Template talk:Deed

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hidden Deeds

How about a flag of some kind to indicate if a deed is "Hidden" from the deed log until it is complete? It could automagically populate a Category:Hidden Deeds I've been meaning to create. MysterX 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm not going to rework the deeds already done with this template, but thats not really a problem, as they are not hidden. The usage section says to type "hidden" in the appropriate field, but be aware that the deed will be classified as hidden if there is any text in that field. Orions 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cats

Nice template! I nested the regional category fields so that only the most specific will show. Uloria 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my first :) However, that precise point is something I've been wondering about - not how to do it, but whether to do it at all. What I mean is, should we really classify an article only to the most specific category available, or should we add it to every higher level category as well? Let's consider an example:
Now I suppose it would be nice to decide which way is better and implement it everywhere across the board. For me, both work. Any opinions?
I believe that Articles belong in their sub-categories, not their parents as well. All Items and All Recipes should be removed first of all, but those aren't parent categories, they are also subcategories of the parent. Item pages definitely DO NOT belong in the parent category Items. This is what the admin crew decided, but did not fully complete the transfer. I also firmly believe that articles should be able to be in multiple sub-categories so long as they do not interfere with one another. Rogue 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Basically cateloging should always be done to the most specific category. Adding higher level cats for everything a) is redundant, and b)floods the higher-level cat with a long list of articles, which spams out the articles that should be catelogued there. Uloria 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We want to be able to have both the Deed Type and Deed Subtype categories show up: Example is The_Mines_of_Moria_(Burglar). This is both an Epic Deed and a Class Deed. So the way you keep changing it to (I'd appreciate it if you would discuss before changing) does not allow deeds that belong in two different categories to be placed there. Rogue 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The Epic Deed category shows up, as well as the Burglar Deed Category, which is the specific Class Deed it belongs to. Uloria 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It did not until I undid your changes. Rogue 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I see what is going on here - there is a clash between the Epic and Specific Class categories. Try discusing this first, before making changes (and I do resent being accused of what the accuser is doing), and maybe the person/people who have been building this template could resolve it without redundant cats. Uloria 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Orions created this template, and in our IRC channel we discussed and I helped him accomplish that. You are the one moving in and changing things without discussing fully these issues first. As an Admin I have the authority to undo / revert edits that I feel damage or undermine the previous editors work. I believe that your changes did undermine what was previously done. I am sorry if you feel that I do not have this right and if that is the case then speak with the LOTROAdmin. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would respect my decisions and other peoples work.

I will put in that Orions did mention that you changed the template though he was unsure if that's how he wanted it to work. Therefore, since I had the authority to undo your changes I did. Rogue 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cats - final

Ok, I think some explanation is in order. I created the template the way I did (adding every object into all the categories it could) because I've seen it done so in Items and Recipes. Then I posted a question here after Uloria changed it, because I'm not really stubborn to do it one way or the other, I'd just like to do it the same way throughout the wiki. We have chatted with Rogue on IRC, and her opinion is that the article should only fall in the most specific category. I see that is also Uloria's opinion, I've got no problem with that. To that end Uloria changed the nesting of the categories in the template - and for me the problem is solved, no harm done. Cheers, Orions 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


noinclude includeonly

I believe there is no point in adding those tags to templates. There is no need to have it here in any case. I believe it should be removed unless there is a valid reason why it should stay. The noinclude around the rest I understand. Rogue 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confident enough of my mediawiki skills to know all the effects of using these tags (I've just copied it from some other template), so if you think its unnecessary, feel free to remove it. --Orions 11:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Still something broken

There was an extra }} showing up on deed pages, I think I corrected it, but someone might want to double-check. MysterX 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good ... Uloria 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Levels

Orions, on going over the template, I realized we should add a parameter for the minimum level at which a Deed opens up... Uloria 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes. But if we do so, it would seem logical to add the deed level too (which affects how much xp you get from doing the deed). The reservation I have is twofold - first, adding minimal level is definitely nice for class / race deeds, but seems to have no impack on regional - second, i think getting the data to fill that parameter would be troublesome. --Orions 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, and I think it will take a lot of category fiddling, but would it make sense to have the regional-sub cats actually be subcategories of the individual regions? (This is *not* how the cats are set up, now.) Uloria 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Let's consider what practical uses does this have. For me, I want to know which deeds are Slayer (so I have to kill lots of things, which is not a good idea on my LM, as its a slow killer) and which are Exploration (I have no problem riding through the whole zone). If we adopt this point of view, creating a third level of classification (Deed type - Deed location - Deed sub-type) is unnecessary. Another argument against doing it is that ingame the titles which are awarded by those deeds are not classified by location, only by subtype (slayer, reputation, etc.). So the logical assumption would be that the Regional => Specific Region and Regional => Subtype are two separate (paralel) divisions and should not be mixed. --Orions 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see we have a Level parameter for the deed, but it is not displayed anywhere. I just edited The Road to Rivendell to add the level. I have passed over the bridge before, but at level 28. The level of exploration deeds is good to know, so you don't waste time visiting places that won't count 'cause you are too low level. Can we get the level displayed by the template? RingTailCat (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Wow, giant necro! Perhaps you can just add it to the additional text in the case of this deed? The levels of the deeds are already displayed at, like, virtue pages. Other problems with adding levels to the template are pointed out above (in 2009). --Ravanel (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Deed Chains/Requirements?

Hi,

I was wondering if we could add something to the template, either as part of the initial template, or another item on the Deed page. More specifically, "chain information" would be useful, such as in the following pages that I just added:

-Slug-slayer

-Slug-slayer_(Advanced)

This could help players qualify their objectives in determining whether a specific deed will be beneficial. What do you think? This is one of my first page edits, and I've learned a bit about wiki-ing, but still quite inexperienced.

Regards.

  • I've put 5 parameters for the deed chain, just use those needed and duplicate them on each page of the chain, is it OK or too basic? :) -- Goingbald 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of the deed chain, cheers! --Ravanel 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Destiny Points as Reward

Some Mirkwood deeds, like Enter the Arena, reward with Destiny Points. I was wondering if it is an idea to put an option for this in the deed template. I don't know that much about templates, so I'm only making a suggestion. Maybe it only makes the template too long or chaotic. I also don't know how many deeds with dp there are. For now I'll add the amount just after the template; doesn't look great, but it works. --Ravanel 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the DP-reward parameter before Item-reward, is it OK? It'll be useful if Monster Play deeds are added/reviewed because they all seem to have DPs for reward. -- Goingbald 14:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
DP function working well, thanks a lot for adding this! Unfortunately I don't play my fluffy warg enough to be able to do anything about the Monster Play deeds. The same situation as with the DP seems to exist with IXP, although I haven't entered any deeds that reward with IXP myself, so I don't know much about it. --Ravanel 11:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
When you use Create new deed the DP and SM reward are not in there yet. Anyone know how to fix this? --Ravanel 10:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to update the preload page, done now. :) -- Goingbald 06:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Title page needed?

I'm wondering if each title should have a page apart? Currently, most of the titles don't have a page, so a red link is showing (ex.: Warg-hunter on the page Warg-slayer (Lone-lands)). OK to remove the link from the template? --Goingbald 11:17, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

I would like to see pages for titles. Rogue 12:35, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
There is a bunch exactly, but lots missing for slayer deeds, see (Category:Titles); I guess we can let the red links and eventually one would fill them, or keep on adding all descriptions on the page Titles (with a link on a subsection of this page instead)? --Goingbald 19:21, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
Let the red links to each individual title stand. Eventually we will get to creating them, or someone will. I don't like long pages with subsections because it gets cumbersome in both reading it and editing it. Rogue 01:31, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

Turbine Points as Reward

Today I was checkin out some deeds (like Mysteries of Enedwaith) which will be implemented as soon as F2P goes live. I noticed that you can acquire Turbine Points by completing certain deeds. I think we should add this to the template -- Tiberivs 09:28, 27 August 2010 (EDT)

Event Deeds

I uploaded a new icon for the titles granted after completing event-deeds. So I also modified the template a bit, if you fill in Event for Regional-sub, the new icon will be shown (check The Shrewd Gardener for instance). Planning to do this also foor food-titles like Pie Maven. You guys think this is a good idea? -Tiberivs 17:28, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Documentation

Hi all! I created a Documentation page for this template - please take a look and feedback/improve. Thanks! Sethladan 03:42, 6 December 2010 (EST)

Nice... good job--Tiberivs 13:02, 9 January 2011 (EST)
Thanks! I actually forgot about that doc page I made, hahah. No other comments about it so far, so I guess I'll go ahead and transclude it over in place of the text that's already in the template page. Sethladan 13:36, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Objective description

We don't add the objective description to the deed-pages... maybe it's an idea to do so like I've done with: Such Generosity!. --Tiberivs 13:02, 9 January 2011 (EST)

My personal preference would be to have as much content about each deed as possible on its page, mostly because I'm really detail-obsessed, heh. Adding descriptions for each step/task sounds good to me. To this end, I'd also like to see minimum levels added (as discussed in 2009 - before my time here), although that data might be very difficult to collect. Sethladan 13:36, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Item amount

With F2P some deeds give also an ammount of items, like frostbluff coints in Such Generosity!... maybe we should add a parameter like item-ammount, so you don't need to fill in these details in additional information. --Tiberivs 13:02, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Skirmish Deeds also reward with a good amount of Marks, so this'll be needed for that, too. Template:Icon can display an in-image stack count, so that might do the trick if we can work it into this template. Sethladan 13:36, 9 January 2011 (EST)
That's a great idea, just like the view in-game... ill try to implement this into the template! --Tiberivs 05:23, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Sorry for no updates... it's something more complicated than I tought... it messes up the layout a bit, and I'm not happy with the "Number" in the immage... so still some testing to do --Tiberivs 19:37, 1 March 2011 (EST)

Additional Information

I'm trying to add a new parameter, called Extra, for Addition Infomarion (like farming places, tips etc)... I put it just below deed-chain, but it wont show up... If I move it more up, below Objective for instance, it works like a charm... does anyone else see what I'm doing wrong :S --Tiberivs 19:37, 1 March 2011 (EST)

I can't play with it here (not using a real computer at the moment...) but it looks like you're putting the new section in between comment tags (the <!-- --> bit) so it's getting ignored when you go to save and view the page. Try putting the code between the {{{Deed-chain-5}}} part and the <!-- (a couple lines up from where it is now) and see if it works there. You might have to play with the spacing a little to get things showing up on the right line. Sethladan 20:49, 1 March 2011 (EST)
I'm not sure I'd recommend this parameter, a page using a template doesn't need all the info in the template itself, and all parameters should be "simple text" or else the page could be strangely displayed. If you'd want a bullet list, a table, an image, a link, that could be badly handled by a simple template parameter... Anyway, it's fixed now, your addition was in a comment, as mentioned by Sethladan. :) --Goingbald 22:28, 1 March 2011 (EST)
thanks for fixing this... did not think about that. Anyway, if handled correctly this should not mess up the layout. I recently fixed a lot of deeds, and this additional info was always added with an other layout or heading... I'll try to check every update on deeds anyway --Tiberivs 03:08, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Item Amount Revisited

After some testing and discussion, this function was added into the template today. Please feel free to report any odd behavior and hopefully we can expand this to Skirmish Marks, as well. Some "issues" for future improvement:

  • Support for pluralization of item names.
Some editors prefer a more free-form style of entering rewards to allow for more flexibility with plurals (and icons, see below). Others enjoy the simplicity of being able to enter data into fields without having to worry about markup.
  • Improved color of the in-icon number.
The current color is a little hard to see on some backgrounds - adding some kind of black outline or shadow has been suggested (the current icon already uses a very slight shadow effect; this can probably be made stronger).
  • Consolidation of icons.
Many of Lotro-Wiki's duplicate icons are being consolidated, resulting in many cases where no "-icon.png" exists for a certain item name. If this happens with any items that are deed rewards, some method of accommodating for this needs to be added.

Pardon my "formal"ish language! Hope this works for everyone. :) Sethladan 23:04, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

Applause, I think this works well so far! I have already entered multiple deeds and could happily use this new feature. There is another thing I bumped into, though. Some deeds give multiple different items as a reward. For instance Ost Dunhoth: Champion of the Fortress of the Western Host, which rewards with not only 5 Medallions of the North-men, but also with a housing item. There are multiple deeds who have this. Would there perhaps be a template expert who wants to look into this? (Sorry for all the bothering!) --Ravanel 11:06, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
Sorry for the bit late comment, but very nice... this is great :-) --Tiberivs 13:45, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
This works very well indeed, thanks! Saw there is a minor issue with the spacing of the second reward, see Ost Dunhoth: Champion of the Fortress of the Western Host again as example. Anyone know how to quickly fix this? --Ravanel 21:11, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
The space issue only appears if the number of items given in the reward is different. In your example, you get one housing item, and 5 medallions. I think the problem is that when the Icon template adds the 5 over the image, the real position is on the right of the image. This means that an extra "space" appears when you look at it. I've tried ordering everything into a table, so it shouldn't matter about the extra spaces. How does it look on this? Amphoras 10:09, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Free deeds etc

I made a new template to show whether a piece of content is free or not and which quest pack you need to unlock the content. I added it into a copy of the deed template here, and the result shows here. The actual template is here. What do people think of the positioning on the deed page, colours, etc. I was thinking that it could also be added to other pages like quests, skirmishes, etc. Amphoras 09:05, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Good point there, think it's good to add that information on the page. Am not too happy about the black box with yellow letters though. Perhaps would prefer it as simple plain text, but will think about this a bit more. --Ravanel 13:16, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
Pretty much agree with Ravanel, I like the contents of the box on the page, but not the black box so much. Any way to do it more like an infobox? Great idea, though :) It could really provide a simple solution to the widespread content that could use that info. Rubyctook 16:44, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
Changed it to use a blank table, so only the text shows. What do you think now? Amphoras 09:42, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
Hm, what about just putting the info under "Additional Information" or create a new one, "Quest Pack"? Or do as Ruby said and use the layout of an infobox and put it to the top right. It looks a bit untidy now somehow. --Ravanel 09:59, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
I'll try an infobox, as that would be easier to use on other pages as well. Amphoras 10:09, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
Using a similar infobox to the one used for quests now. Changed the position so it appears at the top as well. Any better? Amphoras 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Update 5

We need something to represent Marks, not Skirmish Marks, since Skirmish Marks were removed in Update 5 Artifact (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2011 (EST)

No Edit Section

I added a __NOEDITSECTION__ to the template. It might be possible to place it somewhere else and still have it work correctly. Note that it does not work correctly in the example on the template page, you have to save and look at an actual deed page!

This suppresses the [edit] tag for the deed reward section. See Help:Magic words for more info.

Hopefully, this will reduce the change for accidental edits of the template instead of the deed page. That is one of the more common mistakes I have made - I know to back out, now.

RingTailCat (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Very good! Have been there myself, both with and without realizing before saving ;) Zimoon 04:14, 13 February 2012 (EST)
The final solution, as recently implemented, is to use <h2> header </h2> instead of == header == in the text generated by this template. Hopeful this will be The End of the Matter. RingTailCat (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2012 (EDT)

Suggestion / Request

This template is one of the most anonymous when it comes to presentation; it does not spell out for visitors that the page is about a deed but it could actually be about anything. Think of somebody clicking the link Random page (in the left column) and ending up at Mysterious Relics, where does that page tell it is a deed? Yes, now it does, because I temporarily added that line, but earlier it was first read way down inside the optional "Additional Information" ... and the bottommost category. Thence, the "deed" info from this template is almost invisible.

However, most deeds are very short and may be guessed. At best.

What about making the template so it adds a "Deed" line above the Lore section. I was ogling at the Title template but find it a bit too strict (my personal view, it is indeed very informative and thus functional). The line "Description/This is a deed" is hardly nice though true, the best I could come up with this early a Monday morning ;) So the request would be how to make a deed tell it is a deed early on in a better way? Perhaps just a simple line on same-blue colour as in our info-boxes just above the Lore section that just reads "Deed — Its Name" ??

Another option would be to rename all deed pages so they are named such as "A Name (Deed)" and this way also avoid potential name clashes. Not that this is a common problem but they occur. I am less fond of that though as it is sometimes handy to use one page for both the deed and for extra info. Such as for Mysterious Relics which is both a deed and 5 mysterious objects ... and this story begun with one of those objects linking to that deed-page.
Zimoon 02:48, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Lore text

AFAIK, all deeds have two pieces of lore text: the one in the tooltip from the deed list item on the left page, and the one in the tooltip from the seal on the right page. This puts forward several questions.

  1. Should we put both tooltips in the Lore text field or just one, and which?
  2. Is the fact that the two texts are separate significant, and if so, should the template have two fields?

Silver hr (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

I put the tooltip text from the left panel into the lore text, and the text from the right panel into the objective. RingTailCat (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
See these examples: Stangard Explorer or Restoring the Quick Post for two variations. RingTailCat (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the examples - I think I got the hang of it: Alert Guard (deed). Silver hr (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Improvement Suggestion

This template does not generate a page that early on tells what it is all about. Actually, nothing tells the page is about a deed until the category. Unless something in the deed-text itself does of course.

Suggestion: add a snippet above "Lore" that states the page is about a deed. Maybe use the parameters and emit something like "NAME is a REGION TYPE DEED" ⇒ "Mighty Umín is a Inn of the Forsaken Slayer Deed" -- for ref only: Mighty Umín.

I realize there will be grammar problems, such as the example above which should read "is an Inn...". There may also be situations when the auto-generated text is not very good. Perhaps a new parameter for those situations, empty by default but an editor sets it if necessary.

The alternative is to walk over all deeds and add this manually. Bubit that seems a lot of work for something we should have thought of when we created the template.

Probably there are other templates that do the same thing, emitting "anonymous" pages where one need to search for what it is all about. Not all pages are visited when the reader really knows what to expect, it can just be a mis-click, a chance-click in the quick-search box, or using the Random Page link to the left. Thus we need this extra piece of information topmost.
-- Zimoon 03:29, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Haha, I see you haven't changed your mind - you made almost the same suggestion back in March. Maybe this time it'll stick. ;)
I do agree, that the deed pages could use something that says what they are. Some are obvious from their names, if you know what a deed is at all (Hendroval-slayer is pretty clear) but the more singular deeds are less so. The logic you're suggesting sounds doable to me. An n could be added if the first letter of the next word is a vowel, and the line could use the Deed-type parameter, unless it's regional and then it also needs to look at the subtype and Regional-sub parameters. I think the instance deeds are also kind of oddballs. Then there are some deeds that haven't used those parameters - like the first one I just went to check, Thoroughbred - and those would have to be fixed manually.
But I guess I shouldn't talk about it being so easy, since I'm probably going to leave it to somebody else to do. Even adding the word "Deed" somewhere at the top of the page would be an improvement. The title template does this already: I go to an anonymous-sounding page like Keeper of Promises, and it's clear immediately what I'm looking at. -- Elinnea (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
Uuhhmm, not only forgetful but almost blind too. Zimoon 12:26, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
I added a top-most info line to the template. I picked faction as first conditional but that may not be the best option, perhaps the deed-sub-type would be better even if certain deeds happen to yield reputation too; feel free to change the order of conditionals, but just one may be selected, anything else would be too messy.
Use the "Alternative-name" parameter to override the name, which always comes first, default is PAGENAME (for some reason subst:PAGENAME refused to work).
Use the "Alternative-text" parameter to override anything after the name, default is first matching conditional clause.
-- Zimoon 09:11, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
Looking at Thoroughbred, we're getting an {{{Alternative-text}}} showing up. Is this intended? The new conditional is forcing display even when it already knows that there is no alternative text to display. Otherwise, having a general intro line for each deed is great idea. Sethladan 12:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
Answering with a return-question: Why has somebody added Category:Rise of Isengard Deeds outside of the template? ;)
But yes, that is intended, to signal to the editor that s/he did something wrong, or that s/he should use the alternative-text parameter. But no, it is not nice from a backwards-compatible point of view, so anybody annoyed must fix it.
-- Zimoon
PS: As an alternative: Undo my change and make the page read Lore of the Deed or maybe just Deed Lore. That would overcome the original issue that so many deed pages does not spit out what they are until people perhaps find the category at the bottom. (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
I'm not bothered enough to tinker with your changes, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't something that slipped by. As to why Majik added the category manually... who knows? The categorization for this template is weird, and I don't know what the rules are since it was changed early this year when I got eaten up by school. :-P Sethladan 13:28, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
True, very true. The changes were only to remove the double and triple inclusions to categories, it never changed anything big. Probably we should have done a more solid change to make it more intuitive. Zimoon 14:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
The more I think of this the more I think it would suffice with just changing the == Lore == line to either == Deed Lore == or maybe == Lore of the Deed == if that is better English. The template would be easier to understand and easier to update in the future, in an effort to make it easier to use, which is mentioned before and Seth pointed out now. Feedback wanted. Please.
-- Zimoon 07:16, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
I really liked the idea of an introductory sentence, but I guess it'd be a lot of work to make sure every single deed is properly explained (for those cases like Thoroughbred which haven't been categorized correctly). I will support changing "Lore" to "Deed Lore" if that seems good to you ("Lore of the Deed" sounds a little archaic), especially since it reads like "Quest Information" that we've added in other places. Another suggestion might be to revisit the idea of an infobox that Amphoras put forward a while ago. Deed pages are unique (read: weird) in the way they deal with information, and I think a box in the top right (like for quests) with some key info would help a lot here, plus it would help immediately identify the page as a deed. Sethladan 11:19, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Sound like a brilliant idea. Go for it. And I change to "Deed Lore" until that new awesome-looking information astonishing box is ready for launch. Then we will have some work to do :P
-- Zimoon 14:56, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Hahahahah, "awesome-looking information astonishing box." I'm very good at suggesting ideas and then never producing magic, huh? :-P Good for you with the immediate pragmatic solution and moving on. Sethladan 16:53, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
"I'm very good at suggesting ideas and then never producing magic" ... I disagree, the most recent thing was the crafting-stuff. But better do you studies, and then take your time so it become magic, and not some half-measure ;)
-- Zimoon 02:16, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

Level -- what is it supposed to do?

The parameter "Level" is defined in the doc file, but is NOT in the template itself.

Is this an artifact? Something not yet implemented? An "oops" something that got deleted?
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Huh, good question. I went back in the documentation and found it added in July 2011, but I couldn't find any corresponding edit in the template itself.
I'm guessing it's supposed to be displayed on the page, and I think that would be a useful feature, unless somebody else knows more about this tale and can enlighten us. -- Elinnea (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2012 (EDT)
Maybe this has to do with what is mentioned in the march 2011 discussion above in Objective description? And also the Levels discussion back in 2009.
Gwenwyfar (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2012 (EDT)
Ah, you're right, it was discussed. Twice, it looks like. I think I even remember reading that at some point, because I have been adding the minimum level to the extra comments section of deeds here and there.
I don't see the problem with adding the minimum level to be displayed at the page, though. It would be useful for race deeds, and class deeds, and regional deeds. I guess the epic and quest deed levels are self-evident (you can't do the deed unless you're high enough level to take the quests.) On several occasions I have mined the minimum level from the Lorebook - normally I don't trust its info, but on older deeds it seemed to be correct. And the level parameter could always be set to not show unless there's a value in it. For the deeds which we do have these details for, it would be nice to include a place for it. -- Elinnea (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

That is what I noticed... it was apparently talked about and then "half-implemented." I suspect that the stumbling Block is/was "where" to display it, and what to say.

  • "This deed is available at level xx"
would probably work. XX as a single number would not be incorrect in any case; XX+ could be used if it were desired to indicate "starting at". I'm not aware of any deeds which are "top" limited i.e. have a max level, even slayer or class deeds.
  • Probably as a "first line" in "Objective. ???

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

One thought just occurred to me -- of course, the "minimum" level is probably 5 levels (I think it is) below the "declared" level of the quest(s) involved. Just as an example, I'm adding "84" to all the Hytbold deeds. At Level 84 you get the message about re-building, but I believe you can do those quests/deeds several levels lower than that, just as with any others. The trick is usually the pre-requisite gating quests. However, it is still a "true" statement -- that the quest is available at level 84 :)
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

Ok, how does that look? I stuck the above into the template. I would have put it under "Extra" which triggers "Additional information", but I don't know how (if it can be done) to do an "or" in template coding. i.e. "if Extra or Level" then output stuff. With Seth back in school, I don't know who's the Template maven now.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2012 (EDT)

Uh, I would be able to answer it, but its been so long I honestly don't remember what to use in this case, although it doesn't help much that I didn't fully understand the question. Assuming you want a line to only appear if a value is entered, I would say you could probably use {{#if:{{{level|}}}|line if level is filled|line if level is not filled(can be empty)}}
Edit: Just looked the template, I guess I got what you're asking now. I don't recall seeing any such feature, and even if there was, since level triggers a phrase of its own, there would be no way to separate it from the extra (since both extra and level would trigger the same thing if they were in the same function, or you'd need to type the entire thing out, which kills the purpose of having a template value for it, and if you used extra and level together, I dunno what would happen, and there would still be two separate values anyways). I don't really see a problem with having them separated, though.
Edit2: Ah, I really should stop misunderstanding things. I'll see if I can't move level inside the additional information heading, assume I didn't find anything/didn't remember how to do it if I don't do anything :P
Gwenwyfar (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
There you go.
Gwenwyfar (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
I am glad to see the level displayed. I hate going into a new area, slaying and exploring, only to find that the deeds have not kicked in yet.
Note that deed levels can operate like the level of some quest, e.g. Quest:The Hunter's Path, there are deeds which are not available until you reach the target level. My favourite examples, as in most annoying, are some of the Moria deeds, like Deep-claw Slayer, which used to have a minimum level of 50. RingTailCat (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
There's a problem with the display of the Additional Information section. If there is no level typed into the deed, any text in the extra parameter will not show up. See here: Talk:Nurseries of the Wyrmdelf. I'm a little too sleepy to look into it right now, so if anyone else feels up to counting brackets and rearranging if statements, please fix it.
While we're fixing things, I would also be happier if there were a period at the end of that sentence.
I too am happy to see some use for the level parameter. :) -- Elinnea (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
I think I squashed that bug - please keep an eye out for how the Additional Information section displays in deeds old and new, in case any other unanticipated issues come up. -- Elinnea (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Does "Title Icon" work?

  • In trying to make a generic icon for Reputation deeds, I tried inserting "| Title-icon = " into the deed page Ally to the Men of Dunland -- but it had no effect.
  • What I was trying to do, which I thought would be easy... :(
currently the displayed entry (under rewards) for the Skill apparently REQUIRES that the icon be named identical to the Skill... so no generic is possible.
see Category talk:Characteristic Icons
The Skill Men of Dunland - Vendor Discount is able to be changed with no problem.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 20:46, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

Once I figured out the syntax, this parameter does work. (It's a one-word value). Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 14:54, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

doc/boilerplate/preload cleanup

  1. Template:Deed/Doc - has now been renamed Template:Deed/doc (lower case)
  2. Template:Deed/doc - is now transcluded into Boilerplate:Deed
  3. Template:Deed changes
    • Fixed syntax so that Lore and Objective headings only display if they have parameter values as was apparently intended. Reward should probably be treated the same way, but that was a bit more complex to fix
    • Removed "| Alternative-name = Override the pagename in the top-most info-line" -- from doc file, not evaluated in template
    • Removed "| Alternative-name = Override anything after name in the top-most info-line" -- from the doc file, not evaluated in template
  4. Template:Deed/Preload - updated with stripped copy from doc file.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 14:51, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Does the parameter "|Title-icon" work... take two

I wish I knew what I meant by my cryptic comment above, about it being a one word value... I certainly can not get it to work now.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 23:24, 28 August 2013 (EDT)
Haha, there's nothing quite like trying to figure out the thing you apparently understood clearly a few months ago. I think I figured it out - the template is looking for the name of the icon as it's listed at Template:Title Reward. This deed template is in fact calling the Title Reward template. So you leave off the -icon bit and just type
| Title-icon   = Event
and it will work with the purple event icon plugging in. -- Elinnea (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2013 (EDT)
Thank You!!! Thank You !!! Thank You !!! -- Now to fix the docs... so that someone in the future can understand what is happening.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 14:28, 29 August 2013 (EDT)

Max per day

Specifically with class deeds, there is a daily max you can advance in. I didn't see a spot in the template for a max/day value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kollins (Contribs • User Talk) at 02:22, 19 February 2014.

Since these limits are something very specific to class deeds, it probably doesn't make sense to add a parameter just for them. If you'd like to update those skill deeds, though (please do!), you can feel free to add that info under | Extra or even just make a new header at the bottom (which is exactly what the | Extra parameter does anyway. Sethladan 01:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I figured there are a lot of options in the template that aren't applicable to all types of deeds already so wouldn't it be best to have max per day as part of the template that can be left blank for non-class deeds? Seems this would make the deed pages for class deeds more uniform. Kollins (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, and I'm alllll about consistency. Definitely worth considering if someone comes along to update this template (although I'm generally reluctant to add new parameters, there are a lot here that can be collapsed as well). Sethladan 13:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Faction Reputation Reward category

I think we should alter Template:Deed so it will auto-categorized each reward type so people can see a list of the rewards and choose Deeds to accomplish by reward

There are 2 flavors of reputation deeds that are categorized on this wiki:
1. Deeds that award a title and requires reputation points to earn, for example: Category:Bree-land Reputation Deeds
2. Deeds that reward there completion with reputation points, for example: Category:Men of Bree Deeds

Example category: Token of Hytbold Reward Deeds or Deed Reward: Turbine Points or Deed Reward: Men of Bree Reputation

None of the other rewards are categorized but maybe they should be. What say you? Matthew.zellmer (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) no comments as of yet Matthew.zellmer (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reputation Faction template change

  • I want to change the deed template so it better categorizes reputation deeds. There is a problem with double categorization due to the way the template categorizes reputation deeds. Currently it categorizes some reputation deeds by region (e.g. Ally_to_the_Men_of_Bree) and some by faction (e.g. Category:Men of Bree Deeds.
    • This is because some deeds reward reputation points for a faction and others reward a title because you HAVE a lot of reputation points for a faction.
    • BUT both SHOULD be categorized by faction together (e.g. Category:Heroes of Limlight Gorge Deeds)
    • Besides, these faction categories are added to a regional reputation category already, so there is currently double categorization. (e.g. Category:Dunland Reputation Deeds.
  • I can change the template (very simple 2 line change) so in both cases for both types of deeds they are categorized into the faction category
  • see my User:Matthew.zellmer/Template:Deed test and my User:Matthew.zellmer/Dummy Deed
    • would requiring moving the "Increased Standing with ..." statement from if Faction| to if Reputation|
    • would require removing all of the "sub-Regional" Reputation text from all related deeds (I can do that)
    • this will only categorize the deeds into the faction

Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Matthew.zellmer (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't go for the idea of double characterization, but it became a major goal a year or two ago.
One of the companion issues is that there is a LACK of an overall layout for categories. We only started to "standardize" (Clean up/define) the categorization tree with The Great River, and have cleaned it up a bit with both East and West Rohan, and (I think) the result is that Western Gondor is pretty clean.
Sadly -- Project: Categorization never captured this effort; one of those "Great documentation project" issues. :)
"Obviously," the basic question is -- should deeds (or anything) be listed by Region/Area or Faction.
The debate tends to revolve around the "classic question" -- How do people find what they are looking for?
We have "sort-of" decided that the Category Tree should be hierarchical -- at least that is how I have been working, and since those who argued otherwise are no longer around ... :)
Needless to say, this is all complicated by Turbine's lack of consistency, especially over time. Every time there is a change in Devs (especially major changes as happened in October of 2012) we discover sudden major changes -- like the appearance of Meta Deeds.
So, in short, I agree. Go for it! Although a number of things, like your example, Category:Heroes of Limlight Gorge Deeds exist independent of templates.
Oh yeah, and just to further complicate things -- many of the newest Deeds (especially meta-deeds) reward neither Title nor Faction points! Some appear to be incompletely implemented as they simply exist, but reward nothing, others only award Marks and TP.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the deed Ally to the Men of Bree be categorized in both regional and faction(rep)? I understand wanting to put it in 'one' place, but different viewers like seeing different kinds of grouping (which ultimately leads to duplicate categorization). I don't like this personally, but a lot of things here are that way. The deed itself is actually categorized under the reputation tab in-game instead of the regional tab if I remember correctly; but grouping with the regional deeds obviously makes sense as well. I haven't spent a lot of time with this template to be sure, but were the reputation and faction parameters meant to go hand in hand and not be separated (but possibly were by other editors)? In other words should a deed only be categorized into a faction/rep because it has rep rewarded? Categories make my head spin, lol; key-word tags make much more sense to me xD All that said, I agree with Magill to 'Go for it!'. Change has to start somewhere! --Savi (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fantastic, quick response guys.
So its decided. I will categorize all faction-reputation deeds together, removing one level of double categorization that currently exists. BUT I will leave current parent double categorization: the parent-faction-category and the parent-regional-faction-category. This will keep the individual deeds grouped together and allow the group to be categorized as needed. The parent category will be double categorized but the individual deeds wont. This will also allow us to remove one of the parent categories quite easily later if we want too. Matthew.zellmer (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Without venturing an opinion on a solution one way or the other, because I'm not really aware of how deeds currently are/should be categorized on the wiki: Be sure to consider deeds that grant reputation points to a faction not based in the same area. As an example, if Silent and Restless is categorized under Elves of Rivendell Deeds but not Eregion Deeds while the category Elves of Rivendell Deeds is placed in Trollshaws Deeds (because the faction is located in the Trollshaws)...then you have a problem. Sethladan 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I think we can tackle this. By grouping all the faction-reputation deeds together in a faction-deed-category I can connect the category to several regions. Matthew.zellmer (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how that would help matters. You'd be attaching pages to multiple categories (some of which they're not actually a member of) and we'd be back to the original concern of double-categorization and muddying the category tree. I'm curious to see how it looks when you're done, though. Sethladan 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
ok so that's my first hack at the re-organization. Not really much different other then the removal of one double-categorization. See Category:Regional_Reputation. Matthew.zellmer (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems to make sense -- I just don't know that it is even vaguely relevant.
I'm inclined to think that the Reputation page should just have another index on it showing which factions are in which Regions -- but since the existing table is sortable, that doesn't even seem necessary.
I would go so far as to say that Category: Reputation Factions should have the sortable table and be transcluded back into Reputation - reminiscent of Category: Western Gondor Deeds. Then just forget about Category:Regional_Reputation.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 17:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Change(s) needed to deed template.

While doing Beorning stuff.... I ran into the annoying fact that the Deed template requires that the icon name equal the trait awarded name. Really screws over the ability to use generic icons.

The Template: Deed uses a mix of "{{Reward" entries and "[[File: ...]] [[Trait-reward]]" entries and one {{Barter entry.
  • Can/should these be all made consistent to use {{Reward? Or to use Mode=imlink instead of File:
-- before I go nuts changing all of the icons so the deeds behave.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk
{{Reward}} will only work with items, but you should be able to get away with {{ :{{{Trait-reward}}} | mode=imlink }} to take advantage of the generic icons. That would definitely be the better solution than you going nuts, hahah.
I think Goingbald has done a bit of work on the deed template most recently, so you might also want to check with him on the best direction to take here. Sethladan 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Already done by Barny, thanks! :) -- Goingbald (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to add another parameter: title_name

Currently there is only a parameter for title (which is the name of the page, not the name of the title), the result is that for some titles it shows an incorrect name. Example:

See Vocation: Historian -- Tier 1

It could also be the other way around, i.e., the parameter title_link or title_page.

Mogafi (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

mode & arg -- delete or leave?

The documentation says:
| mode={{{mode|}}} Leave as is
| arg={{{arg|}}} Leave as is
But I don't see that there's any mode or arg parameters in the template. "arg" doesn't show up anywhere in the template, and "mode" only shows up as "mode=imlink" without any parameters. With nothing to pass the parameters to, and after previewing several pages with and without these blank parameters, I think it would be save to remove this from the template.
One word of caution, however, when writing a post here there's a "Preview" tab on top and a [Show preview] button on the bottom. The tab will never show a big mouseover popup, while the button always will. So if you remove those arguments then hit the preview tab, of course things won't work correctly. Banaticus (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If I remember well, these parameters are useful if the Tooltip template is used in the template, which is not the case for Deed. Removed in Template:Deed/doc and Template:Deed/Preload. -- Goingbald (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of (Deed)

I see a lot of new Mordor deeds added that have "(Deed)" in the page name while they should not. Please remember that this is only needed when there are multiple pages (skills, titles, effects etc) with the same name (see template instructions). This is a basic naming convention on this wiki. We don't want ALL deed pages to have "(Deed)". Eventually, all Mordor deeds will have to be renamed and "what links here" fixed (which is a lot of work). --Ravanel (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In theory, all Mordor Deeds should have the (Deed) suffix, and titles (Title). . . (except the two newest ones). Besides the individual area deed pages, they are all listed on the Category page for Conquest of Gorgoroth (Faction)
Off the top of my head, I can't tell you why I started doing that. I suspect I had some reason during the Beta that is no longer obvious.
At least at the moment, there are not a lot of links around -- All of the deeds are itemized in a single include for each of the 5 areas. That will clear most of the references. There are not that many locations listing individual deeds. Theoretically, Category:Gorgoroth is actually well organized
That just leaves the Titles. . . which probably should get the (Title) suffix removed.
Yup, (Title) should be removed for all those Mordor title pages as well... --Ravanel (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
At least this will give me something to do different from recording quests -- which has gotten to be really boreing!
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 01:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Aha, as I went to change the Conquest of Gorgoroth (Faction) Reputation quests, I think I recall -- they were the trigger! The first rep level has the same name for the deed and the title. So, building the prototype for that page, just projected the idea (Deed/Title) forward based on the first as none of the information was available and changing the "standard" reputation level deed and titles as I actually encountered them.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 01:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that explains. For those two, (Deed/Title) is of course appropriate! I'm happy you're on board for fixing the others, though. Doing this now will probably save a lot of time later. E.g. I've seen other contributors add "(Deed)" etc for new pages because they think it's the default (probably also when trying to fill in existing red links from the Gorgoroth deed page).--Ravanel (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nocat doesn't work for reputation

I'm working on some specific deed pages that should not go into any category because they are written in another language (see: Talk:Lotro-Wiki Contributors' Corner#French_and_German_pages & Geschichten von Gorgoroth). However, nocat doesn't seem to work for reputation factions (and possibly other rewards). Does anyone know how to adapt the deed template so nocat works properly (for all categories)? I will probably only mess things up if I try. --Ravanel (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Sethladan implemented the Nocat parameter in only one thing as I recall - in the Article Management Tags.
Sethladan has not been active on the Wiki since then that I am aware of. I believe he graduated, but I do not know.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 12:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean. The deed template for sure has a nocat parameter. I'm using it on the deed pages linked in my initial comment. --Ravanel (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This should be fixed now (mostly by coincidence). Sethladan 22:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deed with two parent deeds

All of the Slayer, Explorer and Quest meta deeds in Mordor technically have two parent deeds: The deed for the Mordor sub-region, and the meta deed for all of Mordor. For instance, Explorer of Lhingris contributes to both Explorer of Gorgoroth and Deeds of Lhingris. In particular, somebody tried to link to both parents in the deed Explorer of Lhingris but the links don't work.

When there exists a deed with two parent deeds, is there a way to link both parents in the deed template? Thanks. Dolenaglar (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't think of a solution that would make the deed template a lot more complicated right now (not sure if it's worth it), but I've fixed that particular deed by pasting the text with the correct links under the Extra parameter. --Ravanel (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Raveanel, I'll use your fix as a template for the other deeds that need two links. Dolenaglar (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Virtue experience

Hello, i would like to change the template to

{{#if: {{{Virtue|}}}
    | {{#vardefine:Virtue-value|{{#expr:{{{Virtue-value}}}*2000}}}} 
      {{#if: {{{Virtue2|}}} 
          | {{#vardefine:Virtue-value|{{#expr:(2000*{{{Virtue2-value}}})+{{#var:Virtue-value}}}}}}
      }} 
    <tr><td>  [[File:Virtue Experience-icon.png]] {{#var:Virtue-value}} Virtue Experience</td></tr>
}}{{#if: {{{Virtue2|}}}

}}

This would reflect the new virtue experience earning under the new system, with no need of editing the deed pages. Old information will be still there and could be cleaned up later.

However since this change might affect lot of pages, i would like to ask for some input here.

Other thing that will probably need to be changed in the template is the categorization. What should be the new category for these deeds?
similarly to IXP and SXP it could be Category:Virtue Advancement Experience Deeds
Drono (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, nice work! I tested it out and it works just fine. A few further thoughts:
  • Would it be possible to format the value to include a comma separator?
    Yes, can do just the thousends and add ,000 to end, but i think it was without the comma in game. Will look.
  • The empty #if statement at the end doesn't do anything. Did you plan to put something in there?
    No, can remove it.
  • Can we assume that every deed has a value for virtue-value or does that need a default value of 1 to avoid the big, red "unexpected error" text?
    every deed that has value for virtue should also have value for virtue-value. Alternatively can do
    {{#if: {{{Virtue-value|}}}
  • This seems like a temporary change. How would the deed template look once all the deed pages are cleaned up? Which parameter will be used to store the virtue experience and what value will be used? If we keep virtue-value as is (e.g., 1 = 2000, 2 = 4000), new deeds might be a little confusing to add in. Got any ideas to smooth the transition?
    Maybe best would be adding new parameter to the deed pages, switch the tamplete to use this new parameter and than clean the deed pages from the old ones. Can do this with bot.
  • We haven't been too consistent with the naming of categories. IXP uses "Item Advancement Experience Quests" and SXP uses "Steed Experience Quests". I'm in favor of using "Virtue Experience Deeds". I don't think that the word Advancement adds much other than length.
    Good point
Dadwhereismom (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Drono, I think you should now apply this change. Deeds are currently categorised automatically by their virtue trait (Charity, etc), and as they are converted to the new virtue value, they will be removed automatically from the old category and should be categorised in the new category (I agree with 'Virtue Experience Deeds'), which I or someone can create. Once converted the old section in the template can be removed. It is a good piece of work. Noddi (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra

Should not we add a bullet, so it's more organized:

{{#if: {{{Extra|}}}
    |*{{{Extra|}}}
}}

instead of

{{#if: {{{Extra|}}}
    | <p>{{{Extra|}}}</p>
}}

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiberivs (Contribs • User Talk).

I think so, yes. The template can automatically generate a couple of bullet points in the Additional Information section. The Extra parameter is placed after that, so it should start with a bullet for conformity. But somebody would need to visit all of the deeds that have a multi-line 'Extra' field and update the indentation, if necessary. --Thurallor (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The Extra gets for some reason put into the list if the above values are not empty, instead of the wiki syntax in the template can also use:
{{#if: {{{Parent-deed|}}}
    | <ul><li> This deed contributes to the [[{{{Parent-deed|}}}]] meta-deed. </li></ul>
}}
Than people can choose if the Extra should be list or paragraph.
Drono (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
If they did choose to add a bullet point, wouldn't there be extra space between that and the previous one? --Thurallor (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • previous bullet point
  • test
vs.
  • previous bullet point
  • test
They don't look exactly the same, but quite close. I guess it would be OK. --Thurallor (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, it would still require revisiting a large number of pages to update that choice... Unless the template itself can detect whether the 'Extra' field has multiple lines, and insert the * only if it's a single line. (I think that would require an extension). --Thurallor (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, is that a problem?
No, it would not require any editing as it does not add the bullet now so if people want the bullet to be there they still have to add it manually. It now act like the text is part of the above li if there is not any list formatting to break it. According to mediawiki just space should break that formatting but it seems does not work here.
ParserFunctions are here - can check in the Special:Version - Drono (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, found probably best solution
{{#if: {{{Level|}}} {{{Parent-deed|}}} {{{Extra|}}}
    | <h2> Additional Information </h2>
}}{{#if: {{{Level|}}}
    |* This deed is available {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{Deed-type|}}} }} | class | for [[{{{Deed-subtype}}}]]s}} at level {{{Level|}}}.
}}{{#if: {{{Parent-deed|}}}
    |* This deed contributes to the [[{{{Parent-deed|}}}]] meta-deed.
}}
{{#if: {{{Extra|}}}
    | {{{Extra|}}}
}}
It now breaks correctly from the list and auto put the p tag around it but i guess that the formating will be able to be forced from the parameter value - so will be able to continue the same list above. Drono (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I was just going to propose that. --Thurallor (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice, your latest version seems to work. Test cases:
--Thurallor (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Bot Operation

I would like to add a line in the "Additional Information" section for each deed, showing how to find it in the deed log, e.g.:

This is difficult because the Deed-type parameter needs work. I think when the template was originally created, there was only one region tab: Eriador. When the other regions were added, I guess we continued using "Regional" for the Deed-type, rather than having a separate value for each region.

First Proposed Change (Rejected)

I would like to replace the following three parameters:

| Deed-type     = Required - Regional, Racial, Class, Social, Hobby or Epic <== Always one of these
| Deed-subtype  = Required - The name of region, race, class, or hobby
                 -- Adds to category "Deed-subtype Regional-sub Deeds"
| Regional-sub  = Optional - Subtype of regional deeds: Slayer, Lore, Event, Quest or Explorer

with the following new ones:

| Deed-tab      = Required - The name of the tab at the top of the Deed Log under which this deed appears
                  -- Skirmish, Instances, Hobbies, The War, Class/Race/Epic, Eriador, Rhovanion, Gondor, Mordor
| Deed-sub      = Required - The name of the subsection at the bottom of the Deed Log
                  -- Each Tab has different subsections, e.g. under the Class/Race/Epic tab are the following subsections:
                  -- Class, Race & Social, Epic, Reputation
| Deed-category = Required - Class, Slayer, Lore, Quest, Explorer, Reputation
                  -- If in doubt, look at the icon in the deed log:
          Quest Lore Reputation Slayer Explorer Class
| Race          = Optional - This deed is restricted to the specified race.
| Class         = Optional - This deed is restricted to the specified class.
| Event         = Optional - This deed can only be advanced during the specified event.
                  -- Spring Festival, Hobnanigans, etc.
| Instance      = Optional - This deed can only be advanced within the specified instance.
                  -- If the deed can be advanced in multiple instances (e.g. an instance cluster),
                     leave this field blank and put the information in 'Extra' or outside the template.

Second Proposed Change (Complete)

Replace the following largely obsolete parameters:

| Virtue        = Name of the virtue reward OR "Virtue Experience"
| Virtue-value  = If the deed gives a virtue (or virtue XP), how much does it give (without the '+')
| Virtue2       = Name of a second virtue reward
| Virtue2-value = If the deed gives a second virtue, how much does it give (without the '+')

with the following single parameter:

| VXP-reward    = Virtue Experience reward (or blank)

Comments

  • Note that none of the new names match any of the old names. This is to allow for an incremental change, instead of having to do it all at once. I.e. we can have an intermediate version of the template in which the old parameters are "deprecated" but still work.
  • Comments are requested. Please put them here. --Thurallor (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • This sounds like a good idea to me. I like the fact that the parameters are clearly defined as opposed to how they are now which is a little ambiguous. --Gaerlin (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Completed the "Second Proposed Change". --Thurallor-bot (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • First change - how will the categorization work and why (only) meta-deeds does not have required Deed-category? --Drono (talk)
      • The 'Deed-category' field will be almost identical to the existing 'Regional-sub' field, but with a better name (it has nothing to do with the region). Meta-deeds are a category unto themselves; they can be detected by the 'Meta-deed' field, so there is no need to require users to put 'Meta' in the 'Deed-category' field. We could require it anyway, for clarity. I would not be opposed to that. --Thurallor (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I propose that for consistency - the last parameter should be based on the icon the deed is using. This would be: Class, Slayer, Lore, Quest, Explorer, Reputation --Drono (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean. There is no parameter for the deed icon. We don't show the deed's icon anywhere. We could do so, but the choice would be based on the 'Deed-category' value; not the other way around. --Thurallor (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
        • My point was, that with your definition, there are other deeds that shuold not have that parameter required (Class, Fishing etc...). With the second part i meant, that similarly as you propose to take the first parameters from game - tab and subtab category - i propose that the third parameter should be taken also from game based on the icon - as all deeds have their icons based on the values i mentioned. I do not understand why the icon cant be determine the Deed-category as it is unique identifier, in fact most of the deeds already follow this categorization, it would be a just a change for everyone to easily tell which deed belongs where. --Drono (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
          • So you are proposing a 'Deed-icon' parameter instead of the 'Deed-category' parameter? --Thurallor (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
            • I did not say it should be named 'Deed-icon' as essentially they are the same the name does not matter and if the icon is not displayed on the page than it does not make sense. The 'Deed-category' would be fine in my opinion. --Drono (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
              • So you are saying we should have a 'Deed-category' parameter, but in the template help, we should say "This parameter can be determined by looking at the deed's icon. Here are all of the icons and the corresponding value for 'Deed-category'"? In that case, I think it would be simpler to just call it 'Deed-icon'. --Thurallor (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Similar to the 'icon' parameter in Template:Title/doc --Thurallor (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
                • But the icon in Title template is just an icon - it does not cause the title to be categorized to different categories by that parameter --Drono (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • You didn't answer the question. I'm trying to figure out what you are proposing. --Thurallor (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
                    • My suggestion was that the 'Deed-category' would take the values based on the icon - as that makes sense to me for categorization purposes. At the current state, that the icon is not displayed, it would not make much sense to call it 'Deed-icon'. In case the parameter serves for both - than i guess it does not really matter which of the two is used. --Drono (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay, so here are the icons currently used in the Deed Log, and the corresponding value we will use for 'Deed-category':
          Icon Deed-category
          Quest
          Lore
          Reputation
          Slayer
          Explorer
          Class
--Thurallor (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Another thought: What is the Deed-tab parameter supposed to do? Is it needed? I would thought that the deeds will get categorized something like ["Deed-category" "Deed-sub" Deeds], the only reason for this parameter i see is if you want to add information to each deed which deed tab it is on. And even than i would consider this parameter redundant as the Deed-sub unambiguously specify the Deed-tab --Drono (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I want to add a note for each deed telling where to find it in the Deed Log. Yes, strictly speaking, the parameter redundant, as you noted. However, there are 58 subsections in the deed log. I think it's better to have this as a parameter (computed by a bot for the existing pages) than to add 58 {{#if: {{{Deed-category|}}} clauses to the template to determine the tab from the subsection. It's also clearer to users of the template, who will be expecting to have to specify both the tab and the subsection. --Thurallor (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The old template worked without specifying the subtype - so it made sense there to have more prameters, however if it can be computed i would expect not to have to type it. It is true that the wiki template format would be not great for it, but maybe a LUA template would handle it better. --Drono (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
          • I think it is clearer (and thus better) to require it to be typed, regardless of the implementation. --Thurallor (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Also, the subsections in the Monster Play deed log (Class, Race & Social, Common, Ettenmoors, Osgiliath) have the same names as subsections in the Freep Deed Log.
          • Ok than, i guess it will at least not require updating the template with new regions. --Drono (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It seems that people have used the 'Deed-type' and 'Deed-subtype' fields to encode a lot more information than just the tab and subsection. Instead of throwing this information away, I propose adding a few additional parameters to contain it: Race, Class, Event, Instance. Each of these will generate a line item under "Additional Information" and a categorization. --Thurallor (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I think if there is suggestion for the Instance parameter to be left empty and put it outside the template, than maybe it shouldn't be a parameter at all. --Drono (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Deeds which can be advanced by multiple instances are rare. A deed requiring a single instance is much more common. The advantage of the 'Instance' parameter is that we can be sure that the deeds will be categorized properly. We could make two mutually-exclusive parameters: 'Instance' or 'Cluster'. What do you think? --Thurallor (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Than i am not sure why this is even needed - for example some of the new deeds have the name of the instance they belong to in their name. I would think the categorization is hinting where the deed belongs to, does it also need an "Additional Information" section? --Drono (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Well, the advantage of categories is that you can easily find all pages that belong to that category. So if you were interested in deeds that are accessible within a certain instance, it would be helpful to have a category to find them. One could maintain a table of them on the instance's page, but that's a manual process, unless you have a category for it. Whether something is "needed" is a subjective judgement. One could ask the same question about the entire lotro-wiki. What is the disadvantage of having a category for the instance? --Thurallor (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
              • I am not opposed to putting pages into their appropriate categories. In the proposed change, one parameter was split into 4, which as i mentioned below, will make the categorization little harder. I am actually not opposed to that either, my point was, that maybe if there is not a reason to split it, it would be easier for the categorization. The only addition by splitting i see, is generating the line in "Additional Information" - but this is clear from the categories and sometimes even the deed name, so i questioned if it is needed. --Drono (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
                • Point taken. Maybe it's my technical background, but I tend to prefer that things are stated explicitly. I rarely see any harm in doing so. --Thurallor (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • I guess, we will have to disagree on this than. Just out of curiosity, are you planning to do so for regional deeds too? --Drono (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Also splitting the parameters into 4 different ones will make it a little bit harder for the categorization, but i guess its not a problem. --Drono (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
        • How would this make it harder to categorize? It certainly makes the generation of "Additional Information" lines easier. But if you think it will make the categorization harder, I would like to know how, and maybe change my proposal. I think all of these are just a simple "If parameter exists then [[Category:parameter]]" in the template. --Thurallor (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
          • As i understand the categorization, it should be a tree and pages should belong only to the most specific category in the tree. --Drono (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
            • A page can belong to multiple categories. It can be in the most-specific category of multiple trees. --Thurallor (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Yes, but the categorization you proposed will put page into the most specific category AND its parent(s) too. --Drono (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
                • I see. Can you give an example? --Thurallor (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • Instances, Shadow-roost deeds will be in both "Minas Morgul Deeds" and "Gath Daeroval Deeds" categories, while "Gath Daeroval Deeeds" is subcategory of "Minas Morgul Deeds" --Drono (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Has the first change been implemented? I see the documentation still talks about the Deed-type, Deed-subtype, and Regional-sub parameters without explaining how to find out which value to put in for them. The proposed system makes much more sense as it actually maps to the game, making it clear which values to put in for the parameters. Silver hr (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No, it was not implemented. Drono and I could not agree on any aspect of the proposal, and nobody else was interested, haha. Drono is the "Master of Categories" on the site, so his opinion is very important. I wrote a huge bot script at the time, to handle all of the different cases, and was ready to pull the trigger, but we never reached a consensus on exactly what to do. I am reluctant to "reopen this can of worms" until/unless I have a bunch of free time for bot scripting. A huge number of pages (several thousand) would be affected by the changes. --Thurallor (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, for what it's worth, you have my support in the matter, both moral and technical (if you need it). Either the existing parameters should be documented such that it is clear and unambiguous what values to use for them, or, if that's not possible, they should to be replaced. Silver hr (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I thought we agreed on most of the things after all. Thank you for the title and valuing my opinion. I would like to see this change implemented too, but properly, without breaking other things. --Drono (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed categorization

{{#switch: {{{Deed-tab|}}}
| Eriador = 
| Rhovanion = 
| Gondor =
| Mordor = [[Category:{{{Deed-sub}}} {{{Deed-category}}} Deeds]]
| #default = {{#if: {{{Race|}}}
               | [[Category:{{{Race}}} Deeds]]
               | {{#if: {{{Class|}}}
                 | [[Category:{{{Class}}} Deeds]]
                 | {{#if: {{{Event|}}}
                   | [[Category:{{{Event}}} Deeds]]
                   | {{#if: {{{Instance|}}}
                     | [[Category:{{{Event}}} Deeds]][[Category:{{{Deed-sub}}} Deeds]]
                     | [[Category:{{{Deed-sub}}} Deeds]]
                   }}
                 }}
               }}
             }}
}}

Category tree:

  • Deeds
    • {Deed-tab} Deeds
      • {Deed-sub} Deeds
        • {Deed-sub} {Deed-category} Deeds ---(For regional deeds)
      • {Deed-sub} Deeds
        • {Special category} Deeds --- (For other deeds)
    • Instances Deeds
      • Minas Morgul Deeds
        • Gath Daeroval Deeds
          • 'Gath Daeroval, the Shadow-roost -- Tier 1'

Example of how the categorization could work - still have some problems.
For example some of the categories have plural name which ends making category like 'Instances Deeds'.

  • Why? Why not call the category 'Instance Deeds'? --Thurallor (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • OK, wrong example as the 'Instance Deeds' category will not actually be assigned by the template. However, Skirmish tab have a sub tab called 'Skirmish Instances' - so the categorization would generate 'Skirmish Instances Deeds' --Drono (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Reputation standing deeds will no longer be subcategory of the region they come from.
--Drono (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • I don't understand why your conditionals are all nested together. I imagined a much flatter structure (forgive me if I get the syntax wrong; I haven't done much template editing yet):
{{#if {{{Deed-tab|}}}      | | {{Missing Required Parameter|Deed|Deed-tab}}      }}
{{#if {{{Deed-sub|}}}      | | {{Missing Required Parameter|Deed|Deed-sub}}      }}
{{#if {{{Deed-category|}}} | | {{Missing Required Parameter|Deed|Deed-category}} }}

=== Additional Information
* This deed can be found in the Deed Log under the {{{Deed-tab}}} tab, in the {{{Deed-sub}}} subsection.
[[Category:{{{Deed-sub}}} {{{Deed-category}}} Deeds]]
{{#if: {{{Race|}}}
    | * This deed is only available to {{{Race}}}s.
      [[Category:{{{Race}}} Deeds]]
|}}
{{#if: {{{Class|}}}
    | * This deed is only available to {{{Class}}}s.
      [[Category:{{{Class}}} Deeds]]
|}}
{{#if: {{{Event|}}}
    | * This deed is only available during the {{{Event}}} event.
      [[Category:{{{Event}}} Deeds]]
|}}
{{#if: {{{Instance|}}}
    | * This deed can only be achieved within the {{{Instance}}} instance.
      [[Category:{{{Instance}}} Deeds]]
|}}
  • Regarding your proposed category tree:
  • I don't see a need for the "Minas Morgul Deeds" layer. I would just put "Gath Daeroval Deeds" directly in the "Instance Deeds" category.
  • Overall, my preferred hierarchy would be flatter:
  • Deeds
    • {Deed-tab} Deeds
      • {Deed-sub} Deeds
        • {Deed-sub} {Deed-category} Deeds
    • Instance-specific Deeds
      • Gath Daeroval Deeds
    • Race-specific Deeds
      • Beorning Deeds
    • Class-specific Deeds
      • Warden Deeds
    • Event-specific Deeds
      • Midsummer Festival Deeds
    • Faction-specific Deeds
  • Any deed with 'Race', 'Class', 'Event', 'Instance', or 'Faction' parameters would appear in multiple categories, since it would also appear under '{Deed-sub} {Deed-category} Deeds'.
  • I'm not even sure we need the '{Deed-sub} {Deed-category} Deeds' layer. There aren't very many needs in any one subsection of the deed log. And it gives rise to oddities such as "Class Class Deeds".

--Thurallor (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

    • The deed category parameter was ment mostly for Regional deeds - in the other tabs it produce categorization that does not make much sense.
    • 'Minas Morgul Deeds' layer is the category for all the deeds on the Minas Morgul sub page - same as ingame - 'Gath Daeroval Deeds' is a subcategory that have parents: 'Minas Morgul Deeds' to put those deeds in the hierarchy of deeds and 'Category:Gath Daeroval Instance' which is category containing all information related to the instance.
    • PS: You are proposing a change to the parameters that handled categorization so far - this is the place to discuss it.--Drono (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am starting to see the problems you are referring to. Turbine/SSG hasn't done a very good job of categorizing the deeds. One solution would be to clearly separate SSG's categories from our own:
  • Deeds
    • {Deed-tab} Deed Log Section
      • {Deed-sub} Deed Log Subsection
        • {Deed-sub} {Deed-category} Deeds
    • Instance-specific Deeds
      • {Instance} Deeds
    • Race-specific Deeds
      • {Race} Deeds
    • Class-specific Deeds
      • {Class} Deeds
    • Event-specific Deeds
      • {Event} Deeds
    • Faction-specific Deeds
      • {Faction} Deeds

--Thurallor (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The categorization by SSG is actually not that bad, it just does not align with the needs of wiki. I do not think having multiple trees for deeds categorization is needed, after all the point of categorization is making navigation easy. With this approach you will end up with specialized categories that are easy to use, with their counterpart in the {Deed-tab}-subtree that is not very friendly. Thats why i suggested combined approach. --Drono (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Display Design

Yesterday i asked a question about removed Slayer tags [1][2] on an instance deed. The response made me think and look a bit deeper on this template and also on this talk-page. Indeed a lot of great work has been put into this template.

However, due to a user's question the other day I wonder: why do we not display things for each deed, such as 1) which of the nine pages, 2) which sub-page, and 3) the icon of the deed?

My research also make me wonder why e.g. instance deeds using a slayer deed icon are not sub-categorized as slayer deeds? Etc. — Zimoon 13:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Questpack parameter

I'm thinging about adding a questpack parameter. That way it's easier to identify which deeds are available after buying a specific questpack. Wells of Langflood Goblin and Orc-slayer makes part of the Mists of Wilderland Region. The same could be done for quests. What do you think? Tiberivs (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be a really useful thing to have! I think especially for something like the Angle that's part of the Trollshaws but also its own questpack it would be super helpful for it to be clearer what belongs to which pack. A lot of Gondor would benefit from that too, imo- it's not always obvious in game what belongs to which pack. Thalion (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I like it. At one point we were using the name of the quest pack for some areas (March of the King, etc) but that obviously didn't work well and we switched to using region names. At that point, though, mentions of which quest packs those went with were removed and I think a parameter for those specifically could be really useful.~ Ruby (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)