Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Quests/A2

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)

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)

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 §

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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."

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)

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)

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)

Elaboration of the rewards section...

The information in the rewards section of quest descriptions is variable and some times is put in other sections of the article.  This is particularly true of acceptance rewards.  I would like to see standard sub-sections:

• Acceptance rewards – What you get for accepting the quest.
• Experience rewards – The amount of experience you get for completing the quest.
• Completion rewards – Any additional awards for completing the quest.

for a start.  Additional sub-sections might be appropriate in parts of the game I am not yet familiar with.

I split the experience rewards from the completion rewards mainly because it has a much more standard form than the completion rewards.

mtew 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance rewards aren't rewards because you get them before you complete the quest. In some cases, the skills are given in order to the complete the quest, such as enchantment removal in Disenchantment Course. They should go in the walkthrough section. They may be listed in the notes section because the formatting never got updated. The actual rewards are copied verbatim from the quest log into the rewards section. Tedium 04:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for what you can gain by 'doing' the quest, the obvious place to look is the rewards section of the article.  While acceptance rewards are an 'advance' payment, they are none-the-less part of what you gain from the quest.  That makes them a reward.  Putting the information in the notes section is a good second choice.  Putting the information in the walkthru is a less good third choice.  Not having the information labelled is a pain.  Having to look in three different places makes the pain worse.  mtew 06:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think the skills you get accepting the quest need to be distinct from the rewards. Is A Mesmer's Burden an example of the formatting you would like? The information is next to each other so you don't have to look down at the walkthrough to find it or even farther down in the notes section. The header needs to be changed to "Skills obtained on acceptance" since only the first word should be capitalized. Tedium 00:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is close to what I think is needed.  There are also cases where something beside a skill is awarded.  Some quests of this type also include a 'starter' weapon.  While of no 'monetary' value, it does take up an inventory slot.  Exactly what the title should be is not my real concern (other than that it be informative) nor is its exact placement, but it needs to be standard so searches for it can be done reliably.  mtew 11:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewards are exactly that what is written in the quest log; that should neither be split up into something nor should something else be put in that section. I don't like putting things like skills you get when you accept the quest into a header "Acceptance Rewards" - that just sounds wrong. poke | talk 18:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact title for the section is less important than its existence.  If you don't like rewards, how about awards.  It should appear next to the Rewards section.      mtew 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Things you gain during quests do not have a standarized mechanic, and so no standarised srection, and can usually be found in notes. If you wish to standarise our display of them, that would certainly be useful, but more work than you think. Firsat, you would have to review all quests in the game, so that any structure suits all cases. And I don't even think all that data is on the wiki, let alone structured. Backsword 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Good point about the mechanics.  In concrete terms, is that a suggestion that the section title be something like 'Acceptance and other awards'?  If I understand correctly, there are something more than 2,000 quests.  The quest review project has a (possibly incomplete) list of them, and with this addition, every one that is marked as rewards checked would need to be reviewed again.  It would probably be a good idea to add a new column to the quest check list template.  An alternative might be to accept an additional code value for the rewards column.  I've already had a 'go' at the pre-searing quests and would be willing to go over it again if there is a consensus that the additional guideline is appropriate.  It is definitely something that can not be done overnight or with a bot.  It is likely to take (many) months, but the quest review project has already taken many months and is not complete.      mtew 20:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm.  I'll put the alternate mark idea in quest infobox discussion.      mtew 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually think calling them "Rewards" to be slightly strange as well, since well, it just feels strange to be rewarded with something for just accepting a quest. Why not label that optional section something more generic, like "Upon acceptance"? Or "On acquisition"? That way, it can be used for more than just the skills and items. -- ab.er.rant 01:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about 'Acceptance and other awards'?      mtew 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Award" isn't exactly much different from "reward". The meaning carried by both words is what the other users and I don't think to be appropriate. These skills and items are more akin to "aid" or "tool", a physical "advice" or "tip" if you get my meaning, and not as pre-payment or pre-reward of sorts. -- ab.er.rant 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the term 'benefits' appropriate?      mtew 11:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Can I ask what's the purpose of {{tl|Guideline item}}? What's a "content review report"? -- ab.er.rant 01:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a DPL do-jiggy to make content projects easier to manage.  I'm going to put the beast together and see if I can make it work.  It goes something like this:

1. Put guideline status information in each quest or on its discussion page.
2. Get a list of all the campaigns and extensions built into a sequence of templates using subst:#dpl
3. Get a list of all the regions in each of those, again using subst:#dpl
4. Get a list of the parameters and headers for each of those from the Guideline items, again using subst:#dpl
5. That should be able to build the report on the quests in each region, again using #dpl

If I get it done right, it should be able to track all the stuff in a project, including all the sign-offs and other administrivia.  Once I've got a baseline version, we can all fiddle with it until it feels right.  It should be usable with anything that uses formatting guidelines.      mtew 03:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Progress: I have a template that does items 2 and 3.  I haven't touched 4.  I have gotten an example from Tedium and implemented it using the framework.  It is a lash-up that shows how item 5 might look, but is only partially functional. 

Request: May I add the following to the guideline?

• An optional section just before the 'Rewards' section titled 'Early Benefits'?
• An optional section just after the 'Rewards' section titled 'Environment changes'?

mtew 10:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about "Pre-Benefits"? Or just benefits? Or... never mind I guess. "Early" feels odd, but don't feel too strongly about it. For the benefit of those not familiar with quest pages, err... what's supposed to go into "Environment changes"? Also... since there's really not many users actively interested in the quest guidelines, you can pretty much throw them in and do a couple of trial changes and see if they can get more people interested. -- ab.er.rant 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.  That sounds like a plan.  I'll do that.        mtew 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Quest grouping

I've always thought it to be a bit odd that we on't document one of the most obvious traits of a quest; which quest log section it ends up in. Often, this can be derived from things we do document, but not always, and even when one can, should one have to? I relise it may be a hassel to update evey quest, but I do think it is something we should start documenting. Backsword 00:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming that this information is not available. From what I have seen, Primary quests appear in their own section, Secondary quests appear in other sections and some activities that need the same documentation as quests do not appear in the log at all. mtew 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Would this be more appropriate on the Quest log, since it's the quest log that organizes them? --JonTheMon 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The log must organise them by same data. Backsword 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually curious to know what that information would even be useful for. As such, I don't really care how or where it gets documented if it does. Misery 16:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Most info on the wiki is never needed by most players. And people may just be curious. Mostly I think it would help in reverse: by making people able to find them on limited info. Backsword 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there some official term for this. Or standard community phrase? 'Section' 'Group'? Backsword 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Might aswell just call it region, as the quests are organised by region. Sounds a bit off though. — Why 18:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But "primary" and "festival event" aren't regions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Quest log section"? poke | talk 14:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Zquests

With the update to the QI, we have only one issue with these: They all use very simple names. Almost every one will need a disabiguator, and almost everything in the game may have one. SO, are we going to solve this by simple otheruses, and a disambiguated name for the quests? Perhaps we should modify the infoboxes for those things that have zquests? Or at least, we can make a special otheruses template for zquests otheruse? Also, we should pick a standarised disabiguator for the qyest articles. Backsword 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea of a zquest otheruse template. Since zquests use the missions as part of their own conditions, maybe we could create a new infobox/category to clasify them on their own also. On naming, maybe something easy like "Quest name (Zaishen Mission)" can do it?--Fighterdoken 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be preferable to use the same disabiguator for all the quests, so we can sssume one in any template. Not so sure what it would be. I hope there can be one we can settle on soon, since if there are many to change it becomes a pain. I think I'll use (zq) for now, since it's short. Backsword 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

→ moved from Template talk:Location disambiguation

IMO we should add a zaishen quest parameter, which automatically links to [[{{pagename}} (Zaishen quest)]] if true. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Not everything needs, nor should it, go in the same template. See RfC for the otiginal discussion. Backsword 14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the location disambiguation template may be more appropriate. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, since it's the same instance for location purposes. {{Otheruses}} maybe, but that may just be too much filling at the top of the page, so probably Gordon's first idea is not that bad after all. Just add a small icon/link at the top of the infobox (next to the name?) pointing to the respective zmision.--Fighterdoken 06:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO it would be simpler and cleaner to use one template to handle all the disambiguation instead of giving every mission, mission outpost and mission explorable area article a second disambig tag for the quest it shares a name with. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean with the location diambig, it would be annoying with two disambig notes on the top of a page. Otoh, I wouldn't like us to use a variety of templates for the same task. Backsword 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't been following this convo that closely up until now and don't really have much to add to it, I was just wondering Backsword if you were referring to two disambig notes as shown on this article? --Kakarot 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that looks good. One or two cases here an there is ok, but not 60 articles or so. Backsword 19:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Anyway, I've moved this discussion, as it was getting off-topic for the old page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving again, as to keep stuff in one spot. Backsword 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Icons versus links

For quests with gold and/or zcoin rewards, should we use the templates or links?

Templates

500

50

Links

500 Gold

50 Copper Zaishen Coins

~Shard 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with text --Riddle 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I could care less as long as all pages are uniform. And as long as everybody can understand it. With text it cannot be misunderstood. With the icon some people may not understand it. DrogoBoffin 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Drogo; I'd rather just have the pages be uniform, but I like the text more. It's clearer. Elysea 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like the icons, I'd say the text is definitely a lot clearer, especially considering the possibility of someone viewing the page without images turned on. ~Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of consistency, I think almost all other quests use text (based on a quick check). Personally, I like the text more, though you could put both in for redundancy and double the fun. --67.240.83.137 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Text plz. --JonTheMon 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the text version, alone because we are talking about the rewards section and I would like to see the original text quoted from the quest log there. And in-game, text is used. poke | talk 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also prefer to quote the quest text accurately. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Text, agree with Poke and Gordon, these should follow the game, I also agree with the others in that the text is much easier to read. Freedom Bound 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We document the game as it is, not as some might want it to be. This could all be easily solved by an ingame screenshot. Backsword 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with documenting the game. Text. --mira castillo 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course in game it's text, although technically it says "Zaishen Copper Coins" not "Copper Zaishen Coins." --67.240.83.137 15:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with text partially because it's clearer but mostly because that's what the quest log, the accept quest and the accept reward use. The "Copper Zaishen Coins"/"Zaishen Copper Coins" is quite annoying as it says "Zaishen Copper Coins" in in the quest log and the Zaishen [Metal] order is used at the collectors but it's "Copper Zaishen Coins" when talking to the flags (taking the quest) and Zehnchu (collecting the reward) and in the inventory. I'd prefer "Copper Zaishen Coins" because that is the name of the item you actually recieve and is used more often (flag, Zehnchu and inventory to just the quest log). Etienne 09:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And the actual decision is precisely what? -Drakora 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as most of us agree on text and Zaishen Challenge Quest/bounty preload and Zaishen_Challenge_Quest/mission_preload both have the text, I'd say text is the standard. --JonTheMon 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm down with text. Next call to order is: Should it be Zaishen Copper Coins or Copper Zaishen Coins? My opinion favors Copper Zaishen Coins for the same reasons Etienne mentions -Drakora 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use [[Copper Zaishen Coin|Zaishen Copper Coins]]{{sic}} to match the in-game quest description. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon. By the magic of link targets, we can have both. Backsword 09:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the Z-quests that give allegiance faction be pointed to Faction pages or to the Allegiance title? -Drakora 22:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should link to the faction pages, since they award faction points, unlike the books, which directly award title points. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Zaishen quests reward objective

After making this edit, I noticed that lamost no zquests list it, so it's abcense was not be chance. However, I rember no discussion on this. When and why was it decided to not list these objective? It is inconsitent with all other quests. I prsume there is a reason for doing zqs difrently? Else I'd prefer if we were consitant and removed it from all quests. Backsword 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think given that most if not all zquest pages are created when they were given out, nobody was just able to see that line, so it wasn't added. Feel free to change the premade though to include that line. poke | talk 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just that we forgot to put it in the preload pages. - Tanetris 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Profession specific quests

It had been my intent, based on the earlier discussion and consensus reached concerning the addition of profession glyphs to locations (see Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Locations#Profession specific quests), that the same principle be applied to the quests themselves. However, I did not formally and explicitly make that proposal, nor did I post a link here for the benefit of those only following this discussion page and not the locations page. I therefore rectify that situation now by formally proposing that all profession-specific quests include a glyph or glyphs illustrating the requirement(s).

I also propose that parameters be added to the quest infobox (as illustrated by User:DryHumour/Sandbox/Quest infobox) to allow the information either to be displayed there; or in the DPL quest tables (e.g. List of Prophecies quests); or both.

Specifically, I propose that:

• the text description of any profession or nationality requirement be augmented with profession glyphs;
• the infobox have parameters added to it to allow both profession and nationality requirements to be documented;
• the infobox display the glyphs in rows for profession and nationality (with the rows omitted if not applicable); and
• the DPL quest tables have profession and nationality columns added.

The main purpose of these proposals is to present the user in a quick and highly visible form. The main audience would be new users as well as users who are attempting to systematically work through all of the quests.

I have mocked up an example, including the proposed template changes. --DryHumour 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of having the profession requirement be in the infobox or really see why we need it in List of Prophecies quests since there is List of skill quests. --JonTheMon 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should probably have linked List of skill quests as the example, since that is more germaine. I'm quite new to the game: are there any nationality specific quests which are not skill quests? If so, a nationality column might be worthwhile. Again, the audience would be folks like me: new players who want to try to do all of the quests at one time or another, so knowing up front what characters are necessary is quite handy. --DryHumour 01:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question: it looks like there are lots of non-skill, non-profession-specific quests which are nationality specific (e.g. Caravan in Trouble). A category would probably do the trick as well, if there was no desire to add the information to the DPL tables. --DryHumour 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at List of Prophecies quests, you'll see that all the areas before the port town (LA) are prophecies character only. --JonTheMon 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll wait and see what, if anything, others have to say before making a final proposal, but I'll probably withdraw the infobox display changes. It might be worth leaving the parameters there for future DPL purposes though. --DryHumour 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My input (FWIW): The Glyphs in the requirement section seem redundant, if not out of place. The "quick indicator to show information" train-of-thought isn't a bad one, and I'd be willing to compromise rather than "blaaaaghhh, remove!" I made a minor change to it, along the same lines you suggested on my talkpage. --Riddle 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Input, opinions, and criticism are always welcome. (I've updated the example so that reviewers can see all of the previously proposed versions side by side for easy comparison.) --DryHumour 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the example to reflect the criticism received so far, and my current proposal. I have left the infobox as-is for the time being, not because I discount or disagree with the criticism but simply because I felt it would be awkward to have examples of the infobox both with and without. (Just squint and pretend the rows aren't there ;-) I am still particularly interested in opinions concerning the infobox and the DPL tables. --DryHumour 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll expand my proposal a little bit more:

• I think something like as a visual cue is a little misleading. I see it as suggesting "you're a monk with no secondary profession." This is why I didn't have the "no-secondary" glyph.
• If I could I would have done {{ppri}} so it wouldn't come up with the link to Profession, as this seems to violate GWW:GENFORM to me. I guess I could have gone like:

• primary or...

• The "...have not committed to a secondary profession" was just my flavor of text. Nothing really important to that.

--Riddle 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wyn made a similar observation earlier about the potential to repeat links. I was hoping I might get away with it by pleading the lack of the necessary machinery for a template to detect if a link has already been made, but I think I'll just bite the bullet. When I get a moment I'll change the template so that it's possible to tell it not to link and perhaps to allow an arbitrary string to be passed.

(As an aside, although many wikis quite understandably have a first-link guideline, both the technology and the user interface paradigm conspire to make this rather awkward in practice. In addition to the difficulty created by transclusions, consider the section-by-section edit links: one can only easily see the current section, making it awkward to tell if a link has already been made in an earlier section. Even when one edits an entire page, it can be tedious on long pages to see whether a link has already been made and there is no automated help for users — consider, for example, Melee counter :-P. As a result I personally would tend towards a "first link in a section, providing of course that the sections are not extremely short". But that's a separate windmill altogether....)

For the structure and wording of the (non-)secondary, my intent was only to make the text portion as short as possible and to preserve some sort of visual indicator. I was hoping that the use of the conjunction "or" would make it clear – even at a casual glance – that the was part of a separate condition. I may not have succeeded on either count ;-) --DryHumour 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's been talk about modifying the general formatting guidelines regarding the first-link thingy as it's been observed that many articles don't follow that guideline and it's more of a per-logical-section thingy. So don't worry too much about that guideline.

I would like to offer some alternatives to what you're trying to accomplish - which is to place the profession and the character-campaign info on the infobox.

• Rather than having an additional "Profession" row, how about placing profession icons next to the type? As Riddle mentioned, that is not very intuitive, so I would opt not to indicate the no-sec-profession required (there are very few of those and only in the very early stages).
• Rather than an additional "Nationality" row, we could do something like what we do for the Master Difficulty quests. Put a "(Prophecies character only)" in the "Campaign" row. I don't think it'll be easy trying to pick intuitive icons that represent the 3 campaigns and the expansion.

-- ab.er.rant 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions! I do rather agree with all commentators concerning the non-intuitive nature of the icon choices (, , , ), and your infobox proposal makes good sense. Although I prefer icons to text in general, if they fail to adequately convey the meaning then obviously they're worse than useless. I'll update the example to take your and Riddle's input as soon as I get the chance. --DryHumour 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the example to implement the suggestions so far. Just for the sake of illustrating some possible variations, I have used {{pp}} in the older infobox; and I have put the "nationality" on the same line as the campaign. I have also added an example of a DPL table with a sortable professions column. As ab.er suggested, I have left {{ppri}} alone for the time being: the changes I mentioned are trivial to implement at any time should they be considered desirable. --DryHumour 03:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus (exhaustion?) seems to have been reached, but a last call for feedback is now being made. --DryHumour 02:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Accept / Decline / Ask

Was a consensus ever reached concerning the two earlier proposals? (They both seem to have petered out rather than have reached a final conclusion — although the project page continues to omit the icons, so that might have been the last word.) I ask because some quests use the icons, while others don't, and still others use both. Actually, every possible combination of icons, colour, text, and indentation seems to be represented in one place or another.... Perhaps a template is in order (with or without the icons)? --DryHumour 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would like to see is the indentation be a default 2 colons, as nesting it properly improves the flow. -- Wyn talk 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Go ahead and mod the template as needed. --DryHumour 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One other thing that it might be worthwhile for the template to deal with is nested dialogue trees (e.g. All for One and One for Justice). It would be nice if there were some (more) elegant way of representing them. --DryHumour 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

-sigh- Offer dialogue

Because discussing is so last year on this wiki... May i suggest changing the {{offer dialogue}} mention on the guideline from just template to subst:? Such dialogue is probably some of the first things new editors add on the wiki, so the less complicated the better (i mean, new editors love to eat }} marks).(Added) Ignore that, the template is not subst: friendly.--Fighterdoken 08:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Fighter, it is totally subst friendly, but it's also now been added on all of the prophecies and factions quests, and on a fair number of NF quests. -- Wyn talk 07:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not subst friendly. But actually I have no problem with this template to be used as it is. It's not that confusing and actually quite clear. poke | talk 07:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I subst it just fine in a sandbox page.. what are you talking about? -- Wyn talk 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I get it, it LOOKED fine when I subst and did a show preview... I bow to the masters.... -- Wyn talk 08:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it does use some logic to allow "empty" items to look reasonable, which makes it unsuitable for subst. --DryHumour 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, updating the formatting is easier if we don't use subst. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)