Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:General formatting

Archive

---

• 2010-2011
• 2012 Jan-June
• 2012 June-2014

Dialogue guidelines lacking details

I find that the dialogue examples are somewhat lacking. I think we should add how to format a series of interactions, or possibly link to a "model article". The things I'm missing are mainly:

1. How to section dialogue by the various steps (e.g. === Story step 1 ===) of a story chapter.
2. The formatting of "Talking to character x" (I presume it's ;Talking to Logan Rytlock (bolded), but the article doesn't mention it).
3. How to separate between the various types of "conversation dialogue": ambient, triggered on proximity, cinematic.
4. (if human), but then what should we use? (if not human) or (otherwise)?
5. I've seen several places that we've used the same comment layout for repeated dialogue: e.g. (see above) or (same as "<other question>?"). What are the guidelines here?
6. I see dialogue icons for the orders have been used (see Evryn for an example. Is this really normal? I presume the icon doesn't show up in the in-game window, and that it is only to indicate the pre-requisite for that particular dialogue. If so: wouldn't it be more right to use the standard (if in Order of Whispers) tags?

I just did a revamp of A_Light_in_the_Darkness#Dialogues as how I presumed it should be. Titus 03:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: added bullet point no. 6. Titus 14:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I created this project partly to discuss these things and reach an agreement where the situations wasn't clear, not that it has been a success. --Sialor (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Last night I went bold and tried updating this a bit to said linked project and linked to it as the main article, while cleaning up said other article to the "generally more accepted" so that we wouldn't have 20 different documented methods (yes, exaggeration, but not by much when considering all possible combinations of styles). There's quite a bit missing, like points 1, 2, and 3. The division was one of the few things that actually got consensus, but with Season 2 and people going to this instead of the more up-to-date article, it seems people just went with whatever they wanted.

No, icons is not normal; typically it'd be a (if race/profession/order) either placed at the end of the unique line, or on a separate line just above it. And the guideline for repeated phrases is exactly what you said - if it's the exact same then (see above), if it's same response but different triggering term, then it's (same as "<other option>")

I've fixed a dew of the C3 sylvari PS steps to how the consensus reached with my personal preference of the style variation at the time, those should be how it's done. But as said, the linked Quotes and Dialogues project page is up to most date with what seems to be the most effective-and-preferred format(s).

TBH, I'm not sure why we're trying to cram all these different fields of formatting into a single article. GWW was much cleaner, but had various subpage for each section that had variables in how to document. Konig 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Great effort on the project page! Sorely needed, was and still is. :) I just searched for "dialogue" and I found this guide, so that's what I went with. By the way: is the "official" (if something) tag to be bolded (like Warden Gwynda)? I prefer this version, but I changed several to not be bolded because the guide here so specifically said so. Titus 22:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I do not like the following versions very much though (not to mention all of them being slightly different from eachother): Evryn, Galia, Xerik. I think consistency is extremely important here. Allowing the indent to differ depending on whether or not there's different steps, is not a good idea imo. Will just cause further confusion regarding what's "the right way". Choose one and stick to it :) Titus 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Warden Gwynda question: AFAIK, all discussed versions had that bolded.

Regarding Evryn: I went with that variation just now because all responses have the same closing, but only specific groups have certain lines - but you can belong to more than one group; dividing it like how it was (like how Gwynda is now - a separate line to denote "if this") gives teh false impression that is the *only* line you'll see. When I read it before editing, it seemed like if you were a Whispers, you wouldn't get other options even if you had White Stag or norn. This is a personal opinion and as was discussed, both are "accepted methods" that should be determined by base - when there's few cases, I'd argue how Gwynda's separates unique branches, otherwise I'd go with how Evryn separates unique branches.

Regarding Galia and Xerik: that *is* consistent, actually, and is done when the entire dialogue tree differs, rather than a specific branch changing/becoming (un)available. Technically, Galia is the most correct one - Xerik is "close but still wrong" so to speak, as the non-sylvari shouldn't have a header and the sylvari-only dialogue header should begin with a ; and not made small.

Regarding "consistency": That's where Sialor's comment of the project not working comes in. There were so few people with so many opinions that no consensus was reached. What was put up was simply "the most preferred" and I just recently shrunk it to what seems used more often from what I see while being size-considerate. The project never got a foothold of many different people, and eventually fell into silence. So I'd say we just have to be bold and with no consensus, just decide a format and tell anyone who doesn't like it to try re-igniting the discussion. Konig 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think you may be missing my point. If Galia's dialogue had been part of a story chapter, with several NPCs and progression steps, we wouldn't want to format it that way (with ; ). See the example below. ";" is being used at "Talking to Galia". While the "if" tag should always be indented to appear directly above the question/response it applies to.

==Dialogues==

===Back at the Omphalos Chamber===

Talking to Galia

This is the basic dialogue I give to everyone.

Oh, so that's why there's no "(if ...)" tag above this question of mine?

Yes, that's right.

Thanks. That makes sense.

(if sylvari)

Ok, so that's the basic. Does being a sylvari give benefits?

Yes, since you're a sylvari, I have an additional dialogue branch for you.

Interesting. What if you now have two exclusive responses depending on if I'm in the Whispers or not?

(if in Order of the Whispers)

Then, dear sylvari of the Whispers, you would get only this exclusive response. And on the wiki, there would be a bolded "if" tag above all possible responses.

I see, Whispers forever!

(if not in Order of Whispers)

Then, dear sylvari, you would get only this response.

I see, Mordremoth forever!

Bleh. I don't care for dialogue stuff.

Titus 14:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first off, tht's how that appearance would be. If the ENTIRE dailogue changed for sylvari than a simple branch, then it'd be how you're complaining. It's the difference between Additional branches and Entirely different dialogue trees.

However, even that complaint is moot, because the format decided upon was to not bold those sections - though people haven't caught onto this yet. Which is why at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Quotes and Dialogues#Multiple talkable NPCs it says to bold for events but not instances (the reason for this is simply because there's much more dialogue during instances and the above has a chance to happen, arguably we can go with italicizing all). Besides, look at the absolute horridness that is Into the Labyrinth with all that bold. Ugh! But compare then to Dead of Winter (which still needs formatting changes but the section heading is proper), or even Untamed Wilds (which is left be, rather than italicized). Konig 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

General wiki-linking, "wikification"

Could we have a note in here about avoiding over-linking, i.e. the standard rule of only wikifying the first instance of a term per page? I just had to edit a page that was so wikified it looked like the editor had been trying to play Tetris. — snograt 10:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added an over-linking note copying part of the sentence from the wikipedia MoS. -Chieftain Alex 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Al (and Ish.) I got irrationally irritated for a while there ^_^ — snograt 20:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Commonly-used templates

I've added a commonly-used templates section to the article, but I'm not sure about it. It takes up a lot of space with not much information in it. Any suggestions for improvements? --Idris (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to a lower spot in the article and I'm happier with it now. I've also added a "naming new articles" section -- it was copy-pasted from its previous home on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Skill formatting and I didn't bother to generalize it, so if anyone wants to update it, please feel free. --Idris (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Self styled

Dunno if we want a page for GW2W pages but I've just burned through most of the pages and used the following three styles:

Help namespace

Text description.

Guild Wars 2 Wiki namespace

Text description.

Projects

Text description.

They have a tiny bit of CSS in each of the skin themes to make them compatible with the dark skin. -Chieftain Alex 22:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the read

What is the policy about texts that address the reader directly in the second person, instead of a more impersonal and descriptive third person "Players", "Characters", etc?
Is there a Style guide for the wiki?
For example, the Terraria Wiki has a Style Guide recommending players to use a "Ensure a neutral, "encyclopedia" tone". Mith🌟Talk 13:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably belongs on this page. I think we normally go for "<Character>" in dialogue. For walkthroughs I try avoiding character/player, and instead use directions ("Continue to", "Go through", "Walk west") etc. -Chieftain Alex 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, most pages, if addressing the player, use "player(s)/character(s)", and if written with lore perspective, then usually "the Commander". "You" and such shouldn't be used unless unavoidable somehow, imho. Also, the usage of encylopedia tone should be always assumed, feels like not something that has to be clarified for a wiki. Wouldn't be against having it clarified, though, as I said multiple times most guidelines need updating and/or a refresh. ~Sime 14:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)