Category talk:Epic Quests
Page Naming Convention
This was brought up and discussed on Category talk:Vol. III. Book 4 Quests when that book was introduced, but I thought I'd revive it here as a more centralized location.
As noted in the past, the naming convention in the game seems to be:
- Volume I:
- Book #, Chapter #: Title
- Volume II and Volume III (Books 1-3):
- Book #, Chapter 1: Title (For first chapters)
- Chapter #: Title (For all other chapters)
- Volume III (Books 4+):
- Book #, Chapter #: Title
- No book reference
The convention adopted on the wiki, however, is just 'Chapter #: Title' across the board.
Right now, we have the quest lists for the new books in Riders of Rohan up. In game, these quests follow the book-and-chapter convention. But seeing as we haven't yet started creating the individual quest pages, this seems a good time to ask. Should we stick to the current wiki model for Epic quest page names going forward? Go to book-and-chapter? Or perhaps diverge entirely and go volume-book-chapter? -- JnK (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
- Obvious quests are:
- What are the benefits from using "Volume X, Book m, Chapter n: Name" ?
- What are the drawbacks from it?
- Why change?
- Would changing in the middle of a series create less or more confusion?
- The questions are not ordered in any way, just convenient if responding to just a few of them.
- My personal feeling is to stick with what we have, pretty much to prevent confusion (Q4). But there are more to it:
- Naturally this would be most informative while just ogling at the page name. It is true that today readers must read the info-box (or find the category at the bottom). It would require a lot less typing at location, NPC, creature, etc. pages as today we must manually add "Volume I, Book 2, " to the displayed quest name. Otherwise there are no other obvious benefits from a change I think, are there?
- Using Quick-Search would require you to type also the "Volum..." part to minimize the clutter of unrelated possibilities. Related to Q4 it would create some confusion; quote RTC: "I'm a big fan of the Principle of least astonishment."
I am not sure how quests look like from "Volume II" as I am not there yet, but "Volume I" quests only read book and chapter when looking at the Quest Log, the big right-hand section, the volume is told only in the quest-chain and quest-group parts, and in the group-header in the left-most column.
- Personally I see no strong reason. is there one? What is wrong with the "leaner approach" we use now?
- I think more. But it could be worth it if the benefits are strong enough, are they?
- Personally I am most pragmatic and in this case I ask myself, and others, why changing a concept that works and that is intuitive enough? Neither do we have to mimic every dot of the game, this is a wiki -- which per definition should be informative, not a mirror. Still, there could be valid reasons to change, but then I think we should change all over the site, not just from Book 4. Massive work, yes, but for the reason in R1 (typing at location/NPC/creature/etc. pages) it could be worth it. However, I suggested elsewhere that quests should be made to emit a "quest-string" that could be transcluded to stakeholder pages, and if that is possible it makes this benefit void (it is still not clear to me if it is definitely not possible).
- That said, what do others say? -- Zimoon (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2012 (EDT)