Help talk:Quest articles

This is an updated verstion of the old Quests Template. In my opinion I think it is more informative, organized, and looks better. Please add comments as I am sure there are things that can be improved. If there are no complaints I am going to redirect Quests Template to this page. --Ralthor 17:59, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Gave it a try on the raptor mastery quests.--Ralthor 19:03, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Any sense in removing the ToC from the quest pages? They're not big enough to justify the space it takes up, in my opinion. Starlightblunder 06:06, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

move rewards from the tooltipcss-style box
As it is now rewards are listed in both the info-box at the top and, if there are more rewards, further down in the article itself. Say you get a choice between a few items, or similar. You then have part of the rewards (the experience) at the top and another part at the bottom.

As you always get experience from quests there would always be something to fill in for "reward", instead of possibly having "experience only" which seems redundant to me - or omitting it completely possibly leading to confusion.

As to who gets to edit all the currently implemented quests - phew, thats another issue entirely ;-) --Growler 03:16, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

subst at the end
In the nowiki section at the very end, the example subst line (even with a space between the colons) is still being executed. So, when I did the inital subst on a couple of quests, it contained the boilerplate again at the bottom. --Skwert 22:00, 14 Sep 2006 (CDT)

Questbox et al
So... I wanna go about updating this sucker to use the questbox template. Have at it? Also, side thing. Are we supposed to copy text dumps from in-game? Thottbot doesn't do this for all aspects of the quest, but I see that this other goblin wow site does, and I really like it that way, if we were to start including dumps (or god forbid you type that out yourself). --Hobinheim 12:08, 13 December 2006 (EST)


 * Upgraded to questbox. Text dumps would be really awesome right about now... --Hobinheim 22:57, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Substitution Vs Inclusion
The rest I sub'ed in the template is because this boilerplate isn't a real quest. By using the real template, the template is auto categorizing it as a quest. --Hobinheim 13:50, 15 December 2006 (EST)


 * So how do you envision people using the boilerplate? When I used the old one, I'd just cut and paste the entire boilerplate into a new page and start filling in the blanks. Do I just do the same this with this new boilerplate? Then what's the point of even having a template? Or are we supposed to cut and paste the boilerplate into a new page, then cut out the current tooltip from the new page, then cut the template from Questbox and paste that back into where the tooltip should be, then start filling in the blanks?


 * I see the boilerplates as a quick and easy way for Random Wiki User to help fill in data. I think we should make it as uncomplicated as we can. - ClydeJr 17:30, 15 December 2006 (EST)


 * I agree with Clyde. The main point of a boilerplate is to be copy-pasted into a new article, and then add all necasary info while removing the unnecasary. The template being inside the article makes this very hard to do. Honestly, I think we can get by having the Boilerplate in a few categories it doesn't really belong in if it means being easier to create new articles. --Mikaka 18:32, 15 December 2006 (EST)


 * I see your points. Reverting. --Hobinheim 16:19, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Reward money doesn't work
The "gold", "silver", and "copper" values in the quest box don't display at all. Xaque 21:21, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * Yeah, Hobinheim, whatever changes you made to the questbox, you should also make here... --Mikaka 21:48, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Quest Chains
What is the recommended naming method for quests in a chain that have the same name?
 * [24] Battle of Hillsbrad
 * [25] Battle of Hillsbrad (2)
 * [26] Battle of Hillsbrad (3)
 * [26] Battle of Hillsbrad (4)
 * [28] Battle of Hillsbrad (5)
 * [30] Battle of Hillsbrad (6)
 * [32] Battle of Hillsbrad (7)

For the first quest in the chain, should it be Battle of Hillsbrad or Battle of Hillsbrad (1) ?--Omaninnu 00:38, 27 January 2007 (EST)


 * For the first, no number.
 * Consider also, if the series is interesting, making a page such as
 * Quest Chain:Battle of Hillsbrad
 * A quest chain page need not be the name of any particular one of the quests in it, but should be named for the notable thing that ties it together. Often, the name of one of the later quests in the chain is more appropriate.
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How to get quest section
I think that we should include where/how to get the quest at the very top of the page, perhaps in the initial summary section. Currently I have been putting this info in the "details" section, but since it is the first thing someone needs to do in order to do the quest it seems like it should be before the objectives, not after. Just a suggestion.

--Jiyambi 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lootbox
Can we please add the lootbox to the rewards section? It is a very nicely presented and easy way to compare the rewards from the quest. Jiyambi 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it pleases you to do so, then do so. Me, I dislike the lootbox.  My own sense of aesthetics about the quest pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An altered boilerplate
I use an alternate form of this boilerplate, described here.

Changes I have found useful:
 * reordered current boilerplate so all Blizzard-generated content comes first
 * allows notes section to be lengthy without becoming bothersome
 * allows datamining from Thottbot to proceed orderly. (I also reference Ala and Wowhead, but seldom for quest text, and always later in the process.)
 * explicitly mention reputation in the rewards section
 * use # for marking quest progression
 * prevents the quest chain from 'marching off the page'. See the history on Karazhan Quest Progression for an example.
 * allows for much more understandable sectioning, where parts of the chain are only loosely linked.

--Eirik Ratcatcher 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I don't care enough about it to go creating a bot to make the changes, I have altered the boilerplate to reflect my preferences.
 * I realize that the previous information order more closely matches Wowhead, so I'm not going to bust folks' chops about it, especially with the hardworking bots out there scraping other sites for information. I do feel strongly that an unstructured "notes" section belongs after any factual content, but before external links and quest progression.
 * Added descriptions of my recent work on specific Quest Chain pages. Added notes about information from other sites (existing comments were monocultural).  Added note about lootbox.
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added descriptions of my recent work on specific Quest Chain pages. Added notes about information from other sites (existing comments were monocultural).  Added note about lootbox.
 * --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's nice that you created your own boilerplate that's different from the one that has been established, but what has been done with THIS page. I'm one of those "new" users that has used this as a copy and paste tool, and right now it's useless. My biggest problem atm with this site is the inconsistencies in formats. Everyone seems to be doing their own thing. Am I missing something here? What is going on? --ShardeeDetheroc 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been done with this page that was anything of note. All were nice changes, except, tbh, the external links section, which I have since removed. Btw, you should notice a little link below the little button row and above the edit box when beginning a new page. This allows you to import the new page without having to copy paste the actual preload page. :] --Sky (t · c · w) 03:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. The changes to this page I was talking about was how it is presented. That tool is restrictive. The only way I can access this boilerplate is to create a new quest page? It seems like there should be a more straightforward method for newbs like me. --ShardeeDetheroc 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, in which case, you can got to Help:Quest articles/Preload and copy paste. :)
 * Thanks, Sky. --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I too thought the external links redundant, Sky, but left them in when I found someone coming after me an adding them. As with much else, they don't any real harm, so I've got no strong feelings either way. --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to this topic, I have been messing around with different quest page formats since I'm not entirely satisfied with this one. Here is what I think I like best so far: Quest:Gahz'rilla. The "walkthrough" section is optional, especially for very simple quests, and a "notes" section would be added at the end if needed. Any thoughts? -- 03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote: quest chain format
✅ I would like to change the recommended format for quest chains From
 * Quest 1
 * Quest 2
 * Quest 3

To:
 * 1) Quest 1
 * 2) Quest 2
 * 3) Quest 3

With sub-quests described as
 * 1) Quest 1
 * 2) In any order (or other appropriate description, or no description, as appropriate)
 * 3) Subquest 1
 * 4) subquest 2
 * 5) Quest 2

This would greatly reduce border creep, and provide a better way to represent quest components that are not strictly linear.

This may not strictly require a vote, but as I am not IRC-enabled, and this is a boilerplate, I prefer to err on the side of caution. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes
 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments
I believe we can come to terms on making the format useful to overview pages. As per custom, if you can't get it to look right one way, try another, or asking for help, or going against custom. The last is especially good for getting folks to volunteer to set things right! :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Details --> Walkthrough
It seems to me most people use the "Details" section as a short quest walkthrough. Why not just call it that, it seems more clear. Then have a "Notes" section for the miscellaneous stuff. -- 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most cases I've seen "Details" and "Quest text" were interchangable. Could you show an example? --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's "Description" and "Quest Text" that are interchangeable, not "Details". In the old boilerplate, the details were the walkthrough section. Now the Notes section is the walkthrough, but regardless none of those names seem to properly describe what the section is primarily used for: walkthrough information. -- 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, 'walkthrough' is a more thorough, hand-holding exercise, detailed to the point of being pedantic. 'notes' is to me more inclusive, including things like "see this other quest, but first do this, yadda yadda".  And I'm too lazy to be thorough all the time... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Well, I guess I really don't mind either way. -- 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

h3 headings
I'm starting to lean toward how wowhead does their's; their quest pages have h3 headings, rather than h2. Also, the pages there are a fair bit cleaner... Will think about this. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

improve type of quests
Quest page mentions a lot of common types of quests.like "Kill X of Y" quests and  "Collect X of Y" quests, escort quests etcetc, deliver quests, etcetetc

it would be great imho to have the boiler item type expanded with the type of quest instead of having it shown only group/solo or have current type renamed to partytype orsome and add type as the true quest type. this will affect every quest that uses the boilerplate so best practical solution is probably to include more types or have a extra field objective orsomething thats sounds more sensible

(consequently it would be cool to have all the same types be listed in a their respective special objective type category (just think how good the category kill x of y will be for leveling partys quickly ;) ))

-- CoZ 11:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Prerequisite
Says at the top "Mention any prerequisites or special notes about the quest here..." and "Prerequisite quests should be mentioned in the tooltip and the quest series section below."

Should pre-requisites be shown three times? I think that's a little too much. To be, prerequesite quests should be listed on the Quest Chain at the bottom of the page, and on the quest box to the right only, and not at the top. Agree? Disagree? Sanderdolphin 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I look at it on a case-by-case basis.
 * The quest chain list is at the bottom of the page; doesn't do the job of showing that there's a prereq right off. Tooltip, IMHO, is not what draws my eye.
 * On quest chains, for the most part, I've given the statement "this is part of the XXX quest chain" to provide a link to the quest chain page. (Transcluding that text in the quest chain section, again, doesn't do the job of immediately informing the user of chain.)
 * There are some quests, though, that have less predictable prerequisistes, such as needing a particular level of a tradeskill, or of having completed quests not directly in the chain, or etcetera. And those, you can't slough off with just a "this is part of the XXX quest chain" comment.  And if there are only two quests in the chain, ... well... use your own judgement.  --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote: External links at bottom of page
Remove the External Links section at the bottom of quest pages.

Vote Yes to have the external links removed from the foot of the page,

No, you want external links at the foot of the page.

Pro - These links are also offered up by the tooltip.

Con - By the time you reach the end of the page, the tooltip has often scrolled off the page. Also, as may be noted by lack of debate over the 'rewards' (and optionally, 'gains') section, the tooltip is not always the best way to present information.

Yes, we've had this debate before. But consensus changes over time, along with the shifting population of editors, and should be revisited from time to time. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes
 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments (2)
Apologies for the confusing (to me, anyway) phrasing of this vote. To me, Page-foot-Elinks is the current standard rather than the exception. While I would have preferred to phrase the vote as "keep those links", that doesn't describe the alternative to my satisfaction. So, I lead off with a vote illustrating what the 'no' position indicates. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

With the page containing all needed information having the elinks in both locations is not necessary. When you get to the bottom of the page, you'll most likely have to scroll back up anyway, if you want to move to another article within wowwiki. I believe the elinks for the quest pages should just remain in the questbox and not clutter the bottom of the page. Neither of the three sites (once everything is updated) will have any more info than the page they are currently at and would only serve as a second opinion.... eh, I don't really have good reasons to keep them off, other than it just doesn't look good down there.

Maybe its cause I don't view the pages with a smaller screen (such as a laptop), But I usually see the bottom elinks while seeing the top elinks, and thats why I feel they aren't needed.... sorry if I sound confusing ... I just woke up and was told to place my vote here. =P 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the redundancy argument, but IMO the end of the page is a better place than the summary-style tooltip area. I note that NPC articles do this. -- Harveydrone 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No matter, the vote was not needed, Eirik Ratcatcher and I had already discussed it here, we only kept the vote going to see how the community felt about it... That and to insure it stays this way. 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectives section
Couldn't this be listed in the intro of the page, as opposed to its own section, in the manner of older-style NPCs such as Thrall? --Sky (t | c | w) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, because of the TOC, it would be separated from the main part and I don't think that would look good. Now, if we did NOTOC to all the quest pages that would be fine, but I myself prefer to see the TOC. 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It actually looks fine from the few usages I've done with it. Make a test edit or two to a quest page without anything above the ToC. --Sky (t | c | w) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the objectives section describes the text one sees in the game. With some quests, you want more information, about prerequisites, acquisition information, chain linkage, etc. Placing the Objectives section as the info at the top of the page means that this additional information ould have to go somewhere else.

Of course, I'm in favor of NOTOC on almost all quest pages, given their brevity. NOTOC would mean you wouldn't have the gap between the one and the other, which would bring the objectives section right up top where you might want it, Sky. ... I find myself in an apparent minority on the TOC issue, though. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The ToC allows for navigation, which is all important (especially on a wiki), and just one of the perks of WoWWiki quests has opposed to a DB quest page.


 * No, the information wouldn't have to go elsewhere. First, we place the extra information which ideally would be at the top of every article (which we can't), then, with a new paragraph, put the objectives there, with the page preceding as normal from then on. Again, like how Thrall's page (and many other NPCs) have their quest lists done. And no, I'm not looking to move the information for that purpose. I'm just thinking about how WP:MOS should affect quest articles. --Sky (t | c | w) 05:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Is your suggestion simply, "move the ToC to below the 'objective' section"?


 * As for navigation... let's stop that conversation before it sidetracks this one, 'k? --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the easiest way to do that is simply to remove the header. There is also the magic word TOC, but as a rule I disdain in modifying where the ToC appears. --Sky (t | c | w) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quest rewards lootbox
So I'm growing less-enamoured of using lootbox for quest rewards now... It just takes up too much space.

I propose an alternative, something we're all familiar with... the in-game style! I'm still figuring out a way to make the template look closer to the in-game style with 32px-height icons/boxes, but it's a start.

I'm trying to get it to look something like this:

A semi-implemented example of the above using :

As compared to the lootbox-style:

Comments? Feel free to hack on User:Kaydeethree/qr (and User:Kaydeethree/qr/row). -- k _d3 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really like this. Much better, and easier to read. Amro (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I wonder who'd pick bandages over Atiesh :) Amro (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * kd3: Needs to activate the hover tooltip.
 * Amro: Paladins. -- 19:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a vote to change the policy, you have mine. 21:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll worry about the policy stuff in a bit. Just trying to get it properly implemented first. I'd rather not change tooltip unless I have to, but I dunno if I can pull off the big icons using item. -- k _d3 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems Itembox does the same thing as you're wanting to do, but with a box around it, and already supports displaying a quantity. 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote: Rewards before Progress, or after Completion
Move Rewards after the Completion section.

Vote Yes, that the quest rewards section should be below the Completion section

No, that the rewards section should remain where it is.

Note that this is an expression of preference. Implementation is a separate issue. And yes, it's a prospective Lot Of Work to change. So were categories. And yes, I can guess how several votes will be cast, without looking at the ballot. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: The preferred style has been in both places in the past. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments (3)
Not sure where, but I believe we had a discussion about keeping the rewards and gains sections together... or was it about merging rewards and gains because people didn't like them being 2-3 sections apart from each other... 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That other discussion was here: Help talk:Quest articles/Preload. I'm again (still) ambivalent and will vote no, mostly because it is already this way, but also because I think it mirrors the way the quest is encountered in the game a little better (where the rewards are shown when accepting the quest). But I would like to hear arguments both ways. -- Harveydrone 17:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In the game, (item and cash) rewards are listed twice: in the quest acceptance dialog dialog, and again in the quest completion dialog. There are good UI reasons for doing so. (I leave those to the viewer.)

On the wiki, though, we don't have the same reasons the UI does. We do, in fact, display the rewards twice anyway: once in the sidebar, and again in the page text. These are separate enough that they are not visibly jarring.

I've heard three reasons for displaying item rewards just after the description:
 * Positive
 * It is high enough up on the page that user will see them without having to scroll.
 * It mimics wowhead's format.
 * It mimics the quest acceptance dialog's format.

The first reason is fading rapidly. The sidebar links, the javascript popup ability, and the change from displaying the tooltip text (lootbox) to displaying icon+link (itembox) all point to that. The second reason is still powerful; wowhead is the primary database site for many users and contributors. The third is also powerful, again for familiarity.

The reasons I've heard (admittedly, mostly, "the reasons I've expressed") for having "rewards" after "completion" are perhaps less compelling:
 * Negative
 * It breaks up the narrative flow of the quest, to have a non-narrative item sandwiched between narrative sections.
 * In mimicking the UI, it limits what can be put in the rewards box; thus requiring a separate section ("Gains") for those benefits from the quest that do not also mimic the UI.
 * Positive
 * It also mimics the game UI, just a different section of it.
 * (The positive version of point two, above - permitting all quest benefits to be displayed in one section if desired.)
 * History (it's the way my grandfather wrote up quests)

While it is not required of us to display information in the same way that the game UI (or any particular database site) does, it is a comfort of familiarity that is hard to resist. Again, many of the reasons are weak. Indeed, the original quest format had one section where all aspects of quest rewards were shown. And this was before the current, better-developed sidebars and javascript. ... And during a time where most quests were generated by hand, instead of having a bot prepackage them.

The Gains section is a discussion held previously. (Coobra: I believe that was what you were recalling.) I nurse my wounds on that one, but don't dispute it. Which in turn weakens the second item I listed.

Logically, the most powerful argument (IMO) is the first one. My viewpoint, though, is story-centric. It's the story that is important. To some extent, the current quest format supports that view: the narrative (quest description/progression/completion) comes before the notes on how to complete the quest. As well, non-item rewards are displayed after the quest narrative. (Note: some quest pages have, historically, had technical notes - locations, tactics, etc, between the 'objectives' and 'description'. The current boilerplate does not use that format, though.)

Not everyone shares this viewpoint. I understand this, but feel compelled to defend it. I am happy, though, to actually provoke a discussion on why we design the quest pages as we do. Or will. To that end, I'm somewhat distressed that Gourra's comments are so brief.

Lastly, I admit it. Emotionally, for me, history is the reason, narrative flow is the excuse. And yes, I am lampooning myself with that point, above. It's weak as a reason. But then, "because this is the way it is now" is precisely the same reason, with a fillip of "and changing it would be work" thrown in. If the only reason for the format is "I like it this way", I want to be sure that I'm distinctly in the minority. And the logical part of me (struggling to get a word in edgewise) is calling out that yes, we should put some thought in to why we want it this way.

And... sorry for being so long winded. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just one note I'd like to point out from the above list of "reasons for displaying item rewards just after the description".
 * Where it says it mimics wowhead, Wowhead actually puts the rewards after completion.. with gains right below. And that was my basic reasoning for starting a gains section... I believe... It has been over a year since we talked about this. Originally I was for keeping the sections (layout wise) the same with gain being added after completion... but if we want to match how it appears in the game (as we really should) the rewards section should be merged into the completion section. I'm going to hold off on voting for now. 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that mentioning the potential rewards is partly a narrative element; it's the quest giver saying "Oh, by the way, in case you were going to blow me off, look at these cool toys you could get!". At least that's how I read it. (Edit: I realize that some quests mention the reward explicitly only after completion, so this isn't always true.) Also, this may have been yet another discussion, but making the rewards section into a smaller format may diminish the disruption to the narrative flow. -- Harveydrone 20:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to solicit comments/ideas on how to handle cutscenes/scripts that occur on quest acceptance/completion/etc. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The typical case I can think of is when the quest-ending NPC goes on to say or do something after completing the quest, often before offering the next quest in the chain. I say by all means include that in the Completion section. I don't think it warrants an extra section. I suppose it could otherwise go in Notes. Also, for example, when an NPC gains an extra "talk" option, say to offer a flight, as a result of being on a quest, I'd say that belongs in the Notes. The only alternative I can think of is to put some of that info on the NPC's page, but I'd say it's more appropriate to have the full text on the quest page, and maybe a mention of it on the NPC page. That's only for stuff that is specific to a single quest. -- Harveydrone 20:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I realized I have been seeing a lot of quest pages that do things the "changed" way, with sections ordered like Description - Progress - Completion - Rewards - Gains, and that makes more sense to me when I see it in use. So I now vote "yes". I also think the Loads of Work to Change is maybe less than it may appear at first; i.e., there are quite a lot of quests that either already use this format, or need to be formatted anyway. -- Harveydrone 22:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the pages you see that format are not new, just "not updated" to whatever the prevailing standard of the time was. Let's hear it for inertia!  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)