Template talk:Quest checklist

Mod for quest guideline update

I suggested a modification to this template as part of the discussion in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Quests#Elaboration of the rewards section....  Either add another column, which I see now is not practical, or accept an alternate value for 'reward'.      mtew 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative values

Converting the old-format entries requires additional information.  If an entry does not mention a particular problem code, is it safe to assume that there is no problem?  A cursory check on my part seemed to indicate that there could still be a problem even if the problem code was not mentioned.  Would an alternate code (say '?') be allowed for these cases? 

Also, does a strike of the name in the old format indicate no apparent problems?      mtew 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be better to discuss these things with the people of the project.. poke | talk 21:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me a little time.  That's next up on my to-do list.      mtew 21:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean instead of posting here, because it is very unlikely that anybody will see these comments who is part of that project (and the template is obviously related to the project). poke | talk 21:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, give me a little time.  That was next up on my to-do list.  There is more than just one issue with this template's design.     

Extending the function - requirements

• Any change to this template must not require any changes to existing uses of this template.!.
• The additions should allow new categories to be added.
  • This implies using keyword arguments.
• The additions should support the verification procedure described on the Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Quests page.
  • Again, keywords, but what to call them and how to use them? Please make suggestions!.
• The additions should make it easier to convert entries in the old format to ones that use this template.
  • The old entries were almost keyword entries.  The struck marking implies the need for a default value.
• If we can agree, a value that indicates that an item needs to be evaluated by someone else should be allowed.
  • A 'bot' that adds entries should set this value as the default.

mtew 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extending the function - issues

• Is there an icon for a question mark?  How about a template to access it?      mtew 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extending the function - design

1. Add to the beginning of the template a test that checks to see that all the standard keyword values are blank.  If they are, use the old form without modification. 
2. If any of the standard keyword values are not blank, build the table row from the keyword values, the positional value if the keyword is missing or the default value if the positional value is not 'y' or 'n'.
3. Move the comment handler outside the above test block.
4. Additional checks can be added between the end of the above test block and the comment handler.
5. Verification and other action information can be put in a separate row that spans all the columns.

mtew 19:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Extending the function - details

Old and current stuff...

Key‌word	Content
O	objectives OK
W	walkthrough OK
D	dialogue OK.
R	reward OK.
V	overview OK.
M	map OK or not needed.

Proposed...

Key‌word	Content
A	acceptance award OK or not needed.
I	infobox OK.
N	notes OK or not needed.
T	trivia OK or not needed.

mtew 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)