Talk:Zaishen Challenge Quest

Archive

---

April-May 2009
May-December 2009

Heroes *do* get xp from these

There was a note "*These quests only give experience to your character, not your heroes." which I removed because my heroes level up when I accept zquest rewards. I tested with zbounty & zmission; to be absolutely thorough, please help me test with zcombat.--War_Pig5 05:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the Zaishen Combat quests reward experience. --Silver Edge 08:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Either some nice bug or you happened to level your heroes some other time and didn't notice it. Mediggo 08:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a couple days ago one of my (lower level) heroes leveled after I turned in a ZQ. (I don't remember which one) Perhaps there is a level cap because I tried this a while ago with a fresh hero and it definitely didn't level up. Or there's a bug or they changed it? — Rith 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never had trouble leveling heroes with Z-mish or Z-bounty. Of course, it's hard to tell how much xp a particular hero has when you turn in the quest.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The first time, I tried with a new hero, so it should have had no experience. If they get the same amount of experience from quests and have the same leveling system as players, then I'm sure that it didn't work for me that time. — Rith 19:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comfirmed, my Zhed leveled up from 19 to 20 from accepting the rewards to Z quests (screenshots in the links). --Silver Edge 11:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there was a bug concerning heroes and experience from Zaishen Challenge Quests that was fixed in Feedback:Game updates/20100118. --Silver Edge 09:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Zquest is not available when the same one was completed yesterday

24 hours ago I completed a certain zmission that I had in my log since the last cycle and accepted the reward. Now, that same zmission is not available to me at the zmission signpost. (I had an empty zmission slot, of course.) I'd like to gather more data on this phenomenon for further research. --War_Pig5 06:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

had the same problem....I had arbor earthcall in my log until 3 days ago...I finished it on a few characters (turned in the reward--3days ago) and when he came up again 1 day ago---I was not able to get the quest! I also had a few characters that had finished the quest the day before arbor came up again, they werent able to get the new one for him either. Not sure what's going on with this Cosyfiep 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

did you retrieve rewards when quest had been offered again already ? Notes are saying you can't get quest again if you still have it in your quest log (whether you completed earlier or not). Elephant 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just got ripped off of the 3 silver coins from Imperial Sanctum. Turned it in some 3-5 days ago. You guys think it works like the decaying flag on the treasure chests? Complete it ~30 days ago and you can't take it again? -- JadeWarrior 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reduction of unnecessary editing

See Talk:Main_Page/activities#An_Idea. --Itay Alon 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Predictions

There has recently been an edit war conflict on whether to include a few days of predictions to the list. A couple of benefits of this are that users can check what's going to be featured the next day or the day after that and that users don't have to be on the gun at 1600 UTC to update the list. Some downsides are that the predictions might change, and that people tend to only look at the top of a list to see what the daily quests are.

I don't believe those negatives are enough to warrant removal of a few days of predictions. The predictions are pretty stable, and with only a few days listed, any changes by ANet due to an update will be corrected quickly and won't affect things for long. Poke's change to the line coloring would address the second issue (look for the green line). --JonTheMon 21:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. — Why 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd first prefer to see if poke can come up with any ideas for a better display method... I saw him mention something about pulling the data from other tables but I didn't quite get the specifics... I'd also like to see a consensus first on how far ahead the predictions should be displayed. I personally see no reason for more than 3 days ahead (I didn't like the latest attempt). --ilr 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like knowing what's ahead, so I can plan accordingly. I'd rather not have to check both this page and the prediction page every day. Please keep predictions on this page in some manner.

I also don't know how useful seeing the previous weeks' zquests are, I can't take them anymore, so why would I need to see what I can't get for the longest period of time? Manifold 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think 3 days would be sufficient. It isn't too many, but it does give tomorrow, the day after, and 1 buffer day. --JonTheMon 13:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Question(s): Based on my previous ideas with these tables, let me ask some questions. How many days do you want to see, what is exactly useful? How far do you want to see in the future and how many do you want to see from the past? Do you still need the Zaishen Coin sum (I doubt anyone was able to do every ZQuest since release..), and do you actually even need the ZCoin display at all? poke | talk 18:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Zcoin display: Rarely even look at them, and wouldn't need them at all If these - Two pages were merged or swapped and their link more clearly hinted at Z-coin info... hth --ilr 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see perhaps two weeks in the future, and the current quests. I don't need anything from the past, but the previous day would be fine. I don't need the day's coin total, but I like seeing the individual coin totals even if I already have a basic idea of what they are by now. Manifold 19:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think 3 days in the future would be fine, since 2 weeks would push the current day down too far. One option that would be neat to have would be rows that hid themselves if they were too old/too far in the future. Like, an automatic archiving/predicting, but using a lot of hidden data. --JonTheMon 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

7 days, imo, and the page would get updated on Monday. - Reanimated X 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is a quick layout of what I was planning. The table will be fully automated, displaying always two (or any number) quests of the past, the current quests and 10 predictions. There will be no update needed (except when the cycle changes) and the Main page will receive the information in a similar way.

Further all archives or tables we have will be trashed. Instead of archiving every day, we will consider the fact that the quests are cycled and only document the cycles. So when a cycle changes, we simply archive that one and document when it was in use. In addition, we can easily put a calendar-like table to the side of the cycle (as shown in the second section of the link), where one can (more or less) easily look up which quest was active on what day. poke | talk 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't suppose I could request some thin vert borders in the table format? ...sandwiching the current day to make it stand out a bit better from the predicted ones? ...lemme know if I'm being too picky :p... --ilr 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I say yes, we need to update it, because doing nothing will change... nothing. --Itay Alon 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Any progress on automating this? Manifold 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Team Arena quest

Still shows up in the log but doesn't take up a "space":

Might be worth noting? --Gah_ 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Hero Battles, for what it's worth. Manifold 17:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Its probably since those arenas have been removed, they no longer effect your questlog cap. No idea why someone would hang onto a unneeded quest like that, but it might be worth noting it for documentation purposes.--Neithan Diniem 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Have people stopped bothering?

Hasn't been updated in 2 days. Or does it expect us to just look at the predictions?-- anguard 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess most people don't worry with this page since the main page is being updated.-- Pyron Sy 20:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i look here quite often, to see what come next and to plan accordingly, especially when looking to clean up missing bonuses from missions or when i can't do every quest, so i know wether i want to give up and accept the new one, or forgo the new and do the old later. Aurion 22:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

New table format

Why does the new table format show the past 3 days? How many people have a reason to need that information? All past information should be shown on an archive page that shows things that have occurred in the past. This is how every other page works. A change like this is normally done after discussing it. Where is the discussion of this change? --24.45.47.32 18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this was discussed somewhere, at least briefly, but I can't find it. Anyway, I'm fine with it as it is. The main reason this sort of stuff isn't discussed to great length before it is implemented is that there are (this is a wild guess) about four people on this wiki who know how this works to its fullest extent, of which poke is the only one actively involving himself in the matter. Since we can't really come to a broad consensus when we don't understand how things work, it's way easier to discuss these things after an example has been made. — Why 19:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed here and I didn't like having previous day's quests either. Manifold 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion of past quests there. All I see there is a discussion about adding the predictions.--24.45.47.32 03:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does the new table list the wrong date for today's quests (I assume all other dates are off also)? Shows August 16th for quests available on 15th: Ruins of Surmia, Duncan the Black, Fort Aspenwood. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.222.240.210 (talk) at 05:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

See Talk:Daily activities, I'm working on it. poke | talk 06:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Daily activities seems to have been fixed due to a recent change, and I made a similar change to this article.--War_Pig5 12:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Weekend Events

Do they synchronise the weekend events and zquests? Because this weekend is Codex Arena weekend... And it would be awesome to take the Codex Arena zQuest too then... [[Xzabre]] 10:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Weekend events are on a predictable cycle and zquests are on another. Given how few choices there are for zaishen combat quests, it's inevitable that weekend events are going to overlap.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fairly new to GW so looking for Information.

I've only been playing GW for a few months and only recently discovered the Zaishen Missions, Bounties etc. So. Could anyone explain to me if I Take a Zaishen Mission or bounty quest. Do I have to complete it and hand it in before the quest changes the next day to be able to take the following days quest? Or would I be right to assume that as I can have 3 Zaishen quests active at a time I could still get the following days quest even if I have not completed or handed in the previous days quest. I ask this because I used to play World of Warcraft where Daily quests once reset are no longer available. Tho You can hand in a daily quest the following day you are then not able to take the quest for that day. --92.18.235.81 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

you're only able to accept the quests @ one day.. but you're able to complete it and get your reward whenever you want. --The Holy Dragons 14:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Once the quest is in your log, you can complete it at any time. The only thing that would prevent you from taking the next day's quest would be if you reached the 3 quest limit. Also, the limit is only for that type of quest. So you can have 3 missions, 3 bounties, and 3 combat quests in your log at the same time. The only quests that have expiration dates are festival quests, which are removed at the end of the celebration.-- Pyron Sy 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That information can already be found on the Zaishen Challenge Quest page: "Please note that, although you can finish them whenever you like, your Quest Log can only hold up to three of each type of Zaishen Challenge Quests." --Silver Edge 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. --92.18.234.157 11:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

the table

Zaishen vanquishes need to be added to the table... someone who is more wiki skilled then i should add it.- Zesbeer 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Augury instead of Riverside?

-> Can this new update be the reason why yesterday's/today mission was augury rock instead of riverside province? It can still be taken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.16.204.17 (talk • contribs) at 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Out of alignment

The zaishen quests are out of alignment. Today is the 5th, and the zquests listed for today happened yesterday, and today's are listed for tomorrow. --Musha 05:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, looks like Zaishen Vanquish will give out variable coin amounts. Today's is only 50 coins.NachosWitCheese 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

0 Coins for Vanquish

-> The table is displaying 0 coins for yesterday and todays vanquishes in the table. I don't know how to fix it but someone needs to. Bobius 17:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Try refreshing the cache. (You can find a link to do that here).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For me it also shows zeros for yesterday and today 74 + 70 + 175 + 0 = 319 and 100 + 70 + 350 + 0 = 520 - I've purged both this article page, as well as the Daily Activities. 66.170.212.17 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fairly certain I fixed it. The values weren't set for the two most recent vanquish variables. -- FreedomBound 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, all in place now :) thanks 66.170.212.17 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FB (nice detective work!)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Moving

For naming consistency since Zaishen quest currently overlaps (and vaque) due to vanquish, similar to Costume Brawl disguise and others. --Falconeye 20:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Example(s)

• Zen Daijun (Zaishen quest) —> Zen Daijun (Zaishen Mission quest) <or> Zen Daijun (Zaishen mission)
• Fendi Nin (Zaishen quest) —> Fendi Nin (Zaishen Bounty quest) <or> Fendi Nin (Zaishen bounty)
• Fort Aspenwood (Zaishen quest) —> Fort Aspenwood (Zaishen Combat quest) <or> Fort Aspenwood (Zaishen combat)
• Traveler's Vale (Zaishen vanquish) —> Traveler's Vale (Zaishen Vanquish quest) <or> Traveler's Vale (Zaishen vanquish)

I'm against this. There's no Zen Daijun (Zaishen Bounty quest). For those cases in which explorables have the same name as an associated mission, the current convention already distinguishes them just fine: Raisu Palace (Zaishen vanquish) is unlikely to be confused with Raisu Palace (Zaishen quest) (since quest and mission are incorrectly, but commonly used by players to mean the same type of thing).

If we are worried about naming confusing, a simpler (and less labor-intensive) solution would be to rename only the missions to e.g. Raisu Palace (Zaishen mission). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

i see the reasoning behind changing it but don't care enough either way.- Zesbeer 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the renaming to mission|bounty|combat|vanquish (no "quest" at the end) makes sense. The only problem might be if someone manually enters "_______ (Zaishen quest)" into the search box and nothing comes up, but I don't think that's likely to happen often. As long as all the links point somewhere sensible, it should be fine. -- Hong 08:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am strongly against this! Only mission and VQ would be confusable, and even then, looking into the quest description itself would remove that confusion. ~Gilliam Bluestaff, Legendary Guardian 22:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm against moving these pages. We try to keep the disambigs as simple as possible, and Zaishen Quest is a very simple classification for the quests. --JonTheMon 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As this has bogged down, I think this should move back to the previous status quo. --JonTheMon 14:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I could of sworn I made a comment to this a couple days ago. I am against the bounty and combat moves as per others, but I am pro the mission moves if and only if they have a vanquish equivalent. It's not necessary by any means, but nor is Traveler's Vale (Zaishen vanquish) or any non-mission explorable having "vanquish" at the end. I'd argue that if we revert the moves, then we should also move the non-mission explorable vanquish quests to a generic-named article. In fact, I propose that either way. In other words, Traveler's Vale (Zaishen vanquish) gets moved to [[Traveler's Vale (Zaishen quest)]] while Arborstone (Zaishen vanquish) remains in place and Arborstone (Zaishen quest) gets moved to [[Arborstone (Zaishen mission)]]. Konig/talk 06:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's even worse than the initial proposal. It isn't predictable or consistent in any way. --JonTheMon 14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Jon: let's stick with a consistent convention (we either accept that ZQuest means the mish and not the VQ...or we rename them all). If it's easy for the admins, I'd like to see us return to the original status quo pending an actual consensus that there's a problem that needs to be resolved. If there is an issue, let's agree on a solution before implementing it. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of what is being discussed here Ive deliberated for months even before the introduction of vanquish (which I knew was inevitable) up until now; the logical conclusion in order to maintain consistencey is to we rename them all, using either of the above proposals. All are Zaishen Quests, all have that in common. --Falconeye 19:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the change; the proposed naming is consistent with what the quest givers are named, so it makes sense to me to follow that naming scheme.Zohane Trueaim 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The thing is, unless there's need to differentiate them, they shouldn't be. As such, only missions and vanquishes - and only some at that - need differentiating. @Jon: It is predictable and consistent, in fact. As I said, they're the sole cases of shared-name zaishen quests, so they need to be differentiated somehow. Likewise, it's predictable because it's only Factions missions that suffer this (the only unpredictable-ness is that it is exempt from 1 mission). It's literally 12 missions requiring being changed to "Zaishen mission." It is consistent in that whenever we have multiples of something, those in parentheses are as specific as possible (e.g., Merchant (A New Escort) rather than "Merchant (quest)" when there's multiple NPCs named "Merchant"), and this case that'd be Zaishen mission. There's no to little need for renaming bounty or combat, though it won't hurt, but mission could certainly use such - whether its some or all is, imo, what's up to debate. Konig/talk 22:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If some missions are named "<Mission> (Zaishen Mission)" and some are named "<Mission> (Zaishen quest)", then a lot of scripts will break. Look at Main Page/activities, for example. All quests of the same type MUST have the same suffix. Keeping "Zaishen quest" for missions and bounties and "Zaishen vanquish" for the vanquishes works fine and resolves all problems.

We might further differentiate between "Zaishen mission" and "Zaishen bounty" instead of keeping both at "Zaishen quest", but since that doesn't resolve any ambiguities, I don't think it's worth doing the work and cleaning up the fallout. Tub 13:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More on moving/renaming

(Reset indent) Alright, I read/re-read this, and as per usual there is merit for both sides. My own questions are below.

• We can change them all back to Z-quest, and differentiate only when necessary.
  • Maintains the consistency of what we have done so far. Lacks preciseness.
  1. Will this impact any templates?
  2. Will this include changing the Z-vanquish set to become Z-quests?
• We differentiate the quests.
  • Adds preciseness to the title, which may be superfluous.
  1. Will this affect any templates?
  2. Who would be willing to make all those moves, edit all the other pages so that the redirects are no longer being used, and tag the redirects for deletion (as having all of those in the search bar would be a pointless hindrance).

G R E E N E R 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use Zaishen quest at all. It would cause confusion far more than anyone might realize. I saw Zaishen quest for the bounties, missions, etc. when I was thinking why the same ending name? people may run across it and not realize which it's for by the name, unless they read the article. Hence, we should rename everything to it's proper naming. Yes, everything is a Zaishen quest, but that's not what the signposts are. Is it? Is this accurate? No.

This is what I think... We rename the following as per in game naming. Isn't that suppose to be how we document?

• [[Mission Name (Zaishen quest)]] —> [[Mission Name (Zaishen mission)]] It's a Zaishen Mission, not a quest.
• [[Bounty Name (Zaishen quest)]] -> [[Bounty Name (Zaishen bounty)]] It's a Zaishen Bounty, not a quest.
• [[Combat Name (Zaishen quest)]] -> [[Combat Name (Zaishen combat)]] It's a Zaishen Combat, not a quest.
• [[Vanquish Name (Zaishen quest)]] -> [[Vanquish Name (Zaishen vanquish)]] It's a Zaishen Vanquish, not a quest.

Why are we thinking Quest in the first place? because that's how they appear in general, but that's not really what they are... Simple. Any questions? objections? Support? Kaisha 18:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I object on the grounds that using the simplest and broadest disambiguation (Zaishen quest) is the easiest to understand and use (templates and such). --JonTheMon 18:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to see why bounty and combat need differentiating. They are quests, so honestly we could remove "Zaishen" from them completely, truth be told. We only specify when we need to. Konig/talk 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite that all these others could use "templates"? Things that can easily be edited and fixed? It's the easiest to understand, because we make it that way, but it's not what they are... We go to the sign posts to get them, don't we? We go to Zaishen Bounty for the bounties, Zaishen Combat for the combats, Zaishen Mission for the missions, Zaishen Vanquish for the vqs. So why can't we just have the actual quests to fit to where they come from? where they're actually gotten at? It's a poor excuse, just because we already use them this way or have templates, etc. and that they're "easy"... I'm just saying that I think we should stick to what we have always done, try to be accurate, instead of what's "easy". We should have the Zashien, because of the posts, etc. it'd help players to better understand their quests and where they're from. We specify not when we need to, but what we need to specify. Kaisha 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem we are trying to solve by renaming over a hundred articles? (Not to mention updating lists, categories, and recrafting more than a few templates.) There's a tiny bit of confusion because the names of so many quests & locations in GW are similar (mostly to do with ANet's lack of creativity in naming things), but I don't think it's worth going to all that effort to alleviate it, since much of any navigation confusion would be resolved by simplifying the {{location disambiguation}} template.

I wish we had originally followed the naming convention proposed above (by Kaisha as well as others): it's more consistent, more predictable, and more extensible. But I feel that the effort to do so now (and the risk of error) far outweighs the small benefit. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You can solve the error by doing them in sandbox first, noting what ones are z-quests that needs changing and note what would be redirect to that page to fix the redirects. The effort would be a bigger and better benefit for many that use it, even in game. I was looking at the quest log. Everything that's a heading has quests behind it, but they don't have them on here.(to those that have subs to them like (mission), (explorable), etc.), because they're more accurate as to what they are... These that have zashien quests, sadly are not accurate as to what they are. Kaisha 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When the effort is one-time and creates a new consistency in the case of future Zaishen quests (we now know that they could add more - whether of the existing kinds or a new kind), it'd be best to change to the best solution. Whether that best is "basic consistency" or "specific consistency" is the question, imo (I am of the former, Kaisha and Falconeye are of the later - that is, basic="quest" except where needed; specific="Zaishen <type>"). Effort over benefit isn't an issue so long as there are people willing to put the effort in it. Konig/talk 01:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Restarted discussion

(Reset indent) Ok, back to this, since we have some quests that are renamed and some that aren't, what is the decision? I'm inclined to side with the status quo and leave it as ZQuest for the majority. --JonTheMon 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a lot of agreement on the topic. Let me try to restate the choices.

1. Overhaul by moving 120+ articles from their current names to something consistent with their location in the quest log, e.g. Zaishen bounty
2. Keeping things consistent by tagging all Z-challenges (except VQs) as Zaishen quest; requires restoring 4 articles
3. Other (not covered above)

Section (of quest log)	Current names	(1) Overhaul suggestion	(2) Alternative suggestion	notes
Zaishen Combat quests	Zaishen combat	(already moved)	Zaishen quest (i.e. restore old name)	Articles already moved, prior to consensus
Zaishen Mission quests	Zaishen quest	Zaishen mission
Zaishen Bounty quests	Zaishen quest	Zaishen bounty
Zaishen Vanquish quests	Zaishen vanquish	none	none

I'm still of the mind that naming everything Zaishen quest was fine and that there's no necessity of moving articles at the present time. There are other janitorial jobs that need doing here; I see no need for this one to take precedence.

Having said that, I'm willing to withdraw my objection if (a) someone can present an argument for why the articles need to be changed and (b) if at least one person in favor of moving 120 articles volunteers to ensure that all the articles are moved and that they will double check all the links/templates/transclusions/dpl'd tables to make sure that everything that works now is working later. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

so would you say we should revert the pages that have been changed for constancy?- Zesbeer 02:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is in my opinion that combat and bounty should keep/return to the Zaishen quest format - there is at least one bounty that was moved BTW. The missions and vanquishes is all that really need to be discussed and I am on the fence regarding them, but leaning to renaming the mission ones (less than 69 moves as Falconeye moved some already) for sake of clarity. It isn't a needed move, but then again, a lot of things that improve the wiki are not needed (to clarify, I'm not saying my stance will undoubtedly better the wiki, though I think it does more good than harm once the effort is put in to move and to fixing links). Konig/talk 03:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Falconeye volenteers to be the obsessive-compulsive person in favor of moving 120 articles volunteers to ensure that all the articles are moved... I currently have fewer things to do and have predicted ZV months before it was implemented. Argument for "Request for Moving" is grouping disambiguation pages that are associated with each other and allow ready adaptation for any forseeable updates. (I failed debate class so; I'm sure I meant better). On a related subject, how should we handle Konig's theoretical "Zaishen Mode" idea for Hard Mode-only quest versions of the Zaishen Challenge Quests, if implemented (or rather when its implemented). --Falconeye 07:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care which suffix they use, but I DO care that a change, if done at all, is done right. Creating a situation where we're using a mix of articles and redirects is not an improvement over clearly named and linked articles without redirects, even with a suboptimal suffix.

In other words, just clicking "move" 120 times is not sufficient. We need to do proper moves that don't leave redirects behind. Here's a rough task list:

• Move all articles to their new names
• Check "What links here" on each created redirect and adjust the links. This may include the location disambiguation on all related articles (unless this is finalized first, which seems to wait for this.)
• (optional) notify other wikis to adjust their inter-wiki links. (e.g. guildwiki.de contains links at the upper right).
• Find and adjust all templates linking to zaishen articles, i.e. the daily activities. Again, since some of these are protected, get support from someone who CAN adjust them BEFORE doing any moves.
• After 1-2 weeks, when everyone had time to adjust (other wikis, search engines, ..), delete all the redirects. Again, make sure to have support from an admin BEFORE doing any moves, since this is quite a timesink, too.

Doing any less than that will yield a situation that's IMHO far less desirable than the current situation of having a slightly disagreeable suffix. The search box will offer excessive suggestions (see also here), the google rank of our articles will drop (compared to similar articles of other wikis) and we'll have a huge mess of inconsistent links. In other words, to get my support for this move, I want to see a volunteer's name next to each task and a well-researched list of all templates that are affected by the change and a rough estimate of the amount of edits needed to adjust the links. If that can't be done, I strongly suggest not to create a mess to adjust a suffix that causes no actual problems at the moment.

.

As for my involvement, I wish to abstain from any major timesinks for changes I'm only mildly interested in. Feel free to ask me about minor template changes, but no more.

.

On that topic, since some edits have been done prior to consensus, I propose a deadline of, say, end of october, to get consensus, do the required research and assemble a krewe. If it isn't done by then, we should revert all the premature edits to get back to a clean, consistent system without unneeded redirects. That won't prevent doing the change at a later time, but it'll make sure that the current mess isn't suffered forever due to an ongoing discussion. Tub 12:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring Falconeye's last sentence as it is 100% irrelevant to this discussion) Well regarding moving and redirects, I'd be willing to do that for zmissions only - and of course to return zcombat back to how they were (a total of 75 pages - 9 combat, 66 mission (as 3 missions were moved)) - depending on the time of day it's done (I can't be on late at night like I used to when I did large numbers of edits (since the RC is never active at that time otherwise)). Regarding Falconeye's whole "prepare for the future" mentality - that's a poor position of attacking the matter as we have no clue how the Live Team intends to continue the zquests (if they even do or will). We simply alter things as we get new stuff. Konig/talk 17:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I support Tub's proposal: if this isn't resolved by 31 October, we roll back to the original state and drop the topic until/unless ANet adds more Zaishen quests. I also agree with Tub that, if we go forward, someone — with the trust of the community — needs to take responsibility for riding herd on the project and ensuring that someone has completed the relevant pre-move research before any moves; that the actual moves are completed; and that all post-move clean-up is completed (including tagging remnants and excessive redirects for deletion). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The "end of october" deadline has passed, and this isn't going anywhere. Time to revert.

With a quick search, I've found that Arborstone (Zaishen mission), Raisu Palace (Zaishen mission), Zen Daijun (Zaishen mission), and all the PvP quests still remain. There may be more, maybe someone who did the premature moves can provide a list.

I don't really know how to do page moves properly. Any volunteers for the cleanup? Tub 13:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be done. I think I've gotten the cleanup done, but I may have missed one or two links. --JonTheMon 14:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Huge thanks for that! You missed the redirect at Raisu Palace (Zaishen mission), though. I've gone ahead and removed the move templates that were present in some of the articles; other than that I think we're done. Tub 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted that one as well then. --JonTheMon 15:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for making it happen. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects reveiled a couple of broken redirects in the gamelinks, since they had already been adjusted by someone who visited Special:DoubleRedirects. I've fixed those, and a couple of other fixable redirects while I was at it.

There doesn't seem to be a tool that lists redlinks, so here's hoping that Jon already checked those prior to deletion :) Tub 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So, funny thing, I checked "what links here" for those pages before deleting them. And guess what, the game links didn't show up..... :-/ I'll go back through wanted pages at some point to double check. --JonTheMon 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's called Wanted Pages. Good to know.

"What links here" doesn't show redirects, but they're fixed now. The only remaining links I see are in user pages and from List of Core quests and List of repeatable quests, which don't actually link to the deleted pages any more. Fingers crossed that we're done now. Tub 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

""What links here" doesn't show redirects" Actually it can. Though I think in preferences you can set it to default not showing them (along with what mainspace to show them - which I think might have been Jon's situation as game links aren't mainspace). Konig/talk 18:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By default, I have "what links here" show all namespaces and hide nothing. In fact, Special:WhatLinksHere/Jade_Quarry_(Zaishen_quest) doesn't show the updated redirect, even though you just changed it. --JonTheMon 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's.... interesting indeed. Even with links hidden and Game Link-space only shown, it doesn't show. Peculiar. Konig/talk 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)