Category talk:Abominations Quests

Thanks

Thanks Stargazer, it was sloppy of me to move this category to a page. Indeed, some of the quests truly read "Abominations" in the quest-log. It must have been that I just checked "A Scout in Nan Tornaeth" which does not, and if I really did I must have had bad luck and picked #3 and/or #7. I should have checked them all first, sorry about that, and thanks for correcting my mistake, and me. — Zimoon 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But should the 3 quests that do not read "Abominations" in the quest log really be put into this category? Sure, they are a "natural part" of the chain, but still? I have always let the template do the job, meaning only those with a named quest-chain ends up in the category. What do you think Stargazer? — Zimoon 13:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think all those quests should be included in the category. They all very clearly belong to the chain – in terms of dependency as well as storyline – whether they have the questchain parameter set or not. And let's be honest; at least "A Chilling Revelation" should really have that named parameter set in-game! The fact that it doesn't is most likely an oversight on the part of Turbine/SSG because it literally makes no sense at all for it not to, since this whole quest deals directly with a literal "abomination" that's at the centre of this story arc (i.e. find and kill a 'possessed' bear), and also it's completely encased by other quests in the named chain – again both in terms of dependency and storyline – and can't exist separate from them. So they should all be in the category, simply because they all belong together in the story arc that is "Abominations".

Fair enough. I am not so fussed about it. Others might be though ;) And I agree that it could be an oversight. — Zimoon 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, setting the questchain parameter on a quest will have it automatically added to the corresponding category, by the template. In all honesty though; templates as such are merely 'quality-of-life' improvements that makes things easier to do on the wiki, by simplifying and/or automating various parts that are needed, for convenience. So in this particular case, the template automatically adds a quest to a category, that would otherwise need to be done manually. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that you can't still manually add quests that should be in the category as well, but are not automatically added since they don't have the named parameter set! :)

Sure, but in some cases templates add to the visible info as well, in this case it would assert that a quest-chain name exists in the in-game quest log, which is not true. Hence the extra work to include that box. — Zimoon 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here? Yes, having the questchain parameter non-empty would add that info to the quest box on the right. But that is ONLY done for those quests which have that name listed on them! For quests that do NOT, that parameter remains empty. Sooo.... what do you mean? :O --Stargazer (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a 'category' is just a way of grouping a set of objects together – whether that be quests, icons, items etc. – that share a commonality, in some sense. What, how and why that is, depends on the grouping itself and the objects within (for example images of javelins, slayer deeds involving goats, or in this case; quests in a certain story arc). The general idea is simply to make things easier to organise and keep track of, by having them grouped up in some (hopefully logical) way. But there's no need to be overly-restrictive in terms of inclusion into a category, by confining it to only those that get automatically added into it, regardless of the actual relationship and/or commonality that exists between the objects themselves — because that doesn't really make sense, I feel. If something clearly belongs together with others, then it should be added too, albeit manually! :D

One could also reverse the question and look at it from the opposite side: Why should they NOT all be included in the category?

I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't, and I also can't find any downsides to having them there. The category is already there, regardless, so it doesn't 'cost' anything to add them. It doesn't cause clutter, confusion, or other problems. In fact; having them all there seems to just make things easier in every way, for (hopefully?) everyone, so that would then apparently mean it's all advantages and no disadvantages! Or am I missing something important? :)

I agree on that one, about being pragmatic, even though not all people do. Anyway, the quests will read at the transcluded quest-chain category, or page if it is an unnamed, logical chain. Which are categorized anyway ;-) — Zimoon 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of what I'm getting at is: Why make such a distinction between those two at all? Why is one allowed a "category" as some sort of 'exclusive VIP club elite pass with overly-restrictive (and arbitrary) requirements', so to speak, whilst the latter is relegated to a "page"? Quests that clearly belong together in a 'chain/arc' should, in my opinion at least, all be in a "Category" regardless if they're all 'named', 'unnamed' or some mix of both, is what I was trying to say. Because there's no reason NOT to do so, and it doesn't make sense to include some and exclude others based solely on whether or not they have a certain text string set in-game — at least not to me! Especially not when there's no practical difference at all between them.

In other words: Is there a natural sequence of quests, all in the same stand-alone 'arc', that basically play as one big quest that has been chopped up into several parts? Then that is a 'chain' and all those associated quests should be in a "Category" for that arc, regardless if they all have the named parameter or not, and thus regardless if they are automatically added to it by the template or not. That's my point. :) --Stargazer (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So, that was a bit of trying to explain how I look at things and why, and some of the reasoning behind it. I hope it sort of makes some sense, at least. :P

That's also why I've done it the way I have:

Set the questchain parameter on those quests where this is listed in-game, which is the way it's supposed to be. Then manually added the others – who so clearly belong to this particular chain – to the category as well, which also seems like the way it's supposed to be. Because that's what makes the most sense, to me at least, in situations like this.

That appears to be the best solution, I think. Any thoughts on this?

It would be good to get some input from others as well, I feel. :D

--Stargazer (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You must not set the questchain parameter unless the name reads at the in-game quest-log. See Category talk:Quest_Chains for info (and even if I updated it 2 weeks ago the essence has been there for years). The visible info in the info-box must be correct. Categories and stuff is much less important to all except a few nerds ;)

Uuh, I haven't!? Like I wrote above: "Set the questchain parameter on those quests where this is listed in-game". Obviously that parameter is left empty for the quests that don't fulfil this criteria. Which necessitates adding those manually to the "Category" for the chain, if they are indeed part of it, since the template won't then do that work for you! ;) --Stargazer (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For convenience it would be great to complement the questchain parameter with e.g an unquestchain parameter which does the magic of a quest-chain box. And perhaps add to category as well, if that is consensus among admins and up. (un for un-named ofc.) — Zimoon 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Is that needed? I don't know. :S

But if so; wouldn't it then be better to flip it around? I.e. setting the questchain parameter would do all the stuff that's shared for both the 'named' and 'unnamed' cases – e.g. adding to Category, creating that collapsed quest-chain box at the top, etc. – and then another parameter, namedchain or whatever, that would accomplish the additional stuff that's exclusive to the 'named' ones; such as adding that named line to the infobox on the right. Because programmatically it's much easier to add differences between cases (e.g. in nested if-clauses) rather than subtract/remove parts, so to speak. And one should generally try to avoid duplicating parts as much as possible, so it's often better to start with a 'base case' and add bits on top as needed. :P --Stargazer (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize that I misunderstood something.

As I said, I am not too fussed about it but I know some could be. Wiki categories are a religion in itself, for some. Though I don't know if any editor hereabout is, or is not. However, several years ago we had a somewhat heated discussion about categories and I had to read up on official Wiki documentation on the subject. Which I forgot about quite quickly.

That said, the important thing is not to have chained quests in a category but to record the chain, named or not, and transclude the information into a quest-chain box. Whether quests are in a chain category or not does not matter really. I think. Maybe it would confuse somebody why it is there and it does not read a quest-chain in the info-box. Or not.

Thinking aloud: There are many quests that are prerequisites for others. Often no quests are visible at a location until a certain quest, or one of many, has been completed or at least accepted. Such quests must definitely not be in a quest-chain category but the "opener" and the "opened" must read the dependency. I often look in Lotro-Companion but it is often missing out, so I try to be as cautious as possible what happens when I do this or that, and I often do one quest at a time just to be certain. But it becomes tricky when a quest in location X opens a quest in location Y quite a distance away. But quest-chain category? Nope!

About parameters. Yeah, that's another way of doing it. Programmatically it is either "your way" or a "questchain OR unquestchain" <do this> but the add-to-info-box must have an embracing "IF NOT unquestchain". But we are not there yet, admins have to agree on the terms.

Nice chatting with you. I think we are on even terms now. — Zimoon 10:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)