Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs/Archive 3

Weaponsmiths

I suggest we remove the "Profession" column from the weaponsmith tables. It's redundant as we list requirements, and the tables are already too wide. I also suggest that we move all tables over to {{STDT}}. - anja 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that we should also change the materials required column so that it displays the images of the material rather than the writing just like the armor pages, it looks a little neater and also looks more presentable.--Gummy Joe 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with removing profession column, and changing materials to images, but I think we should develop a table format based off the "infobox style" that's being used (i.e. armorers, skill trainers, etc). Even if that just means having the silver border and an orange (item coloured) heading line. :) - BeX 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a style you guys like: Teipao Tahliwaj. I used the collector subpage as a model so the headings are the same except for the extra Materials and Cost columns and I forgot the Value column. I know the table is plain and still pretty big, but maybe someone can use it as a starting point for a better style. Tedium 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks really good to me. I'm working on a new collector table formatting though. :P You can see it here User:BeXoR/Collector subpage - BeX 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about it BexoR? Your suggestion for the new table layout would make those tables perfectly in line with the current GWW formatting of tables for skills. I'd say, we let a bot modify the tables so that they'll use your formatting. Or isn't it finished yet? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the armor collector table a bit too colorful? And if ever a general collector's table is put on the same page with a armor collector's table, they'll look inconsistent. Are those two different proposed designs? -- ab.er.rant 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They all have 3 different styles corresponding to the infobox colours of the item. The skill trainer tables are just as colourful as the collector ones, if not even moreso. If on the same page I think they would look fine, and the difference in style helps differentiate the content for those looking for specific rewards. - BeX 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's good to have differentiating styles. -- ab.er.rant 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will start a request on the mediawiki:common.css page to add the class/id in after I get some technical help with the coding and such. It will have to be reworked if it is going to encompass weaponsmiths too, and if so, I'd like to have any further uses for the table style brought up now. I also need to find out if it can be disabled by adding something to your personal .css (like how Skuld was asking for an id to disable the recent addition to RC). I've put a "less colourful" alternative colour scheme on my page, which I like a little better, but shows the flaws that exist in our tint schemes (they aren't as easily differentiated). Tell me which you like better and I'll get the ball rolling. - BeX 06:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Link btw User:BeXoR/Collector subpage - BeX 06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tint looks better imo. But btw. I would like to modify the css a bit, but that should be discussed at the common.css talk I think. poke | talk 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the bottom two as well. -- ab.er.rant 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are actually 3 styles because there are three type of collector rewards. I've updated the .css a bit for the tints and adding missing professions. If the weaponsmith formatting is just going to be like the weapon collectors I can simply rename some classes. - BeX 14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tournament Dialogues

The "Quotes" section of the article states "no mission- or quest-specific quotes". I would like to suggest making an exception for the Norn tournament: the dialogue there is technically part of a quest, but the other informations about the tournament (like what skills each NPC uses) is already on the NPC page. I would suggest adding a "The Norn Fighting Tournament" section under the Eye of the North subheader, and displaying the tournament dialogue there. Erasculio 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have those quotes there as it will become even more messy, because you then have to identify which is the start quote, the victory quote and the loss quote. I'd rather keep them in the Norn Fighting Tournament page in a nicely laid out table. As for skills, they are skills of the henchies as an NPC, not a henchman. On GuildWiki, I was the one who laid out keeping the different "types" of an NPC separate, so there are separate main sections for the henchies as an NPC, and as a henchie. Here, everything is merged into one section. As such, I personally have no problems with moving those skills to the Norn Fighting page either. -- ab.er.rant 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that it would be too much content for a single page. For example, adding all quotes to the main The Norn Fighting Tournament article would make it cluttered (more than it already is). Making different pages for each NPC is something I don't really agree with, as many bits of information would have to be repeated on all the pages. Given how the skills for the tournament have just been removed from the NPCs' pages, I think the best compromise here would be to add the quotes to the main Norn Tournament article, although it is going to be bigger than I'm confortable with. Erasculio 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Voiceover, not read-only

With GW:EN coming out, characters say a quote when clicked on (Who goes there!?!?"). How do we document this in NPC articles. I would suspect under Dialogue, but where exactly is quite interesting. Calor| talk 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... we could set them as ===Interaction=== under Dialogue, just before battle quotes. MithranArkanere 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly...you "interact" by clicking on them too...slightly confusing. You could do ==Dialogue== then ===Speech=== and ===Read===, but that's too tacky and still obscure.

==Dialogue== with ===Voice=== and ===Text=== subheadings? Might still be a bit much with a whole separate subsection just for that small qoute they say.. - anja 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few pages on Asura NPCs. Lork, Plaxx, and Blorf. See how I did the Dialogue. Good, not great, but will suffice until something is figured out. Calor| talk 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When I remember correct all NPCs of one race say exactly the same text.. Or at least most of them (I mean when you click more often) poke | talk 09:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all. A select few (I think) say an extra thing or a different thing every now and then. Calor 22:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "When spoken to". It doesn't convey the meaning of the voice response, especially when it's placed under "Dialogue". How about something more obvious like "Voice response"? I would also oppose the use of an additional subsections to keep it simple. That said, I'm probably gonna skip helping with these though... anything I can't screenshot makes it a little difficult to document... since my machine is such that alt-tabbing between the game client and the browser isn't a particurly speedy business... lol -- ab.er.rant 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like "voice response" better than "when spoken to". - BeX 05:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do too. I couldn't think of anything else before, so I put in "When spoken to:". "Voice response:" is great, I'll begin using that on NPC edits. Calor 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A guildie of me noticed yesterday that the "Voice response" depends on your actual Norn/Asura/whatever title track. He said that they get nicer with a higher rank. How do we want to express this? poke | talk 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they all seem to use the same dialogue, why dont we just have one centralized article for it? We could even add soundbytes from in game as examples. - BeX 11:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use in-game sound bytes...hmmm...it could get messy if Poke's guildie is right. Calor 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one from my alliance said it's true. Both hear a more friendly text when speaking to Norn.. poke | talk 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok...so we know:

• Races (Norn at least) become friendlier as you gain more rank with them
• Each race's people say the same thing(s) no matter who you talk to, but vary by title level
• Each race has approximately 5 things to say per level
• Female and male NPCs say the same thing, just different voice
• Each race says different things

So how do we document this? I'm partial to something looking something like this.

==Dialogue==

===Voice Response===

Race response levels 1-10.

===Text Response===

''"blah blah blah"''

Instead of race, it would (obviously) say something like "Norn response level 1-10". Something in that phrase would be wikified, and we could create pages for all the races' voice responses, and what title level certain things are said at. Clearly, this is a rough sketch, and can be totally scrapped, or relatively accepted and built upon. Time to start figuring this whole new function out. Calor 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should centralize the generic voiceover info in the title articles, and only include NPC-specific voiceovers in NPC articles. -- Gordon Ecker 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all titles are linked to voice responses. We can always use inserted pages, like we do with collectors, write the common resposnes once, insert them were needed. MithranArkanere 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably figure out the pattern behind who says what before deciding on this one. Backsword 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What about putting the Charr responses in the Charr article, the Shining Blade responses in the Shining Blade article and putting any NPC-specific responses in the specific NPC's article? -- Gordon Ecker 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gordon hit the nail on the head there. I agree 100%. Put it in the species articles, created under a heading of "Voice Response", or something of that nature, and any NPC specific stuff goes in Dialogue > Voice Response in the NPC article. Now to edit previous edits incorporating voice response into the article, and finding out what exactly all the responses are. Calor - talk 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for ignoring the fact I suggested that a week before he did. :P - BeX 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry Bex, I saw it but misinterpreted it earlier I guess. Nothing personal though. Calor - talk 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

^_^ - BeX 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Enchanted Hammer

Some input required on how to split the NPC articles. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gates of Desolation and ^R

→ moved from User talk:MithranArkanere

Is there a reason for the ^R on Queen_Aijundu? None of the other articles seem to have it. If you do not object, I will remove it, otherwise it should be added everywhere. SimonBanefull 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That means 'Hero required' and yes, it should be after every quest or mission that requires heroes. MithranArkanere 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that then the "R" should be linked to some page explaining the letter and it's meaning. SimonBanefull 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you are: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/NPCs fell free to suggest that there. Althout you can just use:

<sup title="This mission requires this hero" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: underline;">R</sup>

^R

Instead of that. MithranArkanere 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make a good template, ie {{hero required}} - BeX 01:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that "R" thingy was adopted from my use of it on hero pages, to indicate which of a hero-involved quest/mission requires that hero in the party. I would say it's pointless to tag all quests with that. They can see whether a hero is required if they just click on it. It's useless because even if you tell that Queen Aijundu requires a hero, you do not also tell me which hero... so I'd still have to click on it... On the hero page, it works, because that "R" is specifically for that hero. -- ab.er.rant 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A parameter could easily be added for the title text to say which hero. - BeX 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like Queen Aijundu ^{Hero: Koss}? Hmmm.... I dunno, I feel it isn't really necessary (and doesn't look so nice :P), but I have nothing to be against it. -- ab.er.rant 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Queen Aijundu ^R - BeX 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't an explicit "Koss" be better? I wouldn't say it's intuitive to hover the pointer over the R. -- ab.er.rant 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with it. If the user doesn't know to mouse over then they will just check the article anyway which is no loss for them. Those who do know now get a shorthand to check that requirement without messing up the page formatting. - BeX 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Known attribute levels

So where do these go? Under the skills or notes section? -- (gem / talk) 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well according to the formatting guide, it says to put it in a single line in the skills section. So I did it like in this article: Master of Energy Denial. Tedium 09:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would put them to the notes section or at the end of skills... poke | talk 09:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done it like this: Dead Collector. Yeah, now I can see the attribs thing in the formatting guide. Do we want to keep that system? -- (gem / talk) 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the known attributes should still go in the skills section since it's related to the skills. I don't mind how it is formatted. Tedium 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've gotten rather used to the way it's done here (as Tedium pointed out). I didn't really like the "known attribute levels" style of GuildWiki because it was rather wordy. To me, if it's there, it's known; if it's not there, then it's not known. I'd oppose putting it in the notes section because for certain NPCs, the notes section is pretty far from the skills section. And I'd rather have attributes above skill listings than below it because I feel it's the more natural way of representing a skill set. -- ab.er.rant 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change all the ones that I did to this method. -- (gem / talk) 10:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we then sort skills by attribute? Backsword 16:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'd keep it at the example given. Sorting by attribute means you need to actually put in the name of the attribute even when you don't know what value it's at. -- ab.er.rant 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And you would have a problem with monster skills as they don't have an attribute.. poke | talk 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on skill sorting

Should Common Skills, such as most monster skills and Resurrection Signet, be treated as a seperate profession or listed alphabetically with other skills? If so, above or below profession skills? If not; within which prof. for two prof. creatures? Backsword 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been ordering the skills by profession ordering (warrior, ranger, ...), common skills (Resurrection Signet etc.) and then monster skills. Within each group, it is alphabetized. Not saying this is how it's suppose to be done, just how I interpreted it from the formatting guideline. I've also seen some people just alphabetized the skills regardless of profession or if it's a monster skill. Either way works for me. The wording in the guideline is a bit vague about the ordering and could be cleaned up. Tedium 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also read it as profession ordering goes first, with common and monster at the end. And alphabetical ordering as second measure. Not making them into distinctive groups though, just listed right below each other. - anja 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the guidelines. Any problems with such an ordering? Since that seems to be more commonly seen style. -- ab.er.rant 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Might be potental issues with the very few monster skills that are not common skills.Backsword 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed that for most EotN articles, you (Aberrant) have but common skills at top. (Eg. Bear Form for Norn). Backsword 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I know, I was still following an old version of the formatting. -- ab.er.rant 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)