Talk:Quest Guide Template

Quest Summary & Section Standards

I have created a quick mockup of some of my ideas for the quest summary and section names in An Adventurer's Sandbox. Its not perfect of course, the main thing I wanted to show with it is my idea for the summary table. Basically, there would be two variations in the lines within the table for item rewards, exp rewards, and title rewards. For quests with only 1 or 0 item/title/exp rewards, these are listed directly in the quest summary. For quests with multiple item/title/exp rewards, the summary table says "varies" and provides a link to the section detailing all the rewards. Quests that do not have multiple or varying experience rewards would not have an Experience rewards section. Same goes for titles. Note that I have kept the quest links in - I think they do a better job at providing quick links in little space than the TOC would do. Also, I re-ordered the entries on the table, and list intro/update patches at the bottom, with no related quest section in the summary. My thoughts on related quests are they should be listed in more detail in the General section. Related quests could also be quickly linked at the very top of the page using the Related Template if needed. --An Adventurer 15:55, 9 February 2009 (CST)

To: An Adventurer, Atarax I don't really have any strong feelings on what the quest page should look like so I'm going to focus on some of the minor templates and once you've reached consensus on what it should include point me to an example and I'll code up the template. --Tlosk 17:46, 9 February 2009 (CST)

Links in Topic Headings

This may be just my opinion, but I don't like having the headings to topics be links, like Maps, Titles, Lore & Dialog, etc... I think the headers should all stay consistent throughout the article as black text for readability. Different browsers handle links (and visited links) differently, and IMO it kind of takes away from the readability of the page when they are all mixed in there. Aside from aesthetics and readability, I think its pointless to have them be links anyway. They are very "top level" terms, which would be very easy to find for everyone, so I don't think it needs to be a link on every quest page. Just my .o2 cents. --Atarax 15:02, 8 February 2009 (CST)

To: Atarax I agree, it does look better with uniform section headings. I'm having trouble with the summary box, I've mocked up a few examples, Sandbox Two, if you have any suggestions or what you think works well. --Tlosk 18:52, 8 February 2009 (CST)

To: Tlosk From those examples, I definitely think Example 5 looks the best. However, I think that the Intro should be a part of the quest summary block instead of having a its own block like items do. See the #Introduced/Updated/Related links comments below. I think it would also be cool if we could incorporate the Table of Contents somewhere on the page. For long quests, its actually kinda helpful. Maybe under the Live image on the right side, similar to how you did the Exemplar template? If we enforced the 300x300 Live image, it might look decent. --Atarax 19:51, 8 February 2009 (CST)

I find the Template:Quest Links section useful since they link to the most useful sections quickly. However, with an improved quest guide template and a more standard set of sections, I think placing the actual TOC somewhere might work just as well. I like Atarax's idea of putting the TOC under the live image like we have on some creature pages & the forum. I agree, an established standard size like 300x300 or 300x400 would be nice. --An Adventurer 20:39, 8 February 2009 (CST)

To: Tlosk, An Adventurer I did a quick mock up of a an idea I had for a quest template in Atarax's Sandbox. I used the Clutch of Kings (Browerk) quest as content to fill it up. You guys might like it or hate it, but I feel that it gets the important info at the top and puts the nice-to have stuff off to the side, so we don't feel like we're having to cram everything in there. Its just a rough comp, I'm sure it could use a lot of help, but what do you guys think? --Atarax 23:49, 8 February 2009 (CST) P.S. I also included an alternative XP Reward Table and Title Reward Table in the Talk:Atarax's Sandbox page. So where the XP & title rewards are listed, we could have a table to handle quests that hand out multiple XP rewards and/or multiple title rewards under various conditions. --Atarax 03:24, 9 February 2009 (CST)

To: Atarax, An Adventurer I've incorporated the suggestions into the template and the Summoning of T'thuun page uses it so you can see an example. The ToC cannot be included directly below the image because it would extend the overall table and push down the start of the content so it just floats at the start of the content instead (leaving the quest links in the table allows quick access to maps in a predictable location). I think we should leave the quest image size arbitrary as that is the gateway image and should be cropped to fit the content. Now that it no longer overlaps in small browser windows a standard size isn't critical. I very much like what you've done with the Clutch of Kings, I think for more elaborate quest pages we could have a separate page template that doesn't use wiki templates in order to give the maximum amount of flexibility in customizing to best fit the content (and since the people most likely to undertake the very large, complex quest writeups will likely be experienced wiki contributors). After we've finished tweaking it we can use what Atarax has done as the framework for the elaborate template. Perhaps also with options for the sections as well (using it on a few other quests like Lady Aerfalle and Undead Mechanic for example will help see if there's any additional angles to consider). We could use the standard quest template for initial postings and move to the elaborate template as needed. I've created a new page Elaborate Quest Guide Template and we can move discussion of the particulars to Talk:Elaborate Quest Guide Template. --Tlosk 06:38, 9 February 2009 (CST)

First - I do not think we should have two different quest guide templates, especially two that look so different. What would qualify a quest to use the elaborate template? In fact, I think we should remove the non-existent killtask template and use the quest guide template for killtasks - they woud just list type as killtask, along with a killtask category tag. As for the templates in Atarax's Sandbox+talk page: I like some aspects and dislike others. I think we should incorporate parts of it into the quest template. I like the EXP table - it is much more clear than trying to list it all in the summary. I dislike the item rewards section. I think all related items to the quest should stay in the single item section. If needed, one could list rewards first and then quest-use only items after, but I do not think they need to be split into two sections - it just stretches out the TOC. I like the simpler quest summary, but I think it is too simplified - you now have to look elsewhere for some basic info. I dislike combining the summary + live image, and moving it to the right side, but that is probably just because I am used to the current look. I am against using the Intro template on quest pages. Too many quests are updated multiple times or have multiple related quests. Besides, with quests, you will want to know more than just when it was updated or what quests are related - you will want to know what changes were made and exactly how other quests are related - this info is best placed in the general information section. I think overall, the quest template on Atarax's Sandbox looks too cluttered. And it will look even more cluttered with exp and title tables at the top. I agree the current template could use improvement. I may work on my own version of a quest template. --An Adventurer 15:06, 9 February 2009 (CST)

To: An Adventurer First, I agree that we should only have 1 quest template, having multiple versions is too confusing. Second, let me explain some of the logic behind the "Rewards" section. What I was trying to do was put the most relevant information at the top, while getting rid of the non-essential stuff. I would say that the "Rewards" (XP, Titles, Items) are the most important part of a quest article, its the whole reason why the article is written, so naturally it should be towards the top. That said, my biggest complaint with the current template is that it "doesn't fit" the rewards for a growing number of quests. Either the quest yields a lot of items, or it has a lot of titles, or it gives XP for several different turn ins, or all of the above. So I think the challenge, is to create ONE flexible template that can handle any/all of these situations. This is the reason why I thought having a "Rewards" section would be more useful than trying to cram it all into a small summary block. The summary block becomes a problem on quests like Lady Aerfalle (Quest), where half the "items" are rewards, the other half are just items you use along the way. So saying "see below" really doesn't help you find out what items are rewards from the quest, unless you're already familiar with it. The other example, is a quest like Aerbax's Prodigal Harbinger, where the rewards and titles were entered into the summary block. Its already way too long, and just glancing at the item rewards, there are at least 3 or 4 rewards that aren't even listed at the top. If you change your screen resolution to 1024x768, you have to scroll down quite a ways just to get to the beginning of the write-up. I completely agree with you that there needs to be some more conformity to the template, but I think the goal should be to create 1 template that works for all quests, regardless of the type, size, length, or number of rewards. I also agree that I don't like the Intro template at the top, it could easily be put under the quest summary block. However, I also think that having "Updated In" is completely irrelevant, and it should be just put in the notes at the very bottom of the article. Also, having "Related Quests" really should only be used in a series of quests, like in the Burun Kings, or Blackmire, or Perfect Light quests, etc... I think linking to "Similar" quests that aren't related is irrelevant too, that's the job of the article category. As far as the block on the right side, at first I found it to be weird too. But in the end, I think it works better because it allows you to start your "Content" (meat of the article) right at the very top of the page and the readability of the article is never interrupted, regardless of how long the summary or ToC is. I looked around to see what other Wikis did, and found that a lot of people do it this way. Here's a completely irrelevant example, but if you pretend it's a quest, you see how it fits. Look at the Larry Fitzgerald or the United States Wikipedia entries. The summary block is on the right, and the readability of the page is completely intact. I think it translates perfectly to our circumstances here. Another example (I just found) is this CNN Article. If you picture the quest block on that layout, you see where it would go. The content (actual article) starts right at the top of the page, without being hindered by the huge summary block. My biggest gripe about the mock up that I did, was like you mentioned, the rewards section. I think if we turned that into a "standardized" section, it could work, even with with a different color background or something, I dunno. Maybe the wiki code has the tech to do collapsible tables, kinda like that CNN table? Might be something there. In the end, I'm not sold on either template as it is, but my vote, regardless of what we come up with, is definitely to start the "useful content" at the top, and anything that's "nice to know" should be buried at the bottom somewhere. Lol, that was long winded, but I hope I got my point across. And please know, that I'm definitely not trying to shadow your opinion on this subject, because I think you have very valid points. --Atarax 17:01, 9 February 2009 (CST)

To: Atarax Some good points. I think we should continue this discussion in the section above Quest Summary & Section Standards since I think this is about more than just the topic headings. I will write something there shortly. --An Adventurer 17:33, 9 February 2009 (CST)

Image Standardization

Similar to the Talk:Point of Interest Template, and others that have have the possibility of several live images, I think there needs to be a standardization of image naming, size, and display. Here's a few standardization techniques we could use: Live quest images should be added as 800x800px. Having all the images the same size really makes the page look a lot better. When they are all different, the page gets out of whack, like in the Elysa's Favor (Quest) article. Images should be displayed with the thumbnail wrapper using the |thumb| feature. Images should be named Article Name Image 1.jpg, Article Name Image 2.jpg, Article Name Image 3.jpg, etc... {| |- |valign=top|[[Image:Article Name Image 1.jpg|thumb|Description of Image 1]] |valign=top|[[Image:Article Name Image 2.jpg|thumb|Description of Image 2]] |valign=top|[[Image:Article Name Image 3.jpg|thumb|Description of Image 3]] |- |} For an example, see Clutch of Kings (Browerk)#Images. I think if we do this it will clear up a lot of confusion on how to handle images. --Atarax 14:55, 8 February 2009 (CST)

Unfortunately 800x800 creates very large file sizes and also wouldn't be possible for people that play in 800x600 or 1028x768 to create. One way of creating a more standard layout and uniform appearance with images that differ in dimension is to use the gallery function. For example Elysa's Favor (Quest)#Images: <gallery widths=150px perrow=4> Image:Asuger Temple End.jpg|Asuger Temple End Image:Reformed Bandit's House.jpg|The Reformed Bandit's House Image:Reform Bandit Portal Recall.jpg|The Escape Plan Image:Farm House Trap Door.jpg|Farm House Trap Door Image:Ostentatious Farm House.jpg|The Farm House Image:Farm House Storage Chest Live.jpg|The Storage Chest Image:Stranger in Town's House.jpg|The Stranger in Town's House Image:Captured Adventurer Live.jpg|Captured Adventurer Image:Fort Witshire Aerial View.jpg|Fort Witshire Image:Fort Witshire Barricade.jpg|Fort Witshire Barricade </gallery> Also for the naming convention, I think it would be helpful to prepend the quest name as suggested, though I think instead of a number the rest should be descriptive as the numbering isn't static and could change (if additional images are added later to fill in gaps in the coverage for example). --Tlosk 06:02, 9 February 2009 (CST)

To: Tlosk I think the gallery tag will work just fine, and I like how it shrinks them all to the same size for the thumbs. Do you think there's a way to add some styles to it so it looks more like the thumbs from Aerbax's Citadel? --Atarax 11:10, 9 February 2009 (CST)

Introduced/Updated/Related links

Is there a reason for the change of removing the intro/update from the summary and replacing it with the intro template besides consistent look? I ask because I made most of my decisions about the new intro template based on the thought that the quest summary would remain the same, with intro and update information in the summary table, and any related quests would be listed at the top of the page with the Related template. Most monsters, npcs, and items only have 2 peices of info: intro patch and related quest. Some will have updates or multiple quests. But quests are updated much more frequently, and are often part of a series of quests. So my concern is that the Intro template will fill up and look cluttered on a lot of quests. --An Adventurer 11:33, 8 February 2009 (CST)

To: An Adventurer, Tlosk I agree, I prefer the current quest summary block, with no bar at the top. The one we've been using for awhile is pretty good IMO. --Atarax 14:21, 8 February 2009 (CST)

Multi-Level/Version Quest Guide

I think we need to come up with standardized template to handle "Multi-level" and "multi-version" quests. There are several that I know of, like Zaikhal Defender, The Blackmire Series, Harbinger (Quest), and Gaerlan's Citadel. The format we use for a quest writeup, especially with the new Quest Links format doesn't really work if we combine the write-ups, plus it gets very long and confusing when part of the quest is shared and other parts are unique (like Harbinger). I think its still a good idea to keep them on one page, but perhaps some way to standardize them would be good? Its actually relatively easy for quests like Zaikhal Defender and Gaerlan's Citadel, as you'll see I simply put the level requirement in the title, like Walkthrough (80+). But, for quests like Harbinger (Quest), where there really is no level requirement, and you could choose to do either version at any time, what should we do to organize this? I tried to clean it up a little bit, but right now I think that write-up is pretty messy. --Atarax 11:11, 15 January 2009 (CST)

I had more typed up, but I think it should all come down to this: If the different versions of quests share timers, they should be listed as a single quest. If their timers are unique, then give them each a page. My guess is that very few quests with multiple versions share timers. --An Adventurer 11:51, 15 January 2009 (CST)

That makes sense. So the next question is, how to we better organize those pages to succinctly display the two guides without repeating ourselves for the data that is shared between both versions? Maybe we create one Walk Through heading, then describe each section in order:

* Part 1: Harbinger Tunnels (All Versions)

* Part 2A: Harbinger's Lair (Hard Version Only)

* Part 2B: Essence Chambers (Easy Version Only)

Does that look like it would work? --Atarax 12:00, 15 January 2009 (CST)

Remove Detailed Walk Through Section?

I think we should also remove the Detailed Walk Through portion of the quest template. Nobody uses it, and when they do, its just repeated text from the Walk Through with a bunch of Dialog mixed in, which makes it a little hard to read. Anyone object? --Atarax 13:38, 13 January 2009 (CST)

There are a few quests that use it, I believe the reasoning was that anything that doesn't apply we just delete, and a template will generally contain the range of options. But I didn't add it, so they can probably give the reasoning better than I can. --Tlosk 14:52, 13 January 2009 (CST)

The reason for having it was to provide an area to have long detailed guides, like the step-by-step guide for navigating the dungeon in Aerbax's Prodigal Mosswart, or when I redo it, the riddles and such from Aerbax's Prodigal Lugian. The walkthrough section was meant for shorter guides - something that for the most part could be cut and pasted into parchments/books - where details are not listed, just the short objectives like go to 12.3s, 45.6w, enter dungeon, kill boss at end, loot item. --An Adventurer 15:05, 13 January 2009 (CST)

I see what you mean about the puzzles and riddles, etc... My only complaint is that it gets pretty long and difficult to read at some point, because usually you want the detailed how-to or resource information, even in the basic write-up.

1. I think we should try to limit navigating the dungeon to basic steps, and then if they need clarification, simply refer them to the map. In general, trying to navigate written instructions for a complicated dungeon is pretty difficult to start with.
2. Perhaps instead of a detailed walk through, we could have a Resources section on an article specifically for diagrams or resource tables like puzzles or riddles. This could come into play with the Harbinger Items#Harbinger Items resource table, as well as the Gaerlan's_Citadel#Trial #1: The Riddle resource table. That way in the Walk Through, instead of listing everything right there, we can just link to the HTML Anchor for that resource. This way the Walk Through stays concise but all the data is there for reference only. This would also be a good for people who want to try to figure out the puzzle themselves, and not have it right in their face while they read the Walk Through. Just a couple ideas, but what do you think? --Atarax 11:34, 15 January 2009 (CST)

Maps Section and Custom Table of Contents

I think we should remove the 'Map' section from the quest summary and always place them below under the Maps section, like Mukkir Aspect of Grael. Also, I think we should make the Images section standardized (include it in the template), using the template from Aerbax's Citadel. Thoughts? --Atarax 12:42, 2 January 2009 (CST)

Adding Images section to the template would be a good idea. Personally I like having the maps in the summary, partly because most maps are on acmaps so we can't include them in the body but primarily because when I go back to a writeup that's often the link I'm looking for right away and it's nice to have a standard place to look for the link. If most maps were hosted here I'd agree with having a maps section (we've approached Greeneye about the possibility and for a couple of reasons he only wants us to use links). I'd be fine with adding a Maps section the template though, so we can use it for new quests we are hosting the maps (if I stop slacking and turn around the stack of drafts I've got hehe.--Tlosk 13:01, 2 January 2009 (CST)

Even if the map is hosted at ACMaps, I still think it might be a good idea to list it under a Maps header. Sometimes the name of the Map is very long, and it causes the quest summary block to look pretty bad when it wraps around so much. Also, seeing as how you created most of the maps, what's the harm of hosting them on the wiki as well as ACMaps? The reason I ask is that the ACMaps website has been extremely slow in the past couple months, and sometimes non-responsive. I'd hate to see it break or something and we lose all the maps! ;) --Atarax 13:50, 2 January 2009 (CST)

That sounds good, I hadn't really thought it all the way though, now that there will always be a Maps section, I can just zoom to that part. It's fine with me if we take it out of the summary block. Or maybe even how about adding a hotlinks bar to the summary that goes to the main sections? Since it's a fixed width block and we normally go NOToC on quest pages. Since these things can look different in isolation, I've temporarily modded Mukkir Aspect of Grael to show you what I mean. Since they are all links to standard sections, it would just be boilerplate that would get added to the base template and wouldn't need to be changed for different pages. History Link if read later.

As far as the ACMaps, I would love to host maps here. But Greeneye holds the copyright (even on maps I made myself) so unless he changes his mind we have no recourse. Back when this happened An Adventurer and I started working on a new map format just for the wiki (Greeneye didn't want us to use the ACMaps format either), but it has kind of stalled (I was working on a new mapping utility but haven't worked on it for a few months). Also there's a potential collaboration in the works for providing customized spawn maps, and depending on how that turns out it may provide some new directions for our dungeon maps as well. But as long as the maps are available at ACMaps it's kind of considered a low priority since we won't be providing new content, just more convenient content and it will be time consuming. At any rate you don't have to worry about losing anything, I've already made arrangements to avoid any losses whatever might happen.--Tlosk 14:27, 2 January 2009 (CST)

I just checked out the Mukkir Aspect of Grael, and I really like what you did there a lot. I think that should be the standard template for all quests. Another reason why I think this is a good idea is for quests that have a lot of maps. For example, I just finished the Brewmaster (Quest) write-up, and it has at least 3 maps. Having them in their own section would be a lot cleaner then cramming them into the summary block, even if they're just links to ACMaps. Good work! --Atarax 10:52, 3 January 2009 (CST)

I understand that, especially with multiple maps, the summary looks bad. But it might be an idea to bring the paragraph of Maps up higher? Some walkthroughs can become rather long, and as a user (not writer ;) )of the quest guides, I like to immediately do "right click-new tab" for the map, and then read the walkthrough. Then about images and such, is it possible to get a sub-template for adding images in the general template? like.. table like? Thx! Sanddh 2:07, 12 January 2009 (CET)

Thats why we added the quick links to the top of the quest template. They are anchors that jump to each of the specific sections, like so:

Guide - Items - Maps - Images - Lore

It might be a better/different idea to incorporate the actual Table of Contents into the page somehow. Maybe Tlosk can come up with something like he did for the creature template, like the {{Exemplar ToC|Skeleton}} template. Maybe we could do something like that for the quests as well instead of the {{Quest Links}} snippit? --Atarax 19:09, 12 January 2009 (CST)

I'm working on a couple options, and will post again when I'm done. --Tlosk 14:53, 13 January 2009 (CST)

Old Discussions

Quest Guide Template Discussion Archive