suddenly the idea of multiple templates being called from one main template is much more, erm, rewarding... Yes, the above was exactly what I was ending up with, and the problems with that direction become apparent very quickly. Your idea has much more flexibility, so I'm probably going to go that way. Overall I want it stupid easy to fill in so that anyone contributing can avoid feeling discouraged and leave without filling in the information. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I have so far. It's an odd quest reward as it's showing combinations that don't exist, but it works. I haven't changed any formatting from the way quest pages are being written now. At the moement Skill quests only are being automatically categorized.
 * 1) What other quest reward categories need to be added? (Do we really want a category for gold rewards?)
 * 2) Want to change the formatting?
 * 3) I think I'm doing something wrong with the parameters - they are working, but if you edit the page it shows it's using things like Template:4,000 (which is a parameter I filled in for experience). A solution to that is necessary and would be appreciated.

Comments and suggestions appreciated. - Thulsey   - talk 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good the only thing that I don't care for is the image of Imperial Commendation in front of the text. The only other thing that I can thing that could be categorized is if the quest gives a weapon. --Sktbrd341 04:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, regarding the template. I thought about using one subtemplate for each type of skill reward, but switch works too I suppose. I tweaked it a bit to not render anything if no valid parameter is passed in and moved the category inside.


 * As for the effect, I don't like the image for the token either. I don't think it's necessary and should be treated as a normal item. For the item stats, we might need to display more than one line of stats. I think skill and hero quest categories are sufficient. Those are the two that are more likely to be useful. The collectibles (i.e. your tokens) are possible. I don't think weapon or gold are necessary. The Template:4000 is still there... I'll look more into it later, unless someone else solves it :) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your tweaks made it much more graceful.

or something simple like that.
 * Regarding the Template:4,000 thing: I have no idea why or how it is calling only certain parameters as templates, while at the same time treating them correctly as parameters. I've had a look at the WikiMedia help pages and also looked into parser functions to see if there's anything to be careful of. I see nothing that isn't standard in this template. =[
 * Regarding more lines for the item stats, I really just took a look here for reference. I'll try to add a bit more formatting options for multiple lines of stats, just in case, but for right now I'm all for throwing in a
 * I have removed the image of the reward token. Will add category for Hero quests (oops, and a hero param) ;)


 * @Sktbrd341: You proposed the idea of categorizing based on weapon rewards: any details you can share on that as to the best way to categorize that? I'm assuming you just mean something like Category:Item quest, or do you have something else in mind? - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 08:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea I was thinking just have a category for any quest that would give you weapons/items of us. This way people that are looking for items could possibly just look up a quest and see which item it is and if its something they want to get. --Sktbrd341 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A new revision is here. A few notes about the progress: Let me know what you think. I would like to solve the problems I'm seeing right now and then maybe we can go ahead and start using this.- Thulsey   - talk 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weapons now are a little more flexible to work with different types of items.
 * 2) Added auto-category for 'Item quests'. Is that a keeper? I'm all for categories that will help people search for something they want, but let me know. If we don't keep it I'm ok with following the above proposals to limit categories to Skill quests and Hero quests.
 * 3) Still really bummed about the parameters being treated as a called template. :[


 * Sorry - please use this link instead. I found that naming all the unnamed parameters got rid of the problem with it calling templates. I notice it's doing the same thing with the profession parameters but since they don't show up as red links I guess I never noticed it before. Anyway, Template:4,000 problem is gone. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 03:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Quest Reward: Template or not?
So, a few template changes. I have added different types of rewards:
 * 1) points: Sunspear, LightBringer, or Skill points all would go here, along with the amount
 * 2) faction: Luxon or Kurzick and how much.

After doing this, I find myself wondering: Is this actually a good idea? Sure, it would automate the category for skill and item quests, we could categorize it as quests that give Lightbringer points, etc. But in the end is it more work to fill out a template, or is it easier just to format it on the fly? (I mean, it's not a table or anything...). So, do we want to implement this thing, or just go back and manually categorize stuff?

Your thoughts are appreciated. - Thulsey   - talk 02:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about the same thing over the past couple of days. For using a template to do like experience and gold and stuff kind of seems like more work then typing in the number and the link to gold. The only thing that it would be useful for would be the skills because we type  if we could just make a template where you would put in the profession icon and then the skill name into a template and it would turn out like this: *   but make it so we don't have to type more then what is needed. --Sktbrd341 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. A template should be easy to use. I thinking the param names should be dropped. Something like or  would be better I think, because I'd only need to remember the type, and not have to remember the type + all the param names. The good thing about using templates, even if it's more trouble, is that it helps with categories. Then we might be able to dispense with manually maintaining lists like Battle Commendation. The thing I believe is difficult is how to nicely format rewards like skills and items into multiple lines. -- ab.er. rant  [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gold
Hey, can we switch all Gold rewards to have icon?--Eloc 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check section 4 above (standardizing rewards), the consensus seems to be use in-game terms, ie "Experience", "Gold" and not the gold icon BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was told to suggest that here.--Eloc 08:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that consensus was made back when only a few people were working on quests. Now, there are more contributors and more people interested in quest articles. I don't really mind if we use the icon or not as long as the reward is clear. If the gold reward is 1,000 or larger will we use the icon as well? Tedium 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should use the one also because that's exactly what it is ingame as 1,000  = 1 --Eloc 08:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we may end up using templates for quest rewards we may have to make some changes anyway, so now's a good time to discuss it (again - sorry, wasn't around for the last round). That said, if we're going on the argument of documenting things as they appear in game, then I feel the need to mention that my Quest Logs say 'Gold.' My Inventory show's . Shrug. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probly because they can't put sybols in the quest log. Have you ever seen any symbols whatsoever there?--Eloc 20:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kind of my point. - Thulsey  [[Image:User Thulsey good.gif|Zheng]] - talk 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that using the symbols for gold and platinum might get confusing for some people, I also think that it makes the page look sloppy. The one major reason why I would not like to use the gold symbol is because like what was stated before everything should be copied from the game virbatam and if the quest log uses the world gold I think that is what it should say here. --Sktbrd341 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How would it confuse people? is what is used ingame so that's what should be here I suppose.--Eloc 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that Thulsey's point is that is not used in-game in the quest window. Hence potential confusion. MisterPepe talk 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But when you hit I, there is & .--Eloc 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (reset indent)Yes that is very true when you hit I which goes to your inventory it does show and, but when logging a quest we are only logging what is in the Log window which doesn't use the pictures it uses the name. Unless you can present us with a really good reason why we should use the symbols instead of the words, I still say we keep with the text. --Sktbrd341 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, pictures are easier to read than words.--Eloc 02:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So no one objects? Been like 5 days, in 2 days I'll change it I suppose.--Eloc 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Everyone objected, and no one agreed with you. Don't. MisterPepe talk 03:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I object with it 100% and I have all of the quest articles watched and I check my email's every hour so if I come across I know I am still going to change it to Gold. --Sktbrd341 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather keep it as the word "Gold" instead. It's more consistent with the other rewards. Unless you can come up with an icon for experience, the sunspear/lightbringer points, and the items. Otherwise it'll just look weird if there's one particular line in the rewards sections that only has a number + icon, and the rest are words (excluding skills, which I didn't like having the icons there in the first place). -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cinematic dialogue
How should cinematic dialogue be formatted? Or should it not be included? (ex: Chaos in Kryta) -Smurf 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if the cinematic is in the middle of the quest it should be noted just like you have done so in Chaos in Kryta. If it is a conversation between people I think it should be noted as such just like how the formatting guide says to formatting text that is in the chat logs. --Sktbrd341 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cinematics should be there.--Eloc 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Include it like normal quest dialogue, with a little marker like "(cinematic)". But personally, I think recording dialogue between quest-related NPCs would be enough. The storyline stuff don't matter enough. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, storyline matters alot. People also go to GWW to check the storyline if they miss the cinematic or quest dialog for some reason or another.--Eloc 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quest objectives linking to NPC pages
This may seem nit-picky, but I've been filling out quest articles' objectives keeping in mind to copy the objectives verbatim from the game. I don't recall the game every hot-linking to an NPC, or even highlighting names in the quest log window's objective section. The dialogue sometimes has NPC names in green and I've bolded those where appropriate, but I'm seeing examples of other opinions. Personally, I don't like it, though perhaps it could be justified as being useful.

Moreover, since most NPC's the player must interact with are already linked in any walkthrough or section 0's in the same article, I find the choice to include this redundant.

Thoughts? - Thulsey   - talk 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with your views on this matter, the example you provided shows just how unimportant another link contained within the objectives is. I believe that the objectives, just like the dialogue, should be transcribed, which would mean no links to other articles. The only exceptions I would personally accept are links to characters or items that may be difficult to find (and the page they link to contains useful information) but I can't think of any examples of where this would be the case.
 * Jonny Arrowhead 14:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I find the redundant links to be annoying too. Here is the answer that I can give you Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/General basically it says For each article, it is preferable that only the first instance of a particular term or name be made a wiki link. Subsequent linking of the same term or name should be avoided. When I am writing a quest article I usually never link names to other articles. In my opinion only the overview, walkthrough and rewards should have links in it unless there has to be a link. -- Sktbrd341 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I could be one of the "problem makers" here, since I will follow the sort of style Sktbrd341 is linking to above: I usually link the first instance of any name/npc/object/quest etc. even if it happens to be in the objectives. However, I try to avoid multiple (i.e. redundant) links to the same page within an article. There's certainly no point linking every occurence of BHS in the objectives from the example above.
 * On the other hand, I don't think you can use the excuse that we shouldn't do this because the game doesn't hotlink - let's face it, until the wiki was integrated into the help system, NOTHING hotlinked. Not linking to help provide extra information for the reader, seems like cutting off nose to spite face time and to me, wastes one of the most useful features of wikis in general. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find linking to other articles inside the objectives. What I find the problem is when there are like 4 objectives with the same name and it is linked in all 4 of them. I agree if it can be linked link it, this helps getting more information on different parts of the quest. -- Sktbrd341 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, agreed, that is annoying and pointless, and I try to remove such... messes if I ever spot them. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Region
Why not put in Ascalon instead of just Ascalon (pre-searing)? The Project pages says the region that appears in your quest log, but in Pre Searing, it says Ascalon quests.-- §  Eloc   §  21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick test in the sandbox shows that doing what you suggest breaks the auto-categorisation performed by the quest infobox --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't we do something like when someone type Ascalon (pre-searing), it auto corrects to Ascalon ?-- §  Eloc   §  23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO this will confuse people that are looking for all of the quests that are located in pre-searing. I think it should stay the way it is. When I started on the wiki that is the way it was and pre-searing ascalon is a region of tyria. -- Sktbrd341 23:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think it's better to have the "pre-Searing" part there as it's immediately clear which version of Ascalon it's talking about. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty: Master and solo quests
Formatting says to copy all text verbetium from the game, but I feel that because we have the Difficulty Masters parameter and also the solo quest parameter in the Quest infobox that we don't need to include Difficulty Master infront of the initial dialogue. Because it is in the infbox it is accounted for, and with putting it infront of the dialogue it makes the dialogue section look sloppy. -- Sktbrd341 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really consider the red text as part of the dialogue because the NPC is not really saying those words. It just indicates what kind of quest it is. So I agree that info is not necessary in the dialogue since it's in the infobox. Tedium 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're actually recommending that highlighted text in-game be similarly emphasized when copied here, I don't see why we need to go through the trouble to specifically say that "Difficulty: Master" should be excluded. They're just ways to draw attention. It's much simpler to just say "copy verbatim" than say "copy verbatim except blah, blah, and blah". -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We got parameters for Master quests and Solo quests in the infobox? If so, why not just put them there?-- §  Eloc   §  04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are already being used. Sktbrd341 was proposing for the removal of "[Difficulty: Master]" from the initial dialogue. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, is there a way to put Master Solo Quests into the infobox? Or is it already there?-- §  Eloc   §  04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like it. Just do "master = y | solo = y". -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I got no problems there :)-- §  Eloc   §  05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue for text in the chat box and indentations
Right now, when in a quest or mission there is both dialogue in windows and dialogue in the chat box/speech bubbles, the later appears indented while the former does not, and it just doesn't seem right. While the template is structured in this way because for whatever reason the wiki won't go to the next line unless there is an indentation mark at the begining of it, this can be replaced by adding the HTML tag  at the end of the line.

For an example of what I mean, compare the intermediate dialogue in Defend Denravi (made following the wiki formatting guide) and The Last Day Dawns, (made using the  tags).
 * Do you mean the  things sort of like at Defend Droknar's Forge?-- §   Eloc   §  20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea that is what they mean,  is the same as   but the later one closes itself which is a stricter standard. -- Sktbrd341  21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't the text in speech bubbles and dialogue text be formatted differently? They are appearing differently in the game. I don't really see a problem with the indentation. And the reason why it doesn't go to the next line if you don't leave an empty line is because wiki code is rendered into HTML, and HTML has no concept of white spaces unless you specifically put in a tag that causes white space. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Part of" parameter
I've added a "part of" parameter for nested quests. -- Gordon Ecker 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Gordon can you link to a quest that is a "part of" a quest. Thanks Nevermind I found one. -- Sktbrd341 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)