Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Quotes and Dialogues

Archive

---

• /Archive 1

Wiki element formatting

According to practices and processes the wiki uses "Interaction" rather than "Dialogue" sections for pages about objects. Starting from there I noticed the style for element borders used to draw dialogue tree branches are only applied to sections inside a dialogue class, so it doesn't always work as expected. For example:

Totally not a normal section

Manually added a <div class="dialogue"> here

You have two choices:

Take the red pill.

Look at the pretty line.

Am I dead?

Take the blue pill.

Manually added a </div> here

Compare to a section marked appropriately, but which isn't a primary section in an actual article:

Dialogue

You have two choices:

Take the red pill.

Look at the pretty line.

Am I dead?

Take the blue pill.

Currently the wiki only inserts <div class="dialogue"></div> in primary sections with the word "dialogue" in the header. Ignoring the infinite possible ways an editor can mangle content together, it would be nice if the same or an equivalent existed for "interaction" as it is the other standard. Spannu (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Section title should be "Text" not "Interaction" (Interaction is outdated) - I'm not sure if Chieftain Alex has added that to the coding to function like Dialogue sections, but it's in the works already. Konig (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue choices that trigger voice-overs

Scholar Glenna and Black Lion Greeter are 2 NPCs with dialogue-triggered voice-overs.

1. Where should I place them? I'm assuming that they should be kept on the NPC's page and treated as the direct response to the choice that triggered the voice-over.
2. Same level indentation or increased? Glenna's page shows same-level indentation. Greeter's page shows increased indentation.
   • Potential issue: Deep dialogue trees that may contain dialogue-triggered voice-overs (as deep as Glenna's Field Journal dialogue tree).
3. What is this sub-categorized as?
   • The trigger condition is a dialogue choice, instead of a timer, location, or health threshold for example.
   • The PC sometimes converses with the NPC, thus increasing the participant count to at least two.
   • The dialogue line shows up in chat bubble, chat panel and is voiced.

--BryghtShadow (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The voice over goes right under the option that triggers them. The voiced lines are indented one more after the option that triggers them, like normal dialogue. Each line gets the speaker's name (be it the NPC in of the article, a nearby NPC, or the PC), like standard voiced dialogue, to differentiate it. See Magister Ela Makkay and Rhoban as examples. Konig (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dialog section style in different story parts?

Is it supposed to be a difference in the style of the "dialog explanation" (I mean the "Approach/Talk to XYZ" part) above of the dialog parts within the dialog section of the different stories (personal story, HoT story, living story)? In most cases these use normal font sometimes with and sometimes without a colon and sometimes these are bold. If these differences are on purpose, is there a guideline somewhere for which is which? Because when I go on and change the bold ones from the HoT story, someone else is going to revert it and when I change the normal one from the living story ones to bold (there is a mix of bold and normal ones for these story pages) someone else is going to revert these, too. So I'm confused. And if there should be only one style and only the one described in this project guideline ... well, there are many pages with a different style and good luck with starting a revert war. Or maybe it just happens to me. Balwin (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bold is an old, outdated method that people keep adding to the new LW articles for unknown reasons (perhaps they're simply unaware that the formatting preference has changed over time). They should be without format, ending in a colon, as it shows on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Personal story formatting. Konig (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that bolding is used for NPCs/Objects articles, not event, dungeon, raid, or story articles. Not sure why the difference was made but it happened. Konig (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why it's "outdated" as that template was made well after most LWS had happened, but I do prefer bold as it makes it easier to see where stuff is, plus having ":" at the end sometimes causes issues with the text following it. - Do_odleplex 05:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's outdated because it changed, no other reason. I think Chieftain Alex pushed the change, if memory serves me right - originally I was italicizing them (there had been three methods at one point - bolding, italics with colon, or plain with colon). Ending a line with a colon should never, ever, cause issues. As for preference, honestly the bold feels too... dominating because of how frequent it's used. It just becomes cluttered to my eyes. So I'm in favor of either italics or plain text. Konig (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate bold anything that follows normal text. I think plain text (without italics) works best. —Ventriloquist 22:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

While I prefer plain text for these elements, I can live with the bold one, too. But I would like to have a regulation, that the pages have one constant formatting style, at least within one type of story pages. I would hope there can be a consensus and that we are then able to push that one consensus layout to the story pages. If there is a need for different dialog format sections, there is already a Living world formatting guideline Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Living world formatting (which currently not says much about the dialog section). But maybe we don't need different formatting guidelines. Balwin (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you check any of the core personal story missions you'll see that the format I've used didn't match the guidelines on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Personal story formatting. It did however match the current revision of Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Quotes and Dialogues. This is the format I'm trying to use whenever I see any dialogue irregardless of context. (italic player response, bold npc names with bold colons.) -Chieftain Alex 14:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Topic is in reference to the line separating sections of dialogue, not the documenting of the dialogue box text. In other words, the "Approaching XYZ:" and such lines on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Personal story formatting. Which isn't actually covered on this page at all, looking at it closer. Konig (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For me, this page is comes to my mind for everything dialog related. But yes, my remarks are only indirectly related to the dialogs themselves but more to the style of the dialog section, which are covered by the formatting guidelines. So, maybe this discussion could/should be continued on (one of these) template pages to get to a conclusion? Or do we have already a solution by pointing to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Personal story formatting (because the Living World one, don't really cover information about the dialog section) and I can start happily changing these lines I was asking about to plain text? Balwin (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested "Additional branch" change

Since Doodleplex insists I make a discussion for something that seems obvious... Current format is:

Welcome to Skovtrolde. What brings you out here?

(If in Order of Whispers)

I'm seeking the unsought.

Then you've found the unfound. I've been told to inform you of a mysterious power coming from the jotun camp in Theign Kenning.

However, this is a poorly construed set up that dictates the uncommon dialogue be at the bottom. We document based on their placement in the game, so when a line pops up that isn't always there, it isn't always at the bottom (off of memory, in fact, it's usually at the top). To use the article that the above is taken from, Cydwenn, it is clearly at the top. Resulting in:

Welcome to Skovtrolde. What brings you out here?

(If in Order of Whispers)

I'm seeking the unsought.

Then you've found the unfound. I've been told to inform you of a mysterious power coming from the jotun camp in Theign Kenning.

I'll check it out.

Curiosity. Why are all these kids here?

They're in my care. Sylvari cannot procreate as other races do, but I have always wanted tiny children. And these youths needed a parental figure, so I've taken them in.

Which looks like both dialogue options are only for OoW to the unknowing eye. Another example, Talon Bladedancer. With "If in Durmand Priory" at the top section, it implies that all dialogue options are for Durmand Priory only. Doodle's "solution" to keep formatting states that the second dialogue option is only there for non-DP members, useless when an option is there for those both in and not (not sure if this is case for Talon's dialogue, but it is for other NPCs). Worse yet, it requires putting that at every line that is below the current format notice. I suggest the following, which is (or at least has been) used for a large number of articles:

Welcome to Skovtrolde. What brings you out here?

I'm seeking the unsought. (if Order of Whispers)

Then you've found the unfound. I've been told to inform you of a mysterious power coming from the jotun camp in Theign Kenning.

I'll check it out.

Curiosity. Why are all these kids here?

They're in my care. Sylvari cannot procreate as other races do, but I have always wanted tiny children. And these youths needed a parental figure, so I've taken them in.

This specifies that specific line as being with requirements, leaving the rest with no potential confusion for such. On an aside, I lowercased "if" to match the format of "Converging options" which utilizes "same" not "Same", and removed "the" because it's an unnecessary modifier. Konig (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The latter is my preferred way of doing it. SarielV 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's set up like this because that is how dialogue is separated: ie if a dialogue is triggered by a race/organization/having an item/an event/something, the line specifying this goes at the top to label that it is separate it from the regular dialogue, and the majority of the time this is done there's usually a "If X" or "If not X". This is how it's done whether if broken up into two separate sections entirely (like Colwyn) or similar but different parts (Kirt). It also avoids the problem with getting it mixed up with things already put at the end("Receives item", "Same as above", "starts event"). I do agree that this doesn't work very well with the three orders dialogue like it does for the rest, so probably that should be switched from "if in X" to "members of X only" and "for all" to avoid any potential confusion. - Do_odleplex 23:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"It's set up like this because that is how dialogue is separated" That is the most ridiculous argument for how to format things. "It is that way because that's how it's done" is treating it as if it's denoted that way in the game, like there's a little line above the dialogue option saying "Order of Whispers option:" or something. But it's not. It does not have to be "at the top" to "label that it is separate from the regular dialogue".

"the majority of the time this is done there's usually a "If X" or "If not X"." This isn't true. Most of the time, it is not an either or, but an added extra. Yes, there are plenty of cases where "if this" or "if not this", but most of the time, it is in fact "if this" and "always". The Villager in the tree house of Lake Doric and the Cooks of Saidra's Haven when you have food, almost every single Order of Whispers added line (if not every single OoW added line), and the linked Cydwenn are all extras, not exclusions.

"It also avoids the problem with getting it mixed up with things already put at the end("Receives item", "Same as above", "starts event")." How could it possibly get mixed up with those? They may share placement, but they have completely different meanings and word usage. And if you're going to argue that (if Order of Whispers) getting mixed up with (same as above), then clearly (same as above) will get mixed up with (starts <<event name here>>). But in all honesty, that's not going to happen unless people are skimming (or are utter morons) and that's not something we can prevent. Konig (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Konig, please stop with the insulting names for people who may be found wanting in certain areas, it doesn't help. That being said, I feel it being at the top is far more cleaner as well as cleaner for readers than putting it at the end of the sentence(and because yes, people will skim). I've given a reasonable way to clarify for order's dialogue, which seems to be the only issue here, I'm not sure what else can be said. - Do_odleplex 06:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "add more text that needs to be made different on a case by case situation" (which most of the time will just be adding a line that says "everyone gets this dialogue") is really a solution. Konig (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've got a biased answer for this, because I chose this way for all of the personal story missions afaik. I'd do it exactly like this - i.e. the branch description in small bold text on the line above, but with (Otherwise) for the default branch. I think that is perfectly clear. If there is more than one non-choice-specific branch, I wouldn't have any labels on the default branches. -Chieftain Alex 19:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Nice, simple and works for everything(literally). - Do_odleplex 19:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise implies - just like "Not in the Durmand Priory" in that case - it doesn't appear if you are in the Durmand Priory, which isn't always the case (especially with Order of Whispers secret lines). Do it doesn't always work (as I mentioned in first comment). It works for story instances because those are always one or the other (or others). Also, we have an extra indentation for when we do that in story instances, at least with spoken dialogue, which shows just how many lines the unique instance gets. Konig (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ambient Dialog

Should an NPCs ambient dialog be included in an Area page? I just edited Vehjin Mines and included some dialog for the Awakened Affirmation System and Veteran Forged Officer only to find that (apparently) all of their ambient dialog is included on their own page. A few lines add interest, but adding all of them seems like it might be overkill. Separ (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What you added was the Affirmative system ambient dialogue that happens over the whole map, which is already documented on the map page (otherwise including it on every single area page would be overkill). And the second thing you documented are Quotes, which belongs to respective NPC pages. ~SimeTalk 16:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)