Template talk:Norn bounty dialogue

Purpose

The purpose of this dialogue template is to format the Norn dialogue in use on many of the NPC pages. It transcludes another smaller template that can be used on the Collector dialogue. 42 - talk 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Flexibility

(Continuing the thread with began on User talk:DryHumour#Take a look)

I would suggest avoiding coding headers into the dialogue itself – it will tend to reduce flexibility. Most folks will be working from a cut-n-paste of a sample page anyway, so that boilerplate will already be there, so there wouldn't likely be much more typing involved. --DryHumour 17:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion text line moved by User:42 from User talk:DryHumour on 11-17-2009

The visual size difference is taken from judgement on it while literally staring at the screen when that dialogue box is up and running in game. That was the closest (at 31 px) I could judge them to be in size difference in game to here. Will take a look again, ty for the help, you will get full credit for the heavy duty tweaking. 42 - talk 06:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Beojorn is not a good idea to use for a finished product example. Check my sandbox page linked above and scroll down to the bottom. Those examples (without the comment about the dialogue missin on the actual page) is what I am trying for for finished product. Matter of fact, right after leaving this will go change end example, will just put name above dialogue section heading, from that line down is how I am looking for. 42 - talk 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The first part of the text, the initial dialogue, and the actual dialogue line is the exact same as the norn collectors in the areas. Was thinking of making that be one template, that would be used on the collector pages, and then have the norn hunting party dialogue template call the other one, give the "text" specific to each char to the template frontend, and the bigger template would show the end result listed on the bottom of the page. Multiple calls to offer would work, but was hoping to hide them within the larger template with the small front end. That big template would be able to call the offer dialogue template since that work was already done, but since the text passed appears in 2 spots in the finished product, was wondering f it could be passed back so the end result shows 2 times from one entry of text from the editor. 42 - talk 06:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea of refactoring into two independently usable templates is probably a good one. (Again, I've never been to that area, so my grasp of the requirements is not very strong.) If I understand you properly, you want to "save" the result of an expanded template and emit it twice. If so, that's probably not really necessary (although I believe it is possible by making clever use of #vardefine and/or subst). The overhead of expanding the template is quite small, and the page results are cached so there's probably little need to worry too much about efficiency. Remember Knuth: Premature optimization is the root of all evil. --DryHumour 06:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-edited Beojorn to show desired end result. 42 - talk 07:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't so much an optimization issue as much as trying to make it so that the editor has to enter the 3 specific parts of text when using this template, and the template does the work to present that text in the desired end result. It is also to standardize the text so that all pages this applies to have the same look, since the "dialogue chain" is exactly the same for each of the ones this would be used on. The reason for the big template to call the little one is the same reason as using the offer dialogue template, the work is already done. That "initial dialogue" section is what the collectors a player would talk to say, and since that section is exactly the same for all norn this applies to, why not re-use the existing template (java mindset, why make the same exact code, when you can re-use exisiting). 42 - talk 07:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. There's no trouble nesting templates, even quite deeply, so you can just include them as you see fit. I've updated User:DryHumour/Sandbox/Norn bounty dialogue and added User:DryHumour/Sandbox/Norn collector dialogue. With reference to "make it so that the editor has to enter the 3 specific parts of text when using this template", I assume that you didn't mean "make it mandatory to enter all three parts"? A common usage scenario will likely be that any given user may not have all three parts of the text handy, but it is best to encourage people to enter at least what they have. (This comes up fairly often in quest dialogues, particularly with the "ask" text.) It is usually best to arrange it so that a missing piece of data has either has a reasonable default (even, e.g., "Missing" etc.) , or so that the template avoids the missing data altogether. --DryHumour 07:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There could be a default Missing text to be used if any of the sections are missing, and that would still show the format the way it would look, even without that. I have apparently not made it clear, the layout you are still working from seems to be incorrect. You have the idea of pulling the "collector" template into the main one, but the layout is still not there. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of my sandbox page, you will see the end design I am trying for on this. Also, on User:42/NornResDialogueTest, I now have "ideas" on a possible template coded with how I think I want it to work to have the end result work. I also have on the beginning, a "flowchart" of sorts to show the steps I think the template would do, and the "front end" of it. (I am not picky about the names, I wanted to make it specifically different so the names didn't get confuzed with offer dialogue names.)

Also on that, in the specific example dialogue template, I used the "names" in triple braces to show where I wanted them to go in the end result, if used in the multiple offer dialogue template calls. Sorry if this isn't clear. 42 - talk 07:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Also, the part on the sandbox underneath the parameters section shows an example without anything specific, just using the i-text acc-text and dec-text placeholders, the intended end result look. I have been looking at your example text, and I just had an idea, going to go test it out. Will let you know when done, so you can peruse my hack job, and let me know what you think. 42 - talk 07:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I totally understand what you're looking for, but I had another stab based on the examples at the end of User:42/NornResDialogueTest. (The details of the formatting I'll leave to you.) Since I've never seen the dialogues themselves in-game, I'm not too sure what the "secondary dialog" is for exactly, since it appears to be virtually the same as the "after defeat" dialog. I assume that's the bit you're interested in factoring out? If so, I probably wouldn't bother if I were you: it's probably overkill unless it's ever going to be used standalone like the "collector" part. Also, even if there's actually a distinction in-game – that revisits trigger the same dialog minus the line from the player – it doesn't really add much value on the wiki page: players will figure it out for themselves pretty quickly. (Although, again, I may be misunderstanding.) But if you really want to go ahead, it looks like you've got the hang of it and should be able to manage the necessary refactoring without any difficulty. As for myself, I definitely need some sleep! --DryHumour 08:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I have it licked, from your examples, and my own Irish descent bullheadedness. Check out User:42/Sandbox/NornNHPDialogue and User:42/Sandbox/NornInitDialogue to see what I mean.

The reason the text is the same, and needs to be presented seperately like that is because that is the text that happens every time you talk to that particular Norn, it isn't right off, and possibly could be left out, because you have to defeat them only once. The line of "how can I be a part of the hunt is done only once, after the very first time you defeat that particular Norn. Either way, check out those pages, and give me some feed back on them. I am calling it a night, it is well past my bed time. Thanks a lot for the help already. 42 - talk 08:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Let me know if I can be of any more help. --DryHumour 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if how I have my current "test bench" is set up to have it show a "default" text if the person didn't enter anything, and I don't know of any way else to "test" than to put it into production, and hammer out the kinks from that stage. I think, from reading the help template stuff on metawiki that I have it so it will work, gonna check once more to see. 42 - talk 16:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual way to test templates is to have a <noinclude> section on the template page containing an example (like the "Ogg" example on User:DryHumour/Sandbox/Norn bounty dialogue). Owing to the manner that the wiki substitutes and caches pages, you'll need to do a purge: either add ?action=purge to the end of the URL or, even simpler, click the "clock" to the left of your username in the very, very first line of the wiki page (which will purge the current page). Alternatively, just create another sandbox page which uses the template you want to test. --DryHumour 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I got it "working" except for one small detail, I have the "default" text showing when viewing the template page itself, but it loses something in the translation. The default text is not showing up in active use. Currently I have it in use on Ruven, with the "default" text entered in by hand. If you could take a look at Template:Norn bounty dialogue and make adjustments, it would be helpful. Didn't know about the clock thing, and I am not seeing it on this one, is it not there on talk pages? I was also under the impression that "preview" forced a refresh of the page. 42 - talk 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have enough/the right parameters for that. How would your template handle Ragnvald? (Don't save, just preview). --JonTheMon 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exceptional cases would require some manual input. We could certainly go with some sort of convenience template which wraps a name, a piece of text, and an {{Offer dialog}} to make it as painless as possible. (I haven't gotten that far yet myself, so I can't really anticipate what might be needed I'm afraid.) --DryHumour 17:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The clock may be a user preference setting – sorry for any confusion. Preview will indeed refresh, but the template transclusion in the example will be from the last saved copy of the template, not the copy which you are presumably changing. For the template page itself, the thing to remember is that any bits not in an <includeonly> will be rendered directly, exactly as for any other normal page. (Effectively all parameters are treated as not set.) It is fairly standard to simply leave that as is, although you occasionally also see the body of the real template wrapped in <inlcudeonly>. Take a look at some other existing templates to get a feel for things. (Personally, I prefer to see the expansion, warts and all.) There's also GWW:TEMPLATES. --DryHumour 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I went with the situation I knew about. I did not know of the other ones, and the template can be added to as long as that addition is consistent along all of the NPCs it is used on. However, this isn't intended to be the "only" thing allowed to be used in dialogue. Dry is right, you can hand enter afterwards more specific items that only apply to that particular NPC. Or, if that text layout is the same on multiple NPCs, make another template to format it, letting the editor enter in the page specific information as this one did. 42 - talk 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Then please try to make the template flexible and robust enough to handle the various situations. --JonTheMon 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I can't provide any useful opinion on this specific instance, but JonTheMon is right in the general case: it tends to be preferable to have a "one size fits all" solution as that simplifies use and reduces confusion. That's just a rule of thumb though. If Ragnvald is the only exception, I don't think that adding the complexity necessary to deal with that one case is warranted. Likewise, if the general case is going to be a bear, I might consider two or more simpler templates to deal with the two or more common variations on the theme. Either way, this should probably be discussed on Template talk:Norn bounty dialogue so that others can weigh in. --DryHumour 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something. This template could be modified to not force the == Dialogue == line to show. That way, if there is text that goes in between where the dialogue line and the rest of the template does happen to be different on pages, it can still be entered by hand. Other than that, the other text could be entered by hand, this would make the specific part this template covers usable as-is. Jon, feel free to edit the template to improve the situations you know about, I don't know them. 42 - talk 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to ask you to please propose the changes to the formatting guideline pages before proceeding with this. I see it as being a lot of effort for zero benefit, and I highly doubt the community would approve of increasing the complexity with the use of multiple templates. -- Wyn talk 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tjorvi Throstson has the same format of text, and I suspect most of the blessing givers do as well, it's just not documented well. --JonTheMon 18:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Been thinking about it, and the original smaller Template:Norn init dialogue could be modified to allow someone to enter text in the big template, and then be passed to the smaller template, not sure how that would have to be done though. And it could default to nothing, if nothing was entered. I do not know enough of the details of working with templates to make this happen, but doing that would allow the flexibility that Jon is talking about.

I know in regular programming (which this is, in a way), when you run a program, you can force-feed different "command line variables" that are entered into it when that subprogam is run. This is the same idea. The smaller program could be modified to allow that parameter to be entered in when using the larger template, and that parameter could be passed to the smaller one. It sounds more complex, and it is not as easy as a straight transclusion, but the end result would be a template that would function more the way Jon is saying, I think. This would also allow greater flexibility for anyone just using the smaller template as well.

For now, I took out the dialogue and Initial dialogue lines to allow someone to enter different text, until can figure out if there is a way to allow the smaller dialogue template to be modified for this. 42 - talk 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Came back, saw previous comments weren't saved for some reason. This does not go against formatting guidelines because all that is mentioned there is that the dialogue section be there, and how it is laid out. Wyn, this is getting ridiculous. When the "standard" is to represent what is in the game accurately when applicable, and this does that, exactly what "guideline" does this go against?

Since the idea (as I understand it) behind templates is to have a "standard" format to things where the information is very similar (except minor adjustments), this template idea does that function. The alternative is to have people have to hand edit every single page (I have shown that this idea would be usable on at least 4 different pages that I have take the time to find, and Jon has shown (with some modification of the template) one this would be usable on as well.) The text on many of this is the same, the "format" of how the dialogue is presented is the same.

Why are you against this, Wyn? Stop thinking that having to make all of those hand edits, then going back and checking to see if it matches others when the idea behind a template is to standardize the formatting. I am trying to make this useful to the most amount of people. Not all templates were exactly right just out of the box. This has already gone through a fair amount of testing before being put into play. The only way to make further improvements is to hold it up to the light (actually make use of it) and see where the holes are, instead of just tearing it down, and making it so that it can't be tested and adjusted properly in real situations. 42 - talk 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of a few things that might help with the concern that Jon has with adapting it to Ragnvald. Idea one, could include calls to subtemplates that would present and format those specific sections that are usable for that NPC, with a sort of if/else decision, or, if these actually apply to any of the Norn, and just haven't been documented yet, include them in the main template from the beginning, and offer more parameters for people to enter that specific info that is different in. And let the template do the formatting automatically, as this template is intended to do. 42 - talk 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend not bothering with NPC specific templates: if it's something that's only needed once, just put it inline. Otherwise, some sort of call-by-name or DPL might be wiser (or at least less hairy). --DryHumour 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I have been looking through the pages, and it seems that those are the only two that have that depth of information. The problem is, are those actually the only ones, or are there more that would use that, and just don't have the text entered yet? If they do, and they just don't have the text, this template would be prime for that. It would let people know just from looking that there is text missing.

Dry, if I knew how to do a DPL, and that would work better than this, I am all for it. I have no idea at all how to do a DPL. Besides, this template would be used on (at last count) just about every Norn res shrine NPC. The smaller template would also work for any Norn service provider in an explorable area. 42 - talk 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

More specific and thought out response to Wyn's comments above.

Wyn - "I would like to ask you to please propose the changes to the formatting guideline pages before proceeding with this."

From the Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/NPCs "Syntax and example" on dialogue.

"Something NPC says when clicked on or when prompted."

And from Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting

"Please note that these guides ... shall be seen as a recommendation rather than strict law ... If ... the standardized formatting doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it." (My emphasis)

This dialogue template specifically addresses the issue of "something NPC says when clicked on or prompted.", it is not a change. And, it groups it in the order and specific situations this dialogue happens. This, according to how I read the "guideline" (which by definition is not something "set in stone"), actually follows that guideline closer than what is currently being done on almost every NPC page this would be used on.

Wyn - "I see it as being a lot of effort for zero benefit,"

The "effort" in the design of this template is not being done by you. It has already been done by me with helpful suggestions by DryHumour (practical implementation) and JonTheMon (suggestions for improvements).

The benefits:

1. This automatically formats the dialogue in use by the specific NPCs whose page this template is in use on.
2. This identifies very clearly if there is text missing, where that text belongs, and where that text can be obtained from.
3. This standardizes the formatting of the dialogue sections.
4. This lets the editor enter the appropriate text in the template and puts it where it belongs to appear in the correct location in the finished product.

Wyn - "I highly doubt the community would approve of increasing the complexity with the use of multiple templates."

Two members of that community have already stepped forward and helped make improvements to the template. Since the whole idea behind use of a template is to standardize something that is repeated on many locations (only 2 of the pages have anything close to complete documentation.), the use of this template would actually help people complete that documentation, and in this case, would allow that documentation to be standardized from the beginning.

This template does need more information obtained from the game to verify that it works, and to see if it needs to be adjusted much. Waiting until all of the pages that could use this are completed would be a huge waste of effort by those people, especially when use of this template would help that effort. 42 - talk 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Been reading back through, and saw I forgot to point out something else to Wyn. This template is intended to be used once on the bounty pages. The template calls another template from within, which means, the editor uses one template (for this purpose) on the page, not two. The other template would be used on another NPC type alone. 42 - talk 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Headlines

For my part, I think I'd stick more closely to the format used for dialogues on quests and missions. My feeling is that the heavy use of bold only serves to reduce the distinction between the different pieces. On Firefox with the default skin and common.css, all of the headlines end up being bold at a very similar font size. Also, the lack of an indicated speaker seems unfortunate to me. --DryHumour 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That was the intent behind the bolding of certain text. That was how I have seen it done on various other pages where dialogue is presented. I was just following that precedent, since there is no specific format presented in the guideline that I found. 42 - talk 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that was the way it was done originally on some of the pages. I was thinking along the lines of reconciling it with, e.g., GWW:QUESTS, which does provide some guidance. (I'm not really wild about it either, but at least then everything looks more or less the same.) I'm certainly not too fussed one way or the other, though. --DryHumour 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe, that as long as the standard is largely followed within a certain set of pages (NPCs do something on all of their pages, Locations do something on all their pages, etc.) I don't really think there will be an issue. The problem is that you get people who seem to think that every little detail should be exactly ONE way. For example, the person who is arguing against this template because it supposedly violates the NPC guideline because it is not specifically mentioned in the section on dialogue. 42 - talk 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but if there's no good reason to format similar items differently, I'd tend to stick to a single look and feel in a (perhaps futile ) attempt to promote unity of interface design. And, although the guidelines are not supposed to be absolute, you'll find that things go a lot more smoothly if you can find a way to convince people to integrate the necessary changes into, in this instance for example, GWW:NPC. Not only now, but to forestall future potential disagreement. (Otherwise you may find that you have the problem of well intentioned editors removing the sections on the fairly reasonable basis that they don't appear in the guidelines. Unfortunately, I speak from hard won experience.) --DryHumour 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that idea Dry is you get those people who carry that to a ridiculous point. Many don't want to see the obvious because it doesn't seem helpful to the only way they want to do things (so no one else must want to use that way).

One example is the (invalid) argument that my template design isn't specifically stated in the guideline. So therefore it shouldn't be used, even though it would standardize the formatting, and make the job easier than having to handcraft a dialogue section for every page this is intended to be used on. 42 - talk 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW Dry, how much acceptance of your proposed ideas and changes have you had? I am curious, because it seems that certain people think I can have no good idea; all they want to do is nitpick it without any apparent reason. 42 - talk 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Owing to the subjective nature of the question, the only reasonable answer I can really give is that I encourage you to examine my contributions to the various guidelines (which are few) and arrive at your own judgment. One thing, though, which I have come to recognize (and not just from my experience here) is that a public wiki is a perfect storm: creative writing and software design – both fields which tend to engender strong opinions – collide headlong together with a variety of factors of human psychology, and one must recognize the fact that human beings are, above all, inconsistent and fallible. (Above I have argued for uniformity of presentation; elsewhere I have argued against, feeling other considerations more important.) It is also easy to lose perspective in the face of perceived slights or intransigence. But in the final assessment, this is, after all, only a wiki about a video game. How it's formatted, how its prose is edited, or what content it contains is simply not worth getting all that upset about. I personally would much rather just get along, pitch in and help folks out where I can, and have some fun. But I'm old fashioned that way. --DryHumour 01:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had someone recommend for deletion a userbox I made. The majority of ideas I have presented, most of which follow the guidelines listed on this wiki, have been almost always been met with opposition, mostly claiming that I am violating guidelines; others for no apparent issue other than they seem to be opposed to any change at all, just because it is change. I am trying to determine if it is just because it is me suggesting these ideas that is giving them issue with the ideas.

I personally am for making sense with a discussion about a reason to have something or not; not "because I said so" being used (and "enforced") as the only reason for arguing against an improvement that follows the guidelines the people claim they are following. 42 - talk 04:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe I didn't see it before

I have been taking care of some stuff AFW (away from wiki) and just remembered something that has been staring me in the face. This template already uses the command line passing of variables by passing the text the user inputs in this template to Template:Offer dialog, and that subprogram (template) passes them back to the finished (displayed) product. I just need to figure out how the smaller template (Template:Norn init dialogue) would have the info passed to it. Wyn, if you want to try to use the argument about the complexity of this template, go ahead, but check Template:Build first. That has 13 different variables, and the output is much less than this one is. Your argument that "another template" isn't useful has no teeth, when the idea behind a template is to do exactly what this one is intended to do. 42 - talk 19:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing to be aware of: MediaWiki templates are not really like first class functions in imperative programming languages (e.g. Java, C++) — it is a text processing language with much more in common with something like m4, only lacking looping constructs. The one major thing which trips everyone up sooner or later is how difficult it is to pass arguments from one template into another, while still preserving undefined parameters. In particular {{Templ|{{#if:||a={{{a}}}}} doesn't work (and, of course, nor does {{Templ|a={{{a|}}}}}). --DryHumour 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(The usual solution is to code templates not to rely on detection of undefined arguments for any critical behaviour.) --DryHumour 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this in basic form, can pass parameters multiple levels, and in the case of the use of the offer dialog, although it seems to pass parameters in only one direction, down. The "output" is given from the lowest template to the next one, which displays only, then further up, etc.

Although, it appears from my view of this thing, that it appears to follow more the Java style of variable use; specifically, each class (in this case, page or template) has it's own variables that it uses. Each parameter that is passed is not changed, but it can be compared to check for processing paths, with the "If" idea. It also only has an output, that one output is what is passed back to the calling template or page. (It may actually be possible to pass parameters back and forth, and change them, but that is an idea for a long time away.)

It doesn't get into the complexity that is possible in Java as a programming language, but each "variable" here seems to be primarily operated on strictly as if it were an item, a small chunk, that the program cannot change. It is basically passing a "picture" down the line, and the deepest nested template passes back a "finished" print of the particular section it worked on.

In this case, the outer class passes the "parameter" to the nested one, and it doesn't matter what the outer one is named, the nested template throws whatever the outer one passes it either into a "variable" that is only used within itself, or as a part of the picture it produces. The template finishes "processing" the picture, which is then passed back to the outer section as a whole to do whatever it will. 42 - talk 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your comment about the var passing you are presenting, and I remember seeing somewhere why that doesn't work. The equal sign after it is being passed as part of another parameter loses the fuctionality it has as an equal sign (i.e. it is now considered text only). That sounds like a toss up, if someone wants to use an equal sign, do we make it harder for them to display one, or do we take away the use so people can post an equal sign easier. I think they went with the second, and I am still not sure if one side of that point is any better than the other. 42 - talk 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the equal sign is not reparsed if it is encountered in the context of a braced evaluation (e.g. a function, extension, or template). This causes endless difficulties for those trying to reproduce the exact semantics of a top-level "optional" parameter when instantiating a sub-template. The usual "solution" is not to bother and go with explicit flag parameters (which does, unfortunately, tend to lead to a proliferation of parameter pairs). One potential "simple" way to solve the problem would have been to reserve characters like the equal sign and the colon and require HTML character escapes (or similar) in normal text. But that would, as you have mentioned, make it difficult for non-technical users to simply get on and add text without needing to know any arcana. As it is we're somewhat stuck with some strange and somwhat arbitrary rules about where and how things like the equal sign, pound sign, and colon can be safely used as text or as operators. (And yes, mediawiki template parameter binding is local, not lexical.) --DryHumour 04:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Been going over the meta and media wiki pages on templates and related items (like parameters), and this is more like a programming language than I had first thought. The specific coding to do some stuff is really complex. I think I am going to have to sit down and look at this in chunks, to get a grasp on how their "language" works. 42 - talk 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Norn Bounty Dialogue Version 2.0

I have "completed" NBD version 2.0 to address concerns raised by JonTheMon over how to handle dialogue formatting similar to Ragnvald. This new version is located at User:42/Sandbox/NornNHPDialogue1. There is also another version of the Template:Norn init dialogue, and this new version (not changed much actually) is located at User:42/Sandbox/NornInitDialogue1. To keep discussion simple, I have redirected both of the discussion pages on my new version to my talk page.

They need testing and information verification, and anyone that wants to help is asked to do so. 42 - talk 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So.... are "How can I be part of the hunt" and "Secondary dialogue" always supposed to be the same? --JonTheMon 05:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Norn in explorable areas that I have talked to, the form/layout is the same. The text specifically used (other than "how can I be part of the hunt") is different for each Norn. Without making another char, or bringing another one that hasn't seen the EotN area yet, I am pretty sure the "How can I be a part of the hunt" is only spoken by the first Norn ever that PC talks to. Like the button text, and the larger chunks of dialogue. 42 - talk 03:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what makes using the template for any other purpose than a subst to provide the specific formatting a bad idea. The dialogue for each page has to be typed anyway. Also, not every editor is going to be able to get all of the dialogue in one pass, so leaving a template full of Missing text is just bad. -- Wyn talk 06:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation with Wyn's proposed substitution (this only applies to the Template:Norn bounty dialogue in whatever version it is ultimately used).

• Template is straight substituted.
  • Template is substituted and left full
    • Text will show what is missing.
    • Text will need to be retyped for every place that particular text belongs (In button text that uses Icons, this is more difficult than regular, and button text, on the available examples DOES appear more than once.)
  • Template is put in and if missing text, what isn't used right then (formatting) is taken out
    • Each time new text is found/added, template would need to be re-substituted to add new formatting and text locations, then have any still missing text formatting re-removed. (Additional work, re-adding the template again. Additional work, taking out "not needed" formatting, etc.)
    • Same issue as above for text that appears in multiple spots on the finished product. More work retyping it over again for each location. This actually would be more work this way than using the template as intended/proposed.

Hypothetical situation with Norn bounty dialogue template used as intended

• Template is used on all pages it is designed for, and as it is intended.
  • Text that is repeated in multiple locations is typed once, saving editing labor.
  • Pages will show clearly what text is missing, and what situations it can be found in.
• Template only uses what parameters are needed based on what text is known at the moment
  • Template page would need to be checked to see how to add missing text (this would also need to be done in Wyn's recommendation, no benefit more one way over the other on this)
  • Potential editors might not be able to easily tell what text is missing, or how to get it. (Again, this applies to both sides if text formatting not used right then is removed, this does not benefit more one side or the other.)
  • If the parameters are not used for text that appears in multiple spots in the finished product, only one line needs to be added to the existing boilerplate in use in the pages. This adding method is less editing work than substitution only use of template.

Wyn, I think this is pretty clear which way would make editing easier, even if the then unused parameters are left out. Your way means more work all around in the end. 42 - talk 08:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No

The NPC pages should not contain these complex templates, unless they are subst in. -- Wyn talk 06:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, Wyn, you should be arguing against every single "complex" template already in use on the pages. After all, that is only fair. Let's see, Template:Build, Template:Item info, Template:GW feedback infobox, and just about any infobox template. I don't see anyone substituting infobox templates just because they are complex. I don't see an overabundance (some not any) of post by you saying these templates are "too complex." 42 - talk 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. Also, things like the Feedback infobox has clear instructions on how to use it that people see AS they are using it, same with the Guild infobox. -- Wyn talk 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, this discussion should be taking place on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs which I think I've asked for REPEATEDLY. If you want to know WHY, for the simple fact that people who are interested in formatting discussions will have that page watched, and see it much clearer than hiding it away on the template talk page. -- Wyn talk 08:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet, having this discussion linked clearly from GWW:RFC isn't clear enough, since it is tagged there, and linked to here. Strange how that is. I have asked you to look at RFC, which apparently hasn't happened. I have seen your comments Wyn, when will you see mine?

My instructions for Template:Norn bounty dialogue are clear on usage, as clear as any of them, and the new version is not in finished state, as is said at the top. Before it is brought out, it will have the page cleaned up, and people who bother to read the section on parameters will be able to easily tell what the names are for. 42 - talk 08:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative here, but many people don't check RFC quite as often due to the widely varying topics on it - oftentimes people prefer to mostly just check a few pages relevant to their interests on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That was in response to Wyn's claim I was "hiding it away", nothing more. Since the second generation template isn't yet finished, (and it doesn't change the guideline since it gives what is already asked for on it) I thought it would be better to do that once it is finished. 42 - talk 03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I tried to explain why this discussion should be happening on the formatting page, as Aiiane said, the RfC isn't checked by everyone all the time, where if they have the formatting pages watched (if formatting is something they are concerned with, they will see it immediately. This is an issue regarding the formatting on NPC pages, so that is really where the discussion should happen. I have not changed my mind about the use of the template, though I have looked into the pages in question and feel I should apologize for earlier assuming the dialogue was done, as it clearly isn't on many of them. I just don't feel that this template is the way to address it in any way other than a subst. -- Wyn talk 04:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As I have said, substituting would just end up making more work in the end doing it the way you are recommending. If you update using the template as intended, adding one line is much easier, than having to re-substitute the template again to add missing text. Your claim that I am somehow not wanting to help the wiki because I had already gone through the pages well before you commented about the category is unfair and uncalled for.

Suggesting ideas to help (which you actually did in spite of yourself) is usually more well received than automatically recommending to trash something. Substitution defeats the purpose of having the template, because the editor STILL needs to enter the text in more than one place. Using the template allows that text to be entered ONCE and have it show up all the places on that page it needs to. 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously do not understand what you are talking about as far as "updating the template" and I have manually added the category to all the norn bounty giver pages, so you don't need to bother, since I was hoping to get it done sooner rather than after the weeks and weeks of bs this whole template issue is causing. You can't apply a template to multiple pages, and then go back and change it without those changes being applied to ALL pages it have been applied to. You yourself have said that each of these (with few exceptions) have individual dialogue. So how do you intend that that dialogue should be added to the template later without changing every page? By subst you leave behind the offer dialogue template which is very easy for people to fill in later. -- Wyn talk 06:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, you seem to be the only one of many people who have chimed in that is dead set against this template. The only "bs" is seen by you.

Let me see if I can make this clear to you, Wyn, since it seems you are not understanding. This template, if already in use, to add the requested category you are concerned about, would just need a simple adjustment to have those pages automatically added to the category. This template can be easily adjusted to include that.

It would appear that you are being intentionally difficult on this. The infoboxes are not updated for each page they are used on. They are templates. The template (on the infoboxes, and on this) is the format, and the format ONLY. What I said is that the specific text is different. The FORMAT is identical. The specific situations that a Norn would say specific text is identical (for the applicable Norn res shrine people).

I don't intend that the dialogue for each Norn should be added to the template itself. The dialogue (which is different than the formatting, the "when this text is said," etc.) would be added to each individual page by use of the template parameters, just like different things are added in an infobox. 42 - talk 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record Aiine, this is not a change to the formatting. This template is intended for the purpose of providing (when used and filled in) the dialogue in the manner and situations that the formatting guideline states. It is not a request to change any formatting despite Wyn's attempts to say otherwise. 42 - talk 07:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And you obviously are not understanding what I am saying either. If you apply the template with a subst, all the formatting issues are resolved. It leaves behind the {{offer dialog}} template (since you incorporated it} that has easy to complete parameters for the dialogue, which often cannot/will not be completed by the same editor since there is different dialogue for various ranks and stages of progress. There is no reason to leave this as a template on the NPC page, as once the proper formatting is applied it is unlikely that will be changed. I don't see what you intend to change on this template later. Though I would suggest making the {{Norn init dialogue}} also a subst so it doesn't have to be done later. You might also want to take into consideration there are many levels of dialogue after X number of kills, so leaving this template on the page would make it difficult to add those levels at a later date. There is also the issue of the Veteran Norn Hunting Party dialogue that is also not included. Taking all these things into consideration, using this template becomes even less appealing to me. -- Wyn talk 08:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:reasons substing the template would be bad: I really don't see how subst'ing the template will cause all the formatting problems you forsee. Unless for missing dialogue you just omit that text instead of putting in a placeholder for the missing text. If there's a placeholder, you can have the formatting applied already, so any text that replaces the placeholder will be correct. And for just a few pieces of dialogue, copy+paste works wonders. --JonTheMon 14:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, there is no argument for leaving any template in place once it is in use on the page, by your reasoning. Why not take out all of the infobox templates and use straight substitution on them? That argument applies just as much to them as it does to this.

You are just trying to find reasons for not using this as it is intended. You seem to be intent on making more work later when this template is used as you want it to be, just so you can have this used that certain way. And apparently refusing to see why it is more work, as I have pointed out.

I see what you are saying Wyn, and you are not seeing the points (maybe because they actually make a valid case for using the template as it was designed) I made why it is easier to be used as a template. Doing things the way you say adds more work later that doesn't need to be done, and is saved just by using this as a template with the parameters in place.

Adding more dialogue after the template is used as-is is just as easy, it doesn't need to be a part of the template. You can add text that isn't in the template. For example, look at every page that has an infobox (not counting the template pages themselves). It is a good guess that probably at least 95% of them have more text than just the template.

Every argument you make supposedly "for" substitution just shows how much more sense it would be to use it as a template with parameters. It needs to be tweaked, I admit. I have asked for help. There are still some issues that need to be solved, such as why in the example the default text works, but not in active use. How about you help with that instead of trying to come up with more invalid reasons why this template shouldn't be used for what it is for. 42 - talk 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Using a template can help abstract out some of the complexities, in addition to enabling extra functions based on DPL and doing extra work based on the parameters (categorization and additional formatting). It also allows easier changing of the parameters. For this text, however, there is no real complexity that needs to be hid, nor categorization or extra processing to do. --JonTheMon 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already text that appears in more than one location. And since there is so much missing in the dialogue, how can we tell right now how much more is going to be the same? It would be easier adding it to the template as it is now if that is found out to be the case. The new text would already be entered if using the parameter. 42 - talk 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

some problems

I have been going to each of the bounty givers in game to fill in dialogue, and there are some problems with this template. None of them actually says "How can I be part of the hunt?" so it should not be included, which in turn makes all the indentation wrong. Also, the "Secondary Dialogue" section is vague in it's purpose. Where does this dialogue come from? At what stage in the game? These issues need to be addressed if this template is going to be used on any further pages. -- Wyn talk 09:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also missing a section for the dialogue you get when revisiting the same NPC as you took the bounty from. -- Wyn talk 09:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that line is said only the first time a player character ever talks to any Norn res shrine giver. I have not yet been able to verify this, as all of my characters that can get to EotN have already spoken to at least one res shrine Norn. It might be only the one that is just outside Boreal Station that says this, or it might be all of them, if they are the first one talked to.

I said, it still needs work. These are helpful because it lets me know what still needs to be tweaked on it. 42 - talk 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have added the dialogue for most of the NPC's requiring it, and the rest should be finished today. -- Wyn talk 16:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)