Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Quests

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Followed by 2 Quests with their own Spawns->NPCs. 3 Infobox 3.1 Consensus 4 Accept / Decline 5 Hero dependent dialogue 6 Primary Repeatables in Eye of the North 7 Standardizing Rewards Section for EotN Primaries 8 NPC's in quest article 9 Accept & Decline 10 The quest type names are a bit arcane. 11 Naming quest designers?

[edit] Followed by

I think that we should either bold the names of all primary followup quests (as well as primary preceding and parent quests for consistancy) or mark the secondary followup quests of primary quests with (secondary) or (s). -- Gordon Ecker 00:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example of how this would look, for comparison with the current way? Backsword 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example with missions and primary quests bolded. -- Gordon Ecker 09:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Time is Nigh
Campaign	Nightfall
Region	Istan
Type	Primary
Given by	Castellan Puuba in Sunspear Great Hall
Preceded by	War Preparations (Recruit Training), War Preparations (Wind and Water), and War Preparations (Ghost Reconnaissance), or A Land of Heroes
Followed by	Consulate Docks (mission), Plague in Cantha (secondary), Terror in Tyria (secondary)

Maybe add a new parameter instead, "required by" or "requirement for"? As it's not really "followed by", in storyline, but just a requirement. - anja 10:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That would work, but I don't like inconsistancy between secondary followups of primary quests and secondary followups of other secondary quests. -- Gordon Ecker 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest your read Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Locations#Quests which involves templates like {{Quest icon|repeatable}}.--§ Eloc § 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any bolding? Do mean that they are listed at all, as they're not in the version we actually use? Backsword 06:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been fixed. -- Gordon Ecker 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quests with their own Spawns->NPCs.

I would suggest that we copy the NPC section from Locations, for NPCs specifically spawned as part of a quest.

This would primarily allow us to handle EotN quests that often do this, but it could also find some use in other quests; listing NPCs in the quest that deals with them may be a better help for users that are trying to complete the quest rather than nesteled somewhere in the Location article. This is especially true if the special spawns are of a type that already exists in the zone, as we currently have no way of noting those. Backsword 13:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Some issues with implementing this:

• Section placement. I've been putting it at the bottom, being a new section, but other pages have it above dialogue. Is consitancy better?
• Template use. Any? What about NPC infobox; point it to quest or explorable area? The latter would mean creating them anyway, and then redirecting them to the quest, but seems more in line with current usage.
• NPCs removed. Should we list this? Or just mention it in the notes section, at least?

Backsword

Well, thanks to the great input, I'll pick something myself. Seems consistancy, listing the quest directly and using the notes section will work best. Backsword 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Ok, check out here & here. I made some changes to the Quest infobox.--§ Eloc § 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think splitting up the type of quest into different section is reasonable it just adds more parameters, A Primary quest is never going to be a secondary quest so there is no need to have both of them separate. I also don't care for the check mark's in the infobox, I prefer text. --Sktbrd341 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The parameters were already in the infobox, I just changed what they do.--§ Eloc § 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have added more parameters, getting rid of type for example and replacing it with additional parameters. I would like to see some examples in that sandbox, of it applied to actual quests, demonstrating the range of functions. But to be honest I am not keen on the green ticks as it stands. --Lemming 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, if this idea doesn't work out, how about we make it so that repeatable quests get a green tick when they are repeatable, and a red x when they are no repeatable?--§ Eloc § 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But that would result in about 99% of quest having a red X. I think it is safe to assume that a quest is not repeatable unless told otherwise? --Lemming 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then, how about just a green for when it is repeatable? It just looks better than a simple "yes"--§ Eloc § 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I just tested it in your sandbox and yes I think that looks better for that situation. --Lemming 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For the repeatable one?--§ Eloc § 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For the repeatable parameter the green check is better then just having yes but for all the other ones I think the setup that is already in place works. --Sktbrd341 17:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes for the repeatable parameter I think it looks better, but I like the way that solo, master and elite are bolded under the type, and it makes more sense to have the type as text also. --Lemming 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so am I allowed to edit the Questinfobox to put in the ? or do we need more discussion first?--§ Eloc § 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with lemming on the elite, solo, master bolded under the type. I think it would be fine to change the infobox unless we need another opinion or something like that. --Sktbrd341 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say wait until tomorrow and see if anyone posts here to object, this discussion is on requests for comment currently. If no-one has objected by tomorrow it would be fine to go ahead and make the change as it is quite minor really. --Lemming 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then.--§ Eloc § 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this split of the type in multiple yes/no displays.. It just looks ugly when the infobox is bigger. Also why using a tick for repeatable requests? Just add {{Quest icon|repeatable}} () after the type.. poke | talk 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Poke where would we put the at, would it go where eloc has the tick mark or would it go next to the name of the quest in the infobox? --Sktbrd341 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said: "after the type" - So for example "Type: Secondary quest " poke | talk 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe...--§ Eloc § 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that poke I missed that part when I read your comment, I think that is a better idea then the check mark in its on separate row. --Sktbrd341 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the checkmarks can work since they have the same meaning as "yes." The majority of quests will likely have none or one checkmark, so the infoboxes won't get messy. I agree with Sktbrd341 that splitting type into primary and secondary doesn't make sense. Master and elite could be merged into an optional difficulty parameter, but if the current bolding under type works with everyone, then I'm fine with that. I think the quest icons work better in quest lists than in each quest page. Tedium 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But it makes no sense to use the Quest icons in quest lists but using ticks on the Quest pages. poke | talk 05:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was not aware of that use of the tango icon, but I prefer it to a tick. --Lemming 10:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So what are we changing after this discussion? We putting all check mark boxes? Or just the one for repeatable? Or what?--§ Eloc §

Just add the repeatable icon after the type of a repeatable quest :P poke | talk 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What now? I just woke up and not thinking clearly.--§ Eloc § 21:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this: User:Lemming64/Sandbox4 is what poke means. --Lemming 22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For quest lists, you can tag quests with various icons and have a key at the top that explains what each icon means (similar to skill lists). For each quest page, if you remove the Repeatable Yes line and just use an icon in type, then you have to already know what the icon means in the first place or have an extra key that explains it. In either case, just saying Repeatable Yes or Repeatable in text would have been clear enough to begin with. Tedium 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Though when you hover over the arrow it does indicate repeatable quest as the tooltip, also the quest is listed as a repeatable quest in the categories. You could say the same about the profession icons though like , if that is used everywhere then it becomes second nature in a sense. I guess it just comes down to, do we consider , new user friendly enough. --Lemming 23:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the next to the type better because it makes it less rows in the quest infobox. As for new users and being able to put you mouse over it and get the tooltip i think that is good enough. Unless we want to make a page with all the icons used on the wiki and then a description of there meaning after it. Also if you click on the icon it could link to the page with the meanings on them. My vote goes towards the , but I wouldn't mind either way. --Sktbrd341 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I like too. I'll even redirect it to Repeatable quest, just so people can click on it to know what it means.--§ Eloc § 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority in preferring Repeatable text over an icon in the infobox, so I'll leave this to you guys. Tedium 03:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, /shoo. jk.--§ Eloc § 04:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way is fine by me but I just prefer the tango repeat icon. --Sktbrd341 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, so as I understand it so far, the general consensis is that the majority of us want it as User:Lemming64/Sandbox4?--§ Eloc § 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will upload the image under another name, as that one is used for skills too so it doesn't really make sense for it to redirect to repeatable quests as it is. --Lemming 16:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

k.--§ Eloc §

[edit] Consensus

So do we have an agreement regarding the addition of the repeatable quest icon after the type, instead of how it is now with a separate line stating yes? --Lemming 17:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How about if you agree, if you disagree. Btw, mine is --§ Eloc § 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So no objections....? --Lemming 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope ^^,--§ Eloc § 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me --Sktbrd341 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Following Eloc's hands-on approach, no objections. Calor - talk 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accept / Decline

I have seen a change starting to be adopted where the Accept and Decline text is replaced by and for example on Giriff's War. Is this something we want to adopt throughout? --Lemming 14:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I support that. It just makes it look better. Although, I recommend we use {{no|red}}.--§ Eloc § 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No I do not support this, I think the the way we have it now is fine. The reason I think we should keep it the same is because it explains where the text is coming from with in the game. --Sktbrd341 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through some of the quests for Eye of the North and I only came across 3 articles that used that form. When I checked the history I saw that they were added by user Backsword. The other quests that had the checks and x's are when the When asked about sections have a yes and no button. I am fine with using the checks and x's when the When asked about section needs to use them, but not the accept and decline sections. Example Kilroy Stonekin's Punch-Out Extravaganza! --Sktbrd341 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you just said there, but why not have the & with the choices beside them and maybe something like for the 3rd option when you can ask about a quest?--§ Eloc § 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hero dependent dialogue

Have found that many of the missionlike quests and dungeons in GW:EN have dialogue that changes based on what hero companions you bring. Gwen, Ogden and Vekk seems especially prone to this, but I've seen other cases. Perhaps these heroes were required at some point in development? Normally, this takes the shape of them having a line, and if they are not in the party, the party leader says another line to fill the gap, but there are other cases. Backsword 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you make an example on how the dialogue could be? I've not seen this myself so it's hard to sugest a good solution. :) - anja 10:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Against the Charr. Note that what I've added there is only partial, and more complex situations exist. Backsword 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you just started figuring out a format for this and my suggestion would to not have it at the end of the spoken line. --Sktbrd341 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that would take quite a while to get all the different dialogue as the 3 hero limit & the fact that you'd have to do the mission several times.--§ Eloc § 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Repeatables in Eye of the North

Currently there is an inconsistency in the "given by" information for primary repeatable quests for Eye of the North (such as A Gate Too Far vs. Against the Charr). The 3 Vanguard primaries and Curse of the Nornbear are all listed as "obtained automatically", but the remainder list the NPC from whom the quest is initiated (and given from following your initial completion).
One argument for changing them to "obtained automatically" is that the quest is placed automatically in your quest log as the storyline progress on your first trek through Eye of the North. Also, in your quest log, non-primary quests list the quest giver and location from which the quest is received. This is not the case for the repeatable primaries.
The argument for listing the NPC that initiates the quest is that it seems to be more appropriate with the current guideline for formatting quest infoboxes, as well as it is more informative than "obtained automatically".
I propose that we list the quest-initiating NPC in the infoboxes for these quests, and possibly remark in the notes that the quest is automatically placed in your quest log on your initial journey through Eye of the North. Can I get some input so that we can make the infoboxes for these quests consistent across the wiki? Mohnzh 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just beat me to this post Mohnzh. I'd say list the NPC. 1. It's informative, and it's the wiki's purpose to be informative. 2. The quest log is not definitive and can give erroneous info about questgivers. 3. "Automatically obtained" is only correct on the first time through, not on repetition. 4. When they are automatically obtained, they are usually obtained when accepting the reward for the prior quest from the very same NPC, a strong argument that the quests are automatically obtained from them.

This is all in reference to an argument/mini revert war over Against the Charr. --Valshia 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Curse of the Nornbear has since been reverted back to its original state, listing the NPC as the quest giver. Only the three vanguard primaries are inconsistent with the rest of the wiki. Can we resolve this before any further changes are made? Mohnzh 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with listing the NPC that initiates the quest and having a note that says it's automatically obtained the first time as it is more informative. While it's true that the quest log doesn't show the quest giver, on repeated attempts you still have to talk to the NPC to receive and start the quest. Should the Scrying Pool also be listed as a quest giver for these repeatable primary quests? Tedium 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Scrying Pool should also be listed in the Notes. I personally have never tried to get a quest from the Scrying pool, so I would not know how to put that in the notes. Mohnzh 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the buttons lists all the repeatable quests and you can click on them to have them added to your quest log. You still have to talk to the NPC to start the quest. Tedium 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The Scrying Pool is kind of a special case, as it acts as a central repository for all primary quests and cinematics. But it would need to be listed under Notes because the quest infobox doesn't allow multiple quest givers. --Valshia 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I will research how it works exactly, and will be determining the quest-giving NPCs for all the primaries that do not have one currently listed. I would rather not change anything until there is more input so that we can establish a consensus. I should be able to have all the research done before Wednesday. I have all the necesary research done to update these pages once consensus is reached. Mohnzh 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The other player in the discussion that started this one has had an opportunity to respond here but hasn't. If there really aren't any objections, I really think we should consider this relatively straight-forward interpretation of the formatting guidelines as the consensus. --Valshia 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for what to put in the infobox as long as any irregularities are detailed in the notes section. -- Gordon Ecker 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend listing the NPC as the questgiver and covering everything else in the notes. It seems the best piece of information to give in the infobox, as this tells people where to start the quest. --202.78.149.227 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standardizing Rewards Section for EotN Primaries

I'm about ready to fill out the missing reward info for EotN primaries, but I noticed almost every quest had a different format. Would anyone be opposed to me standardizing it. Below is an example of how it would look (these numbers are an example, not for any specific quest).

• 1000 (1500) / 100 Asura Reputation
• 2500 gold
• 1 skill point if any
• new hero if any
• other rewards if any

Let me know if there are any objections, or if you have a format you would like to suggest. Mohnzh 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is with the variable rep point rewards, and formating it in such a way that a new reader will know that they are different on repeat or in hard mode.

• 1000 (100 on repeat) Asura reputation points
  • 1500 (150) in hard mode
• etc.

or maybe

• Asura reputation points
  • First time: 1000 (1500 hard mode)
  • On repeat: 100 (150 hard mode)

Thoughts? --Valshia 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly the response I expected. I think I like your second suggestion better. Mohnzh 18:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I realised my suggestion was somewhat at odd with the format guideline. Allow me to resuggest.

• other rewards if any
• new hero if any
• Asura reputation points
  • First time: 1000 (1500 hard mode)
  • On repeat: 100 (150 hardmode)
• 2500 gold
• #### experience if any

How does that look? Mohnzh 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine. -- ab.er.rant 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPC's in quest article

I have looked at some quest articles and noticed that some of them have NPC sections. Most of the quests take place in explorable area's where we already list all of the npc's in that location. I think it is kind of redundant to list them again inside the quest article. I would like to suggest that we don't include NPC sections in the quests that are just in the regular explorable area's and for the mini missions or quests that spawn seperate monsters we make not of them in a sub-section of the notes main section. I fell that this will make the quest pages less cluttered and we will also have less redundent information. --Sktbrd341 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But the NPCs section is only supposed to list quest-related spawns, and listing all quest-related spawns in the location article would create even more clutter, particularly for areas with numerous quest-related spawns, such as North Kryta Province. -- Gordon Ecker 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If its only supposed to list quest-related spawns, that means most of the articles will not have the section right? If we are going to list the npc's in the quest articles that have their own spawned npc's I propose that we make the NPC section a sub-section of the walkthrough, or the notes section, this way the formatting for quest articles don't differ to much from each other. --Sktbrd341 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to keep the NPC section, I think it would be easier to list all NPCs involved in a quest (quest giver, NPCs you have to talk to, enemies you fight that are only relevant to the quest) in the quest pages rather than just the quest-related spawn. For the location pages, we can have them list only the NPCs you would encounter if you had no quests active in that location. This has the benefit of having all the relevant NPCs listed in the quest pages, keeping the location pages less cluttered, and reducing some of the redundancy.

There's a few exceptions like NPCs that are not present during certain quests, present only after a certain quest is completed, or present only before a certain quest is completed. Those ones should still have a note or be listed in both where applicable. Tedium 01:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the other night about the inclusion of NPC's within the quest articles, I think instead of listing them on the quest page, we do a quest/NPC page and then include the page. This will reduce the long list of NPC's people will see when editing the full page. --Sktbrd341 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't heard from anybody about the suggestions that have been made, I strongly think that the NPC section becomes either part or the walkthrough section, or we move the NPC section below the Dialogue section. --Sktbrd341 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should be near the bottom, just above the notes section. I don't think we should use transcluded subpages. -- Gordon Ecker 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Backsword was the original one who first made the comment of adding in the npc section into the quest articles that have npc's spawn in for that specific quest. I was on LOA and was not able to make comments on the decision. I see that nobody else made comments on that decision either thus Backsword added it into the quest formatting. Should we wait for more opinions on this or should I just move the NPC section down under the dialogue section? I just feel that information about the quest is more important then listing every single NPC that you encounter during the quest. --Sktbrd341 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It still isn't terribly clear what should be listed? The article formatting page says "List only those creatures that are part of the quest spawn...", whereas recent updates are quite clearly listing EVERY creature/npc/mob encountered, even if they're part of the normal (non-quest) spawn for the location or explorable area the quest takes place in. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem that I am having, the lists are getting to long because of every NPC being listed. This is why we need to figure out a better way of listing these to reduce the redundancy of the section. I think only the NPC's the player has to deal with should be listed. For example meet Renk at his laboratory in Alcazia Tangle, Renk should be listed as an npc or if it says kill such and such a creature list that creature as one of the NPC's. After list these NPC's we can then put in a link to the actual area article. --Sktbrd341 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the editors who are ignoring the formatting or adding speculative information. However, I think that if NPCs spawn as part of a quest, they should be included in the quest article even if NPCs of the same type also spawn in the same zone normally. For example, I think that the attacking waves of torment creatures that spawn during Breaking the Broken should be included because, although Nightfallen Jahai has all eight standard types of torment creatures as part of its' regular spawns those specific torment creature groups only spawn during the quest). -- Gordon Ecker 06:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ok that makes sense, For now can we agree on a location of where to place the NPC section. Like I stated above I would rather it be after the Dialogue section. --Sktbrd341 06:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh... it should be after dialogue? I didn't notice this discussion. I added quite a few to right after the walkthrough section. I guess I don't have a strong preference. I just went with consistency, since the "dialogue" part of something usually comes just before the notes section. -- ab.er.rant 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would like to keep things consistent with other formating, so that they all have the sections in the same order. No real prference on that order tho'. Backsword 05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it below everything because I think the dialogue of the quest is more important because it gives the story of the game. But at this point I don't really care because this discussion went no where and now since everything changed with out proper discussion I don't feel like or even have the time to work on editing quests articles now. So do what makes you guys happy and I will live with it. --Sktbrd341 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accept & Decline

I'm reviving this topic as above it didn't seem to really go anywhere. Anyways, I propose that we change

 
:'''Accept:''' ''"Dialogue option for accepting the quest"''
:'''Decline:''' ''"Dialogue option for declining the quest"''
:'''When asked about quest:''' ''"Dialogue the quest giver provides when asked about the quest while it is active."''

to

:{{yes}}'''Accept:''' ''"Dialogue option for accepting the quest"''
:{{no|red}}'''Decline:''' ''"Dialogue option for declining the quest"''
:'''When asked about quest:''' ''"Dialogue the quest giver provides when asked about the quest while it is active."''

and then maybe have someone or find some sort of tango looking question mark. My reasoning behind this you may ask? I've seen it on several articles and a checkmark is a lot easier to understand than the word accept. It also looks cooler with tango icons ;) — ク Eloc 貢 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Example, for those who likes to visualize:

I personally have no opinion on this, whatever works. — Galil 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, since it doesn't seem to be clear, the border was added by me to separate my comment from the visualized code. — Galil 22:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree but only for quests that include such signs in the accept/decline/others dialogue. If a quest has two yes, putting a yes and a no would be weird. If the quest doesn't have them for some reason, then i see no reason to add them.--Fighterdoken 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, why, why do you insist on messing with my posts? If I want a div with a border in my post, why shouldn't I be allowed to have it? You know you are currently making it look like I signed something I didn't do, right? This is not a matter of having the div or not, it's a matter of principle. You simply don't edit another users comment on a talk page. — Galil 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - AHHHH!!!!) We should tango that "When asked about quest" icon as well :P poke | talk 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I posted something above reffering to the Image:Question Mark.png, but maybe something that's more "?" and less speach bubble. — ク Eloc 貢 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the word's accept, and decline should still be part of the dialogue. What I don't want is it to just be and . Having the templates infront doesn't bother me to much. As for the comment of a checkmark is easier to understand then the word accept I am not sure how a word that means what it means is harder to understand then a checkmark. --Sktbrd341 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As always, content trumps presentation. Personally, I think purely aesthetic changes should wait until we clear Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Quests and Category:Quest stubs... -- ab.er.rant 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on that Ab.er.rant that is why in the past I have turned this down over and over again. I still don't want to see it changed but if it happens to change my comment above is the change I stand by. --Sktbrd341 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Dir requsted I comment; I prefer if we stick to verbatim copy. This has several advantages: 1. It's an objective standard so 1.1 we avoid debates on what is proper English and 1.2 checking quests articles for nad data becomes much more practical, since one don't have to guess if something is intentionally different as part of some style, or just a misstake. ALso, 2. It provides information that would otherwise be unavailable, such as spelling mistakes ingame, or erronious icon placement, so that we can inform Anet about it and get it fixed. Several Anet staffers have special pages for that on the wiki. Backsword 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Colour me pedantic, but where was dicussed and accepted that the Accept / Decline dialogues by intended with two : instead of one, per your recent contribs? If it's accepted change, please update the quest formatting article? --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 13:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They would remain a part of the dialogue, but with the templates infront of it for it to look neater — ク Eloc 貢 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The quest type names are a bit arcane.

While the meaning of 'Primary' and 'Secondary' can be figured out from the context, they are not as easy to figure out as they could be. I suggest replacing them:

Primary -> Required

Secondary -> Optional

Mtew 02:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... these formatting sections aren't used by ANet, they're more for documentation here on GWW; I think we try to stay as close to the in-game usage as possible. You can take this up at Arenanet:Guild Wars suggestions, but I don't think something like this would be changed so late in the game. Perhaps Arenanet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions? Then again, they may not be using the same quest system, but it's a good chance they are.

Besides, everything is optional; one could choose not to do the story, except in Factions, of course. And for regions in Nightfall. The point is that the original campaign, that being Prophecies, did not necessarily require anything of the player, and I bet that's the origin. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying - Arenanet describes quests as Primary or Secondary someplace in the game or on their website. I didn't know that. Still, the predominant place I've seen the terms used is here in this WIKI. It could be clearer here with a note in the glossary that the other terms are used in the game. It is interesting that while the links above stay red, there are no referents here for the terms 'Primary' or 'Secondary'. At a minimum an indexed explanation of those terms should be added.

Also, thinking about this, I realized that 'Required' could also be confusing. Maybe 'Storyline' would be better,

Mtew 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm... alright, but the reason we call them primary and secondary is because that's how it appears in the quest log. Plot-related quests go at the top as Primaries, so reasonably the rest are secondary. Also, there are multiple uses for primary and secondary; Profession, for example. If you had searched for Primary, you would have found all the uses we have, along with Primary quest. There's also Secondary quest. Since it seems to be confusing at least one person, do you think we should link the two on all quest pages? There's also Mini-mission, and while there's no Festival quest, there is List of festival quests. That would help those who can't grasp the concept, while not straying from in-game terms. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a link from each description to the definition of the term would help. Mtew 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go make a bot request for Wikichu, since making a link on every quest page we've ever made is too tedious for human hands. Hopefully, this is an understandable request, but if anyone objects, I'll just do an RFC to here. Wait, no, we need to change the formatting first. I can do that. It'll still read the same way, but the links will all go to the right place. I'll also make a Festival quest page, just for the sake of it all reading similarly. It already links in the infobox. >< If you've missed it there, that's understandable, since people also miss preceeding quests; however, try looking there in the future, OK? At least I got to make an article and edit that into the infobox, though. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ANet uses the Primary and Secondary keywords in the game and this wiki tries to stay true to all of ANet's keywords inside the Guildwars Game. I think there is no reason to change how the quests should be categorized, it would just lead to more confusion. Also the there are pages for the Primary and Secondary quest articles. They are Primary quest and Secondary quest pages.--Sktbrd341 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)sktbrd341

There, no more red links :) -- ab.er.rant 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Red link problem solved yay ab.er.rant :D --Sktbrd341 07:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming quest designers?

There appears to be some controversy around this. I believe we could add the name of the quest designers on the latest Golem quests - IMO that information is useful not only so we may talk with these designers about their creations (as seen here and here), but also so we know what to expect from future works of those same individuals (like how some players were happy that Linsey would be the one taking care of GW1 after enjoying her Black Moa quest). Others have called it "info for the sake of info". What do you people think? Erasculio 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Even if we can't say who made every single quest, giving as much credit as possible to the designers is, IMO, a good idea. --JonTheMon 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it out. If such info is included, why just only the designers? What about the texture artists, modelers, etc.? It's too exclusive. So I say leave it out all together.--Mira Castillo 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Colin Johanson has an ArenaNet employee page just like every other quest writer in the game. This does not count as a presence on the wiki. Just because you can say something about the quest and can link to something doesn't mean you should. These quests are no different from every other quest in the entire game. We don't say who designed missions, bosses, skills, weapon skins (obvious exceptions - a good example of when credit in an article is noteworthy), armour skins or anything else - many of which are far more prominent and complex than these missions. This information is typically not available and would not be fair to the designers who designed quests which we can't list. We don't know how much each designed worked solely on each quest as info from arenanet journals is not official, it's conversational and not a technical credit. In light of this not being significant information, not being obtainable information and not fair to the designers of every other quest out there (of which only some others you can say who did what and only because someone has claimed credit for them) we should remove this note. People who would likely discuss things with ArenaNet employees would also likely read Linsey's journal. It's an obvious thing to do if you're interested in that kind of thing - and this point is demonstrated by the fact people did, and then chose to comment on their talk pages. The links in these articles don't link to their talk pages they link to their employee page, which is not a tool for discussion with the designer. If they want people to know what quests they worked on they can do what Linsey did and put it on their user page - or make one. Of you want to include designer credits anywhere, it would be better located at the employee page, but there I see no point either as I said, this is not official credits. As far as on the quest page, it's not particularly relevant, it has little to no meaning to most people (the pages are game guides not credits, convoluting these pages with this kind of info isn't the goal of the quest page) and it's not fair to people who designed quests without credits. 122.104.161.96 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If we knew who designed missions and monsters and etc, I wouldn't have anything against letting people know who did what. Unfortunately, that's information we usually do not have; this time, Linsey told us who did what (and her word is as "official" as anything else Arena Net tell us - wouldn't be the first time something she says is considered to be an official announcement, the latest example being the huge skill update last month). Assuming people are lying and taking credit for someone else's work is such a big breach of "Assume Good Faith" that I don't think I have to refute that, anyway. From the linked article with the employer's name, those interested in talking to the designer may follow the link there to their userpage, if any. And besides, isn't the goal of the quest pages to provide as much information as possible about them? This is one more piece of information, nothing else. Erasculio 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was lying or taking credit for someone's work - you are the one who brought that up, don't assume that I did, which isn't the point anyway. There is a difference between official game announcements and updates and information in the guild wars credits when compared to what an employee says on their own personal talk page and even something they say in casual conversation such as a journal or wiki chat, see Gaile Gray - Polar Bear mini pet incident for example, which was said in a more official capacity than a journal blog entry. The goal isn't to include info for the sake of it, that would be silly. Quest pages have a purpose and that is the goal. There are more appropriate and less inappropriate places for this kind of information, if they want credit for their quests they are free to create their own account and list them there. I'm not looking for an argument and I tire of this one. 122.104.161.96 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't this information have a very specific point? To let people discuss the quests with those who have created them? In this context, I don't think it qualifies as "info for the sake of it", rather as something useful for those interested in this kind of thing. And given how we know it's accurate information... Erasculio 19:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I think this could fall under the trivia section of the quest article if you really want to add it to the page. I think if somebody knows that info and wants to add it to the page that is great. It should not have its own section in any way shape or form. Trivia would be my pick to put it. -Sktbrd341 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That's where it has been showing up. --JonTheMon 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really hurt to give people credit for their work. Credit for work = good. — ク Eloc 貢 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It can if we gave inaccurate or possibly inaccurate information. I'm with Mira and 122.104.161.96 on this. We already give credit where credit is due, and that's in ArenaNet. As 122.104 mentioned, "this is not official credits". I think it's better to just link the source and let the reader interpret. -- ab.er.rant 04:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. By default every game element is assumed credited to ArenaNet unless specifically stated, such as attributing a weapon design to a player creation. We should not put the wiki in the position of assigning credit to individual ArenaNet employees any more than we assign credit to editors for their article contributions. -- Inspired to ____ 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

ArenaNet is represented as a collective. The individual staff can place their own accomplishments on their user-pages at their discretion. So I say remove it in good faith. (125.238.92.87 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

The penguin says no. Thou shall obey!

Seriously though, I don't personally see the point with it. A very tiny fraction of the visitors would be interested in the info in the first place, and maintaining consistency throughout articles is hard enough as it is. — Galil 00:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)