Jump to navigation Jump to search

first comment

This boilerplate is different from the boiler plate generated by "Create a Quest.

I'm also not finding the Boilerplate ... MP Quest .. which is similar to this but slightly different. Aha... just found it... its under "Infobox" and template, not boilerplage ... sigh.

Boilerplate implies the first entry should be "quest chain" -- makes a "show/hide display, I believe

Quest starter has as last "infobox" entry -questchain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magill (Contribs • User Talk).

I don't deal with quests as much as some others, so I'm not well-versed in the different iterations of the quest template, but I believe this boilerplate is more current than Template:Infobox Quests/Preload, which generates the "Create a Quest" pages. As far as I'm aware, the version with "Quest Chain" as the first box is the one most people are using currently. I wasn't aware that there was a questchain variable at all, hah. Rubyctook (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

This boilerplate is obsolete

This boilerplate is REALLY obsolete!

Not only is it missing the questchain parameter but the format of the info boxes is wrong.

(And for the record, the Help/Create a quest "thing" is not working. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magill (Contribs • User Talk).

I usually use the Create new quest page. (Actually, I keep a copy of the boilerplate text in a local text file, with some of the common values for the area I am working in already filled in.) RingTailCat (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
The Boilerplate isn't protected against editing - feel free to update it to the new standard usage with the questbox etc. Also, what doesn't work about the Create New Quest page? Sethladan 14:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Apparently the "create quest" Help page Fails if the page already exists. I was able to "create" the quest because I spelled it wrong on the search page, but then when I re-typed it into the Create Quest box, I spelled it correctly (a mssing blank space actually). So I guess what is missing is a message from the Create script to the effect " This quest already exists, do you want to edit it?"

Ok, I'll see about updating the boiler plate then Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I have edited the boilerplate... somebody needs to proofread it.

I notice that it appears that "some" of the boilerplate is picked up by the Help/"create quest" page... but nothing below the info box.... Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (EDT)


I was fixing some quest this morning and it did not work to apply copy&paste from the quest-boilerplate so...

I apologize and will try to find out why not, but one thing is for sure, I should have caffeinated myself before editing the boilerplate. I apologize again. -- Zimoon 13:00, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Forum Topic Created

I just posted at about how to move forward with this quest template.

To be honest, I like it a lot, no doubt. It does a lot of magic things that quite quick are easy to understand. But as mentioned elsewhere it is a tad quick to draw conclusions ;) I think of that questgroup variable which is not always the best of choice for a category and today the magic bloats some categories with redundant info. But let us discuss at the forum. -- Zimoon 10:28, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Additional quest-related dialog

Apart from the text you get when you start a quest and complete an objective, almost always there are opportunities to get some 'flavour-dialog' by talking to NPCs who have (above their head) the symbol of a blue ring with a feather in it (I apologize but I've failed to find the name of this symbol). This text is, in general, different from the dialog that is already included in the quest pages. I wonder if they could be added, and if so, in what form.--CementHold (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

There are many quests where these extra dialogs have been added. Here is one example: Quest:The Stolen Stones. Some of the dialogs are the result talking to the NPCs you are required to talk to, but others are obtained by talking to the last NPC you talked to, or other NPCs who are (usually) related to the quest. Notice that two NPCs will talk to you are you return to finish the quest with the quest giver.
The name of the speaker is in bold, and all the dialogs are indented using ':'.
I find these extra dialogs add a little something extra to the quests, so I try to add them whenever I find them, and even go out of my way to try to find likely dialogs.
RingTailCat (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
I agree with RTC on this one, I like that extra flavour. However, as I feel I put so much time in "locations" and most of the things related to them I sometimes dodge the urge to verify/update all quests I complete. Unless they are missing something big.
Also, non-spoken text is in italics, such as
Somebody: Sighs deeply and looks wearily at you
"You are late,my friend!"
But also for things like system messages, e.g. Flies buzz about the corpse of a black horse
Zimoon 05:31, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Indeed, now I see that there are examples of such extra dialog. I kind of didn't think these were even considered, and was planning to create a new character and gather all these as I go, adding them to the quest pages. Now I guess I'll have to call this a completion-verification run.
About the formatting thing that Zimoon mentions, this is completely new to me. Can I feel free to add this piece of information to the 'markups' part of boilerplate page? This is my go-to reference regarding formatting and structure, so I'd like all such conventions to be found here.
By the way, now it seems a bit messy to me what we italicize and what we don't. For text appearing in the chat, system messages (those that don't begin with "XY says:") are in italics, and in dialogue messages (those that do begin with "XY says:") the part between the quotes, the part that is actually said, is in italics. On the other hand, in dialogue windows ... it is the other way around? Parts which are not spoken are in italics, and spoken dialogue is not? Am I understanding it correctly? If so, than I'd really like this to be indicated in the example saying The spoken dialogue may also be interleaved with a non-spoken paragraph.--CementHold (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
RTC and I had a chat on this topic not long ago, User talk:RingTailCat#Quests and dialog markups
You are right, we have been inconsistent over the years, or perhaps, over the editors. That chat did not end up as any written guide-lines. I suggest you whip together something and post it here as a tentative version and we massage it if necessary.
Personally I would prefer italics only for non-spoken stuff, and anything spoken is not-italics.
Anything from the quest itself is not indented, but anything "extra" is indented, whether talk or system messages.
To my knowledge we have two kinds of talk,
a) dialogues, which are prefixed by names in bold
b) chat-talk, which may be copied from the chat-box or log file (if I remember to turn it on). This may include passers-by talk, some times. I prefer the XY says: "Blaha ha!" style (or if " should be '). This has been the most inconsistent thing with us.
Non-talk, to my knowledge there are three kinds, part of dialogues, on-screen floating system message, and in chat-box. The two latter often overlap, but maybe they do not always do that?
For repeating messages, such as "you found a precious stone" it is enough with just one, whether or not with a trailing "x <NBR>". Such repeating messages for let us say killing 12 wolves are omitted, they do not add anything informative nor any flair. We have not included any extra info in the quest text but keep that in the walk-through box. We also try not to linkify too much (if anything) in the bestowal and background sections, but try to use the following sections if that is necessary.
That is what first comes to mind, things I try to remember those days I touch quests. But I am sure RTC may want to add even more details, he has grown into being our quest guru ;)
-- Zimoon 05:39, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
And, as an aside, I have a bot that can be trained to reformat the speaking parts, e.g.
Ghost says, ''Boo''
to be consistently formatted, should we establish a preferred formatting. RingTailCat (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Ah, so these are still kind of open questions. Anyway, it is nice to know that automatic reformatting is an option. However, it requires unambiguity.
And here I'd like to point out something that I dislike about how these things are written. (Although it seems that there has been significant discussions on all kinds of topics, and I have read very little of it; so thank you for being tolerant.) As I see it, text that is written in a dialogue window (that you bring up by right clicking on an NPC) is clearly separated from sentences appearing on screen or in the chat. Whether this separation should be reflected in the wiki or not is up to debate, but right now I believe that it is not sufficient. The window-based text is prefixed by the name of the NPC in bold, but only the first paragraph of it. Subsequent paragraphs are indented the same way as system messages are, and especially if it is non-spoken, if we follow Zimoon's first suggestion and italicize non-spoken window-based text, it can be impossible to tell if it is still from the window, or if it is a system message that appeared after closing the window. Often it is more or less apparent from the contents, but still, I'd prefer if it were completely straightforward to tell where the text from a dialog ends, not only where it starts. For example by adding an extra indentation level below the bold NPC name when the dialog has multiple paragraphs:
Tóki Whitebeard:
'Are to help? Be careful, friend! A mighty cave-claw has slain...the rest of my....'
The dwarf shudders with exhaustion. 'This monstrous some pet...of the trolls...that stole the stones we...were bearing....'
You have successfully defended Tóki Whitebeard!
Wow, I really just set out to fix typoes and fill in missing quest details, and now I find myself somehow in a discussion on fundamental formatting practices, putting forth proposals with very little knowledge on anything. I am definitely happy with following whatever you decide. For now, it seems that means that non-spoken text in dialogue windows is italic.
--CementHold (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
A couple of thoughts come to mind (quickly dashed off as I wait for crafting). Content vs structure. I'm not sure that it matters too much that we indicate that this bit of text comes from the dialog and that bit from the billboard (and in this case, also the chat window) as long as the story gets presented. I think our goal should lean toward documenting the quest experience rather than dissecting the quest mechanics. BTW, the nature of the wiki is that you become an active participant in improving it. RingTailCat (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
I agree with RTC on this one, it is simply easier, for as well editor as reader, to have just one rule for indented content, whether from the quest, or from side- dialogues or chat or system messages. I agree that, in a few (I'd say rare) situations it may be hard for a reader-only to tell the difference of sources, I have been there myself and have had to re-read the text to find out. However, in itself the content was crystal clear. Personally I prefer simplicity. There is always a risk for information overload and hence we should not bother with things that do not add neither value nor information.
Nice to see you around, feel free to edit ahead, we do have a roll-back button muahaha. -- Zimoon 13:29, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Text on instance start

When an instance starts, two things are added to the chat. The first one is a title, and it is underlined. The second is some text giving context; this is between quotes, and narrated. I have seen only few pages compared to how many there probably are altogether, but the format of how we write this part of the page is not consistent. This kind of inconsistency bugs me, so I'm hoping that we can settle on a format.

One thing seems to be in common: we use no formatting on these lines. No underline on the title, and in particular, no italics. I have found two variables:

  • The title itself is sometimes included, sometimes it isn't. When it is there, then only a line break separates it from the intro text.
  • All these are sometimes just at the top of the 'Quest Text' section, and other times they are in a subsection of their own (under Bestowal dialogue).

Now, as to the title, it seems that almost always it is the same as the name of the quest, although there is at least one exception. Still, it seems that it doesn't carry any extra information, so it is something that could be omitted.

Personally my choice would be: include both of them, (underline the title, but no italics), and separate them with a normal paragraph break (empty line in wikitext) instead of a line break. I wouldn't put them in a section (especially not one called 'Bestowal dialogue', since these are quite different from what quests usually refer to using this term). This is how I would do it, but I am actually quite indifferent as to what the formatting choices end up being. All I aim for is actually making the choice so that consistency can be improved. (And hopefully end up extending the boilerplate with this information.)

--CementHold (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

I tend (now) to leave out the underlined title, as it is usually redundant. Your example is just a case of the presence or absence of an English noise word: the. There are few situations where "the" is significant, usually in a context like using "The Queen" in Britain to distinguish Elizabeth II from Beatrix and Sonja. Most often, the meaning is not altered by omitting "the".
I copy/paste the rest of the text unmodified from the chat window into the bestowal dialog section. That section could be renamed to something else, perhaps, but it simplifies quest creation to just use the same boiler plate. Instanced quests do not really have a bestower or bestowal dialog in the same sense as other quests. But changing that has the potential to open a can of worms!
- RingTailCat (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
What I have seen, at least most consistently, is that the "context" text is added as Bestoval. Usually the Quest Log only provides the Background. Whether quoted or not in that section is, I suppose, not too critical. Since normal quests are un-quoted I suggest we continue the same pattern. Any reason why introducing another formatting just for "completeness" which would potentially confuse a few visitors?
The instance name, it follow the same pattern as accepting a quest. That also reads. I guess this reads as-soon-as-possible, but I may jump to conclusions to quick, do I? However, since that line just doubles the instance name I think it is superfluous, it adds nothing of value to our pages but rather is just another tautology. Remember that the name occurs as the page name (in title bar of browser and at address bar too), the page name reads just above the quest info boxes, and the name reads within our info box to the right. That said, at some point somebody begun adding the instance name and other editors followed (perhaps just mindlessly just as I did). Recently I have seen them being erased as well, and I kind of support that.
So, so far as I can recall the lot of these context texts are put down in the Bestowal, and I think that is a good place from a "uniformal" point of view. Readers know what that is and I could almost bet EUR100 that not many visitors even reflect over any thought or real inappropriateness on this matter. A few will, and then the pragmatic sift splits them in two groups, which group do you want to pertain to? ;)
My vote would go for:
- Context text in Bestowal -- the least fuss and most instances are that way already. I think.
- Instance name omitted in this section -- it will just become a quadruple or worse.
-- Zimoon 19:19, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
PS. Was typing in parallel with RTC, but it seems that great minds think alike, and I was thinking a bit longer and run into an mid-flight collision when posting as well :) DS. -- Zimoon 19:22, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
I sometimes take a while writing my replies, too. I've got into the habit of copying my new text from the editor window into the clipboard, so if there is an edit collision, all is not lost. RingTailCat (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Consensus, that is excellent! So the format in The Blade that was Broken is the way to go. Can I go ahead and add this information, like, into an 'Instance intro' subsection to the end of the page? -- CementHold (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
That quest seems good to me. I extended the boilerplate with a new section. -- Zimoon 04:23, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. :) -- CementHold (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Reformatting speech by RingTailBot

I have started to train my bot to reformat speech according to the new format. When an NPC speaks, the chat window recieves the following text:

NPC says, ''I have something to say''

I understand that the consensus is that this should appear in the quest article source as

''NPC says'', "I have something to say"

which displays as:

NPC says, "I have something to say"

I have tested with a few instances so far:

Please have a look. If you like what you see, let me know, and in a few days, if all are in agreement, I will let my bot loose.

- RingTailCat (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Cry havoc and let slip the bots of war!
I like the standardization of it, and the bot seems to be working as advertised. I say go for it. Now I just have to get used to adding italics on all the NPC says lines for new quests. -- Elinnea (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Suggestions to updating the infobox or boilerplate instructions

In process of working on Anniversary Celebration 2013 quests and trying to update Moria quests to reflect revamp changes, I came across a few topics that are not covered very well (if at all) on Boilerplate:Quest or Help:Quests pages. The answer to some of these I only found out later after stumbling around and discovering how Zimoon or RingTailCat were handling them. Many of these could be fixed just by updating the instructions here on the Quest Boilerplate page to add some clarification.

  1. Scaling Quests - Initially I was setting level field of infobox to 1 - 85, but later found out should be putting ... in this field for scaling quests.
    • Fix - Add clarification to commented copy of boilerplate to use ... in the level field for scaling quests.
  2. Solo versus Solo only Quests - In-game quest dialogue and quest log, do not differentiate these well. Also the commented copy of quest boilerplate does not make good distinction between them.
    • Fix - Add clarification to commented copy of boilerplate that blank on fellowshiptype field is equivalent to Solo, and to use Solo only if the quest truly can only be done alone.
  3. Repeatable Quests and quest timers - Currently the commented copy for the repeatable field just says blank or Yes, but nothing about how often. However since whatever text provided is shown 'as-is' in the infobox, many users (me included) provide more detail in this field in addition to whatever we type in the Walkthrough & Notes section about the relevant quest timers. This is a more involved issue since some quests have a fixed repeat timer (i.e. Sparking an Interest) while others have a variable timer that resets the quest at 3am EST (i.e. Lost Invitations). Also some quests have a different timer depending whether you succeeded or failed the quest (i.e. festival horse races)
    • Fix - This could be handled a few different ways:
      • additional fields - At most 2 additional fields, one for success repeat time and one for failure repeat time. Not shown in infobox if blank. Use Daily for variable timers that reset at 3am EST.
      • additional instructions - Add clarification to commented copy of boilerplate to use Daily for variable timers that reset at 3am EST (which would auto-add the quest to a Category:Daily Quests subcategory from Category:Repeatable Quests) or some time amount for the success timer if fixed timer. Fail timer could still be given in the Walkthrough & Notes.
      • optional timer questbox (similar to questchain questbox) - The timer questbox would be auto-included on page if repeatable field is not blank. The timer questbox would be formatted to include success and fail timers. What shows in the repeatable field in the infobox could be set to always be Yes if it was not blank, and users expected to provide timer details in the new timer questbox section.
  4. Special Category Quests - Currently the user is expected to add any additional Special Category entries to a quest if applicable and then provide details in the Waltkthrough & Notes section. However, I think some are important enough to be worth a field in the infobox (namely Timed Quests that have a timer in the quest log, not Carry Quests with a decreasing bar).
    • Fix - Think a field should be added to infobox for Timed Quests. Blank would indicate not-timed, while some timed amount would both show in infobox and automatically add the quest to the Timed Quests category.

-- Shardis (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Now to tackle this... (I hope others will chime in also)
  • Getting sidetracked -- the 4 parts of the Quest creation process "don't match -- AGAIN or maybe STILL!
The following is only partial and not well thoughtout out because of getting sidetracked !! more later once I sort things out again.
  1. Scaling Quests -- Do these exist anywhere outside of instances? I don't believe I have encountered any. i.e how common/well-known is the term "scaling." My reaction is to simply put "Scaling" in the Level field, no numeric value is necessary.
  2. Solo versus Solo only Quests -- The quests are classified based on the icon used in the Quest Log. It does not differentiate. If there is a quest which "Can not be completed in a Fellowship" that is simply stated in red somewhere in the bestowal dialog of the quest, and repeated in the "Walkthrough and Notes" section. The field should never be "blank" but rather one of the 3 types of Fellowship.
  3. Repeatable Quests and quest timers -- Frequently this is not known. Some quests, such as all of the Warband quests in Rohan are "Dailies" -- sort of. That is to say, the quest can be repeated as many times in a day as the target spawns. However, the "Spoils" are available one time only -- the other kills simply yielding coin, XP, SXP and IXP.
    This issue of "Retry Timers" is one that is a "well-known" "game mechanic" and applies to all quests.
    • "Repeatable" implies "Daily" which means, the quest resets at 03:00 Server Time. These are not "variable retry times" but Countdown or Cooldown timers. Guild recipes are typically of this type.
    • The "Retry Timer," as indicated by an "hourglass in the gold ring," is typically 5 minutes for a cancelled quest. However, that same "hourglass in the gold ring" indicator is applied to quests which are repeatable Daily -- resetting at 03:00 -- at least in the case of many quests in Rohan. Lost Invitations is this type of quest.
    • The "Failure Retry Timer" I believe is also a standard 4 hours.
    • Sparking an Interest is a "unique" quest as far as I know. In fact, I was not aware that it was repeatable every 2 hours, although I knew that the two Fireworks show quests (Bree and Mithril Stage) were repeatable more than once per "day." (I never really looked.)
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 21:02, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

  • Scaling Quests - Starting a couple festivals ago, all festival quests are now scaling quests. Same applies to quests in the Level Up category. Currently we have a Level Category called literally "..." (ellipsis) to denote Scaling quests. When you visit the category page, the header text mentions all quests within it are scaling quests. As for the term "Scaling", I think most people understand what it means in MMOs.
  • Solo versus Solo only Quests - I have actually come across a few quests that have omitted the red text about not being completed in fellowship. First indication they were Solo Only was when I talked to the NPC to enter the instance. While I realize the in-game icon is the same for both, I think this is one distinction folks would appreciate seeing in the quest template as a quick reference. (This is one point over which I disagree with Zimoon about the sacredness of the quest template info matching the actual in-game log info as closely as possible).
  • Retry and Failure Retry Timers - Sparking an Interest is far from unique in regards to timers. In fact many festival quests have success and failure retry timers of varying amounts. You also have quests like the horse races that are Daily on success but are multi-repeat on failure (and longer than the normal 5 minute failure timer).
  • Repeatable Quests - Given the wide variety of Retry and Failure Retry timers (and quests that let you repeat but only reward you once daily), I think it is simpler to simply leave the Repeatable field as it currently works, text duplication of what is typed in the field. However, we might want to provide some guidelines on how players should format any text they put in the field to provide consistency and encourage them to provide additional details in the Walkthrough & Notes.
- Shardis (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

Auto-bestowed Quests

Trying to update the Moria quests to reflect the revamp changes and had some questions on what standard we are using to represent Auto-bestowed quests. Currently there are 2 relevant categories: Category:Automatic Quests and Category:Landscape Quests. Neither is a sub-category of the other. The only quests in the auto-bestowed category are some of the Level Up quests, while most auto-bestowed quests are in the Landscape category.

So far in Moria, I have seen 3 types of auto-bestowed quests:

  • mob-kill initiated - Killing an appropriate mob bestows the quest. The mob will have quest ring overhead similar to quest-giver NPCs.
  • ground-item initiated - Clicking on some bit of ground clutter bestows the quest. Very similar to older ground-item initiated quests except multiple ground items (not all same name) can start the quest instead of just one item.
  • area-entry initiated - Moving into a specific area of the map bestows the quest. Similar to instance-entered quests without the instance entry.

There are also auto-bestowed quests like the festival quests that bestow no matter where you are soon as you log in and re-bestow as soon as their repeat timer expires. The Level Up category quests are similar in that they auto-bestow as soon as you reach the necessary level no matter where in world you are.

So far I have seen the following standards:

  • [[Auto-bestowed]] used in queststarter field and [[Category:Auto-bestowed Quests]] at page bottom
  • text with name of ground item or mob that initiates used in queststarter field, [[Category:Landscape Quests]] at page bottom, and comments in Walkthrough & Notes with more details about the bestowal
  • wiki link for mob or area used in queststarter field and [[Category:Landscape Quests]] at page bottom
  • [[Automatic Quest Bestowal|Landscape]] used in queststarter field and no special category at bottom

Questions to answer:

  • Should the Quest Boilerplate be modified to reflect the new quest mechanic?
  • If not modifying the boilerplate, what standard should be used for filling in the current boilerplate?
    • What should be put in for queststarter field?
    • What additional Special Categories should be added to the end of the page?


  • I think the Category:Landscape Quests should be made a sub-category of Category:Automatic Quests.
  • Level Up and festival quests that bestow no matter where you are should be part of Category:Automatic Quests.
  • Might consider breaking up Category:Landscape Quests into Mob Landscape, Ground Item Landscape, and Area Landscape categories. There are already over 100 quests in the category and will only grow as more quests are properly marked (found 12 in Moria already that are not already in the category).

--Shardis (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Phew... looks like you and I are the "interested parties." So ...
I haven't paid attention recently -- the whole "Automatic Quest Bestowal" vs "Landscape" was a Turbine usage dichotomy in the early days of Riders of Rohan. I think they have stopped using "Landscape" in public discourse :) The Options Panel refers to them simply as "Automatic Quests." ("Always accept automatic quests") -- which implies that we should re-name "Auto-bestowed" to "Automatic" if we want consistency, i.e. to: Category: Automatic Quests
  • However, I'm not completely certain that we need to have these two categories in the first place... :) I don't believe that I have bothered to add a separate category, that's why there are those with an automatic "queststarter" field and no matching category.
Since with U11 we now have: (again) Mob Looting requirements... I.e. "Quest objective - "Retrieve N Warg-hides." Historically, you ALWAYS had to loot the body. Now, with "Remote Looting" they have re-instituted -- loot the body, by causing a quest ring to appear over the body when killed!
  • Clearly: "Category:Landscape Quests" should be a sub category of Category:Automatic Quests -- that's easy enough to do ... done. (The header verbiage is still appropriate.)
  • In the interest of reducing complexity, I see no reason to have sub categories.

New Standards to Use

  • | queststarter = [[Automatic Quest Bestowal|Automatic Quest]] <-- to indicate Automatic Quest
  • | questender = [[Automatic Quest Bestowal|Automatic Advance]] <-- to indicate Automatic completion (Advancement)
  • | startinglocation = [[Item]], [[MOB]], [[location]], or blank <-- Use appropriate value

  • [[Category:Automatic Quests]] <-- Add -- until template auto categorization is modified and boilerplate updated if Blank
  • Level Up, Festival and similar quests that bestow no matter where you are (or what you are doing) should be part of Category:Automatic Quests.
  • [[Category:Landscape Quests]] <-- Add for [[Item]], [[MOB]], [[location]] values


Still to Do

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 13:26, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

Personally I dont completely agree with renaming the Auto-bestowed Quests category to Automatic Quests. Yeah sure the UI options says "Always accept automatic quests", but it is worded that way to keep it the checkbox text concise. If you mouse over the option for more details, they are still called Automatically Bestowed Quests. Main reason I don't like renaming to Automatic Quests is it loses its meaning in the shortening.
"Automatic quest" is simply a shorter phrase that fits into the box :) Easy enough to change.
Also noticing, I've also done: "| queststarter = Landscape - Howling Barghest" which displays "Landscape -" on one line and the starting MOB on the next. Quest:Howls on Cold Winds
And just realizing a number have :| questender = Remote Quest Advance"
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 20:42, 14 May 2013 (EDT)
I have further thoughts on how to formalize a standard for filling in the Quest boilerplate for the 3 types of landscape quests (area entry, ground item, mob kill) based on what folks have already been using in my talk section. They consist of just suggestions on how to fill out the current boilerplate, not changing it at all. Compared to what you propose above, I disagree on a few points:
  • I think [[Item]], [[MOB]], [[location]], or blank should stay in the Queststarter field instead of being put in the Startinglocation field.
    • Folks are more interested in exactly what starts a quest rather than what type (automatic) it is.
    • Frequently only mobs/item/sub-area within a location count as quest starters. Therefore we need the Startinglocation field to tell where the location is, and the Queststarter field to indicate what within that location starts the quest.
  • Unsure on the Questender suggestion. I dont have Accept Automatic Quests checked on my computer to help in taking screenshots. Since I don't, I am not sure I have seen any Automatic Advance quests.
    • I have seen several quests where the last objective is Completed, but I still must manually finish them.
    • This behaviour may be closely tied to the Automatic Accept option (ie quests may only auto-finish as long as you also auto-accept).
  • If you really want something in a boilerplate field to aid in auto-categorization, add a new field to the quest boilerplate to handle it.
    • | Autobestowed = Yes or blank <-- to indicate Automatically Bestowed Quest
    • pretty much anything other than blank would trigger the auto-categorization, similar to some of the fields in the Item boilerplate

I definitely think the guidelines on filling in the fields on the Quest boilerplate page need reviewing, updating, and clean-up to reflect current changes in the game. Some of the other boilerplate pages could use similar review on their field guidelines.
- Shardis (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2013 (EDT)

  • This is a major issue I've been hashing on since I started editing !!! Help; Boilerplate; Template/doc pages ALL need work. Some more than others. The Quest Boilerplate is one I started working on over a year ago... part of the issue is that it is 4 parts --

I just looked at the major revision I did back in September of 2011 User:Magill/Archive-Boilerplate-quest... and note that a lot of stuff has been added/changed since then!

Parts of the quest creation process

NOTE: if, when a name is typed into the field of "Create new quest" and you click, "Create new qust" button, nothing happens, i.e. a blank page is displayed, then the name of the quest you typed in is already in use. This was a bug that we just fixed yesterday!!

In reality, the Template should always transclude the matching Template/doc and Preload files, which should also always be transcluded into the Boilerplate page! They rarely are.

Let me create a project page that (hopefully) organizes this stuff again... User:Magill/Project-Infobox Quest cleanup - now to populate it. :)

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 20:42, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

U11- Effect of changes to "Enhanced XP" on Quest "rewards."

We currently provide some number for the amount of IXP and SXP when we record a quest.

This value is NOT provided by the quest, but only appears in the chat window at the completion of the quest.

From the discussions on the changes in Update 11, it appears that 90+% of the time, those values are incorrect... or will be in the future (i.e. Monday), I'm not certain which.

It appears that currently neither IXP nor SXP have any bonuses applied to them. That is the values in the chat window are in fact "base" numbers. (Although there seems to be disagreement on this from the players, and Turbine has not commented on how things work "now.")

With the changes in U11, various Enhanced XP bonuses will be applied to both IXP and SXP, and the numbers in the Chat window will reflect those bonuses.

In short, I would recommend, that we eliminate the NUMBER associated with IXP and SXP when recording a quest and simply post them as Turbine does -- as Icons.

This could be accomplished retroactively by simply modifying the template to NOT DISPLAY the value, even though it would not barf if handed it. Alternately, a bot run could eliminate the "last stuff" on the right in the template call, and the template modified to not accept the value.

Hopefully there will be a Dev Diary by Monday (13 May) when U11 goes live which will explain the details of this change -- the Bullroarer Release notes and the Focus evaluation don't answer many (if any) questions.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 11:39, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
My bot can very easily be tasked to remove the numbers from the IXP and SXP template references. I will probably not have any time to play the game between May 13th and 17th, so others will need to observe the new (if any) behavior of IXP and SXP for quests and mob kills.
The more active players should develop a consensus, either here or on the template talk pages. Put any request for changes on the Template talk:IXP and Template talk:SXP pages.
When evaluating any experience reward changes, be aware of the effect of character, item and steed XP level caps. Values are not reported when you are at cap, and in fact, the reported value when you reach cap is exactly the number that takes you to the level cap!
Until now, quest rewards (for non scaled quests) do not scale with your level. Experience rewarded for mob kills does scale with your relative level vs the mob's level.
A variety of modifiers change the final experience rewarded. The state of relic ownership in the moors, pocket items, potions, tomes, welcome back weekends, rest XP bonus, and other random bonuses all effect the actual amount of experience you receive. This makes it difficult to determine the base experience value.
For what it's worth, I believe that the base values of the various experiences is worth reporting in some way. For quests, knowing if a quest offers low, normal or high experience is usually a good indicator of the difficulty of the quest, just as the type of a mob, i.e., swarm, normal, signature, etc. is a good indicator of the difficulty of the mob. A quests with low XP is often simple vector quests, normal XP quests usually require similar effort to other quests in the region, while high XP quests are less common and are often challenging, more time consuming, or instance quests.
- RingTailCat (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
Up to this point I think reporting the IXP values was worth it. As to the validity of the values reported by in-game chat, mine seem to match up with others when I am updating quest info. I don't know if that means the number reported in chat is the IXP before the multiplication and division for having multiple legendary items going at once, or if everyone who does quest entries on this site is running with 6 active legendaries. Either way IXP values so far have been fairly standard with quests of the same level usually giving the same amount of IXP regardless of character level with only a little variability based on significance of a quest. While doing Moria quest updates, quests of the same level usually give the same IXP amount with the exception that quests which give higher Iron Garrison rep also usually give slightly higher IXP amounts as well.
However if U11 is indeed going to be applying various enhanced XP bonuses to both IXP and SXP, I think it will quickly become more trouble than it is worth to display actual IXP numbers. It will become too much headache to reverse engineer the base IXP value for a quest (assuming we know the formula). The only caveat on this statement is if the chat log started reporting the base value before all bonuses are applied.
- Shardis (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2013 (EDT)
Consider, for one thing, that you have to have bonus XP to be applied. If you're at the level cap for instance, you can't see the EXP being given by quests, but to my knowledge you also aren't being granted bonus XP, and thus the Steed and Item XP remain uneffected. I don't think this is going to prove as hard as we think in the long run.
I also don't think stripping out these values is entirely necessary. We have a considerable body of values currently and going forward we can probably find ways to determine the core value. Even if that proves cumbersome, I don't think it's a valid reason to outright destroy data we've already accumulated just because "it's not consistent". If we have the information on older quests, leave it where it is, and if we have a hard time figuring out new data, we'll address that concern with that data. Consider that if we delete all this data, and then at some point figure out the formulas of how bonuses are applied, that's all the more work to be done to restore it. Unless, at that time, we decide that it's "too much work".
Sometimes, quite frankly, I think we get so bogged down in concerns of appearances and presentation that we end up sacrificing the very purpose of the wiki - to provide knowledge. Certainly, user-friendliness and elegance of layout are important to the clarity of the information, but if we're constantly missing entire sections because we're busy renaming/deleting/rewriting things we already have, or omitting things because it's too much trouble, we're somewhat defeating the usefulness of the wiki. -- JnK (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

I don't really disagree with you, however in the various discussions about the elimination of the Lorebook and, the comment was made multiple times that those were the only RELIABLE sources for information as lotro-wiki was found frequently to be inaccurate or missing information completely. That then becomes the issue -- if we continue to provide "old information" simply because we have it, and that information turns out to be incorrect -- as we have no ability to verify it and others may or may not see the same numbers ...

As for figuring out the various formulas -- I doubt that is possible any longer, if it ever was. At least in the past, there were forum discussions about various game mechanics but I have not seen any recently, or at least none with "real" information, and not just speculation. And given the "desertion" of LOTRO for SWTOR and other MMOs, the "raiders" who were constantly looking at such information are pretty much gone, and especially from lotro-wiki! The current discussion about "nerfed Rest XP" is a case in point. There is much speculation about the effects, but little accurate information. Turbine was spectacularly "non-informative" in the release notes about the change. While the "gross" impact of the change is pretty obvious, and was outlined in the release notes, other aspects of it are falling into the category -- is this WAI or a Bug? The only thing I can say for certain is -- the values I was seeing in Wildermore on Bullroarer are those I see in the live game. Which was with a level capped toon (85).

Similarly, one wonders how many, if ANY, of the older values are accurate base values or are they only the "enhanced" values reported as awarded XP in Chat. I know that I never tried to do any calculation to back out the effects of Rest XP, but simply recorded what was in Chat.

To which I would add a postscript -- there seems to be a general consensus, rightly or wrongly, that WB/Turbine has dramatically altered their goals for LOTRO. -- it has moved from a lore-based, Tolkien Fan-based game to yet another Mass Market MMO. Personally, as a Founder/Lifetimer, I see this change in the player base on a regular basis. I happen to spend a lot of time answering questions on Steam about LOTRO. There are no "blue names" there, but there are a lot of "power levelers" -- how fast can I get to the Level cap? What is the End-game content like? is the PvP any good? One sees this point of view in many of the discussions on the Forums. And the Forums ... were it not for such discussions by such players, they would be as dead as Bree is during the day (east coast time). (I know, it will probably pick up when school lets out for the summer. But aside from the "land rush" in Wildermore, the "countryside" of Middle Earth is quite sparsely populated with players.) But I digress. The point I'm making is -- the player base has changed pretty dramatically since 2007.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 15:49, 21 May 2013 (EDT)
I had the oportunity today to complete the same quest on 2 characters, one with rested xp remaining and the other without. The Item XP reported in chat was the same regardless of rested xp. Whether the number in chat is correct or not, it means we can keep using the number reported in chat without worry of it changing if the character has rested xp or not.
So I personally at least will keep adding item xp values to quests I add/update. Even if the number is incorrect, it will still give sense of relative amount of item xp the quest is rewarding.
- Shardis (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2013 (EDT)

Good to know!... I have seen it not-change... but that was on level 85 (capped) toons.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 15:23, 28 May 2013 (EDT)

IXP/SXP rewards from Scaling Quests

I don't know if this is something that was added with U11, or I just failed to notice it before.

While looking at completed Spring Festival quests in my completed quest log as part of the 2013 page, I noticed all my scaling quests now show they give IXP rewards (this was on level 60 characters). Presumably once I hit level 75, they would also start showing SXP as a reward as well. I don't know if this is legitimate or a side-effect of some blanket quest text change (similar to the red task usage text on most trophy items even if not used by any task).

Unfortunately I was not paying enough attention on my level 60 characters during the Anniversary Celebration to notice if they were indeed getting IXP from the scaling quests. Will need to pay more attention during the Spring Festival to find out for sure.

- Shardis (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

See Update_11.0,_Official_-_May_13,_2013 - Release Notes - General - second bullet regarding changes to IXP reward for scaling quests. Just guessing that the same applies for SXP reward from higher level quests, if you have a War-steed. I don't believe you can gain SXP until you get your War-steed, regardless of your level.
- RingTailCat (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Epic Battle's impact on Quest nominclature -- Helm's Deep, Update 12

HD Quests -- Changes needed

This discussion began at User Talk:Alicia and has been moved over here. It started related to the addition of several HD quests.

See: Category: Helm's Deep Quests for Quests involved.

Comment 1 concerned the original entry: - * | fellowshiptype = Solo/Duo, Small Fellowship (3)

The main comments I would make.

1- Leave the Fellowship type blank. This is primarily a consistency issue. Using the "lowest" access category.

See: Category: Helm's Deep Quests for examples.

2- Is there really ONLY an IXP reward? That seems strange. One would assume that there are both Steed Experience (SXP) and Epic Battle Reward Points (Epic Points).

See: Flames at the Gate for an example of the rewards. This is also repeatable, but no mention is made of the "daily restriction."
I have not done any of the Epic Battles yet, but I would assume they are similar to the War Bands -- they are repeatable daily, but you can only get "the top reward" once per day -- which I would assume to be the "Epic Battle Points."

3- The comment about "Once Daily for Credit" needs to be moved to the "Walkthrough and Notes" section and explained. ... Credit for what? IXP being the only reward, that seems more than slightly strange.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


  1. I'm obviously new at this. Is it just solo because the system is limited to listing only one type of each category?
  2. Only IXP is listed in the quest panel. I'm not sure about Steed Experience--I think so, but to be honest I don't pay a lot of attention to that. Epic Battle Reward Points are only given under certain circumstances upon completion (once you hit platinum, you no longer receive Epic Battle Reward Points for completing.) You also get XP, approximately 30K for each side quest and 50K for the main quest, but again, it's not listed in the quest panel, so wasn't sure whether to include it. Feel free to change if you wish.
  3. Basically, you get credit for the quest once a day, and when it happens, here's where you get credit:
  • IXP, SXP I guess, and regular XP
  • credit for whatever level it was completed at (Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum) which goes towards the jewelry reward system
  • Epic Battle Reward Points if you complete it at a higher level than you've completed it before, is my understanding.
However, you can complete it as many times a day as you like if you're helping out (i.e., you're not locked out if you try to do it more than once a day, you just don't get credit for the quest and therefore get none of the XP, etc. Similar to running a Daily Challenge in Grand Stair and the like.)
If you want to play around with the rewards, I'll leave that up to you for right now. I might try to pull more data when completing them and update later. I'll try to do something with the fellowship type and repeatable in the notes instead of the category box.
Alicia (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Alicia
Don't worry about being new, LOTRO is a complex system and so is the Wiki.
You are also "bird dogging" the Epic Battles -- very few folks on the Wiki have played them and developed experience with them so, we are still "flying blind" with describing them.
(I haven't done any of them at all as of now.)
The Trait system has the same problem -- lack of experience on the part of editors! So, the details are pretty thin at this point.

Describing historical template actions

  • Is it just solo because the system is limited to listing only one type of each category?
1- Yes and no. The template default is Solo. The template creates a category based on the entry supplied to the parameter "fellowshiptype".
If you look at Category: Group Quests you will see that categories exist for the historical quest groupings - Solo, Fellowship, Small Fellowship, and Solo Only. An additional category "Raid Quests" also exists.
These categories represent Turbine's historical "difficulty ranking" for quests. The significance of these rankings has changed greatly over time. At one time (Pre-Mirkwood) they were fairly absolute around Mirkwood, Turbine began making virtually all quests "solo-friendly" through a varied collection of "game mechanics." Some were devices, like "Inspiration," others were simply "nerfing" the quest and associated Mobs.
"Duos" are another newish game mechanic (the mechanism has been around a couple of years now, introduced after "solo-friendly") where Turbine allowed a quest to be run "as if being run solo" but in fact there were two players involved. However, the quest difficulty factors (mob levels, number of adds, etc.) were NOT increased from what a single player at the recommended level would see.
Only "Solo Only" and "Raid" indicated REQUIRED staffing. (i.e. Solo Only means the quest was not available to players in groups while Raid Quests were not available unless you were in a raid.) The other groups were simply Turbine's recommendations for staffing. Any Solo Quest could also be run by Duos, Small Fellowships (which are always a maximum of3 players), and Fellowships which are always a maximum of six players. (Raids are 6, 12 or 24 players.) These categories are guides to "difficulty" levels more than anything else.
The "player requirements" of the Epic Battles quests are "new" in that, much like "Scaling Instances" and Skirmishes, the level of difficulty changes depending upon the number of players, but the quest remains the same. They differ from Scaling Instances and Skirmishes in that the level of difficulty is always the same regardless of player level which is always at 95 for Epic Battles. And in fact, the Epic Battles are structured so that one must run each Battle first in Solo mode, then in Duo mode, then in full Fellowship mode.

Proposed template change

Minimally, I suppose, we should have a new "standard" Category Option - Epic Battles Quests - similar to the Raid Quests
| fellowshiptype     =              <!-- blank or what reads WHEN YOU ACCEPT the quest, e.g.
                                          Solo only/Fellowship/Small Fellowship/Raid/Epic -->
Where "Epic" would create the category: "Epic Battle Quests"

Other Quest Rewards

As I have not yet run any of the Epic Battles, I have no idea what the entirety of the Quest dialogs look like.
One presumes they START out like classic quests, and Landscape Quests, but I clearly don't know how the end.
I suspect that they could be no worse than the "Rep quests" in the rest of Middle Earth -- where many of them only post "modified numbers" in the chat box as that particular quest is completed. (Modified means, the number posted represents the net after all buffs and bonuses YOUR character has active have been evoked.
  • That said, the question is -- is the information easily available and are templates needed for the different rewards available for the different classes (Engineer, Officer, Vanguard) and the Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum medals rewarded. I don't know enough about them (i.e. no more than was in the Dev Diaries) to suggest that it is possible or what it might look like.
  • What other information is relative to this new Game-Mechanic -- Epic Battles. Keep in mind that this game-mechanic will UNDOUBTEDLY be used again in the future.


The parameter

| repeatable         =              <!-- blank or Yes -->
should only be applied to quests which are marked as "Repeatable" in the quest dialog header. Again, I don't know the HD quests.
Caveats to the "repeatability" are normally simply inserted into the "Walkthrough and Notes" section. (Warbands come immediately to mind.}
I don't believe that any of the Hytbold quests are marked as Repeatable even though they all are, however, they are usually referred to as "Dailies" which we do not Categorize.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 02:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Quest/dialogue formatting

I've noticed quest pages follow slightly different formats for dialogue and system messages (indents, italics, bolding) than Boilerplate:Quest. The latter seems to be a "suggested" format.

Also, the clean copy has "Bestowal dialogue", but in the in-game quest history, the d is capitalized in "Bestowal Dialogue". Sorry, I'm a little OCD. :)

P.S. This text is bigger than normal; is there a missing tag in the previous topic? -Laineth (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird ... it WAS bigger when I went to fix the issue... but on the edit page it is definitely not. Sigh...
Very interesting, the "cause" is the line ":: <categorytree depth=1>Helm's Deep Quests</categorytree>"
i.e. deleting that line causes the main display of the page to be in the correct font. However, with or without that line, the EDIT page display shows one font for the entire section.
So, the answer is -- the "::" prefix indents the "Category name" but not the expansions. Eliminating the :: causes the funky size problem to go away.
To get the "Category Tree" to indent, it needs to be wrapped with <blockquote></blockquote>
Ok, that problem is fixed...
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 17:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that Turbine itself changed the capitalization at some time... at any rate, I've updated the Boilerplate to capitalize "Dialogue."
As for the Dialog formatting -- yeah, folks don't always follow the boilerplate. I suspect that often, like myself, they simply forget which parts are indented/bolded/italicized, etc and which are not. Feel free to change them to match the Boilerplate if you feel so inspired!
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 17:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice, you figured it out! It reminded me of a website I saw (here's the link), whose creator seems to have left out certain closing tags, and the font size got hilariously bigger and bigger as you scrolled down...well, I thought it was hilarious.
Thanks for the response! I followed the boilerplate while editing West Rohan quests and became used to that, then saw other quests with different formatting and wondered if the boilerplate was outdated or something. I can revise quests as I do them in-game, but for now, focusing on the new crafting stuff. :) -Laineth (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Quest Boxes - What to display?

I recently run some bot jobs on some flawed quests, using ReplaceBot. That caused some questions which to my knowledge have never been discussed before. So, here we go...


We all agree that "quest chain" on the quest-infobox should read something only if the in-game quest-log reads anything, a "named quest chain". Because the info-box should be true to the game. For that purpose alone the questchain parameter was added on 2011-05-15T18:40:50 by EoD. Notice though, at the time not all quest dependencies were part of a "named" chain, far from it. We manually added the Quest Chain box to such quests per the instructions of the time.

However, with the release of Rise of Isengard in 2013 Turbine stopped using "named quest chains" in favour of "gated quests". Meaning quest dependencies continued but in another form and unnamed. Still true chains having dependencies.

Soon after, editors started using the questchain parameter also for those "true" chains, in spite of them being un-named. As a convenience. And that worked as long as the value of the questgroup and questchain parameters were identical because then the "quest chain" does not show on the info-box (a trick introduced for convenience when handling Epic quests). But some editors lazily skipped the questgroup parameter for dozens after dozens of quests, so the info-box became a liar.

Also, editors started to include much more information than the truly linked chain. Side-quests here and there, and only Gandalf knows what. Meaning, the Quest Chain box displayed not only one chain but usually all quests of a certain area. Instead of linking to that information which usually is found at the geography or quest-group categories. A new "kindness" was introduced, show as much info as possible on the quest. But none of the rules and guidelines were updated. And the name of the box, Quest Chain, became untrue, partly at least.

Discussion Starters:

The questions that were brought up yesterday were kind of:

  • Should we modernize the rules that can be deduced from the boilerplate, help pages, and talk pages?
  • What should the so called Quest Chain box display? Limited info? Or everything of the neighbourhood, kind of?
  • Should we add a parameter for un-named quest chains (which still are true chains)? Working exactly as the questchain parameter except not polluting the info-box and not tagging the quest for some category?

Certainly there are follow-up questions, too. Just air them here.

This is not my try to change anything, I have been conservative so far. But perhaps the old-school rule-book is too restrictive. I do not know that, but since my actions yesterday raised questions I feel we need to talk before me or any other editor continue with our usual routines, which may vary from editor to editor.

Kindly — Zimoon 18:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The rules should definitely get updated once the rest of this is ironed out.
I think separate parameters for named and unnamed-but-still-chained chains would go a long way towards satisfying the desire to keep the infobox display as accurate as possible to in-game displays while still displaying the relevant information about what is chained somewhere on the page. I do find, generally, displaying more of the 'neighborhood' quests more helpful than strict and limited information. Category:Old Anórien: Minas Tirith Quests is a good example I think in favor of more information. It's a bunch of short questchains scattered all through the city, and being able to see more easily what starts where makes dealing with Minas Tirith a lot less frustrating.
By contrast, Category:Dwarf-holds: Ered Mithrin Quests has only a handful of longer questchains but a bunch of scattered landscape and/or unchained quests. Most of these are better shown attached to their landmarks- the Dôm Goru bounties, the unchained quests in Skarháld, the Withered Heath landscape quests. Those don't need something displayed for chains, but it would still be useful to show something about the related quests.
...we could always have separate boxes for chains and neighborhood quests. Most quests wouldn't use both, but those scattered unchained quests would feel less like dead-ends when navigating through regional quests. I could see that getting confusing kinda fast though so idk. A thought at any rate. Thalion (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Quest Chains have been discussed before - long ago I believe. How I remember it: The quest chain box was used as a quick display for quests before and quests after that are linked together; they either have to be done before the other can or it is simply in sequence to one another. Other quests and region quests should be - I say that in quotes - "should be" on their own region quest page. This was always the intention of it to start.
Understanding that from Rohan on quest chains in the game changed, so to should how we define it. BUT.. I still do not believe other quests that are not linked should be put in the quest chain box and that there STILL should be a region quest page where that information can be easily found and linked to as reference in the quest chain box.. as a "for more information see.. LINK." etc. It still rubs me the wrong way when I see those quest lists on category pages. They belong on their own actual page. My initial thoughts are these. Take them as you will. Rogue (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I suppose you are talking about the quest box of the early regions. I remember seeing only a few quests summed up on in the 'Quest Chain' box of Bree-land quest pages: the ones immediately before or after the quest.
If we would have to manually create these short lists for each quest, that would take a lot of time that might be better spent. Therefore, I like the current situation where all quests from a certain area are put in order on their category page and that page is transcluded onto the 'Quest Chain' boxes. It is somewhat of a compromise in that the quests only need to be put in order on one page. Moreover, it is sometimes nice to know what the end quest of the sequence is. Lately, good rewards like a class trait point or an incomparable cloak were given out.
I do agree that the quest template and boilerplate might need an update to make it clearer for new players. —RoyalKnight5 (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Technically almost anything is possible, but let us leave that until later.
Thalion, no doubt helpful information has a very high value. A question would be where relevant information could be displayed? Must it be within the Quest Chain box? Or does a separate page fill the needs? Maybe a page because it may include even more tips? Such as locations, NPCs, hard-to-find quest-starting objects, etc.
As Rogue mentions, the old-school intention with the Quest Chain box was to always mention "before" and "after" where such quests exist. Not to isolate the chain from the context.
Yes Royal, the Quest Chain box is used for the Epic quests and for the short named chains that exist at least up to Eregion and Enedwaith. But already at that time there were plenty of quests truly chained but without any name. And those were manually added to the Quest Chain box, often transcluded from a small page but otherwise in textual form.
Even more questions, nice 🙂   — Zimoon 11:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
So. quest chain box displaying a whole linked sequence sounds like it satisfies people? Things that are chained should be shown in the chain box? Exact mechanism of display and amount of extra info that isn't strictly the sequenced quests still a sticking point- transclusion vs use of questchain parameter vs manually adding, and then volume of neighborhood quests that are necessary vs useful vs clutter. Separate page with an overview of regional quests also sounds like it's got support? Whether it goes on the category page or not is less clear-cut.
Re:using questchain parameter for an effective but unnamed chain- is there a practical code-related issue with doing that, or is it simply a stylistic concern related to wanting to be strictly game-accurate where possible? Thalion (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
My view on the questchain-box (or any other box on top of the page as you can just not use the param and add the box there manually with any name), is that it provides navgation and links between related quests. This was done automatically in the past by using the questchains as seen in game. Nowadays there are no named questchains but quests are still chained. I think it should boil up to how the user views it. To me there should be no issue to have the box on every questpage, it is collapsible element that is collapsed by default so does not take much space on the page. We have been using the box as a navigation between related quests. Without it the quest pages are to me kind of isolated from others, you need to go to the category page to find related quests - which does not really line up with how we percieve the category structure. I think the quest-chain or similar navigation box containing related quests is very useful on the quest page. As for where it comes from - it should be transcluded and not manually created on each page for ease of editing. On the other hand i think transcluding all regional quests there is an overkill, and they should be split into smaller chunks - some regions have better flow and its easier to done this than others. In that case either the smaller chunks can be transcluded to the regional page overview, or LabaledSectionTranslucion used to transclude parts of the regional listing to the questpages. I think the issue with using questchain paramter for these is not to mix the real questchains from these artifically created. It might be just cosmetic, not to show the param on the infobox to the user, not to confuse them with the artificialy named questchain, but i agree that we should not mix the real questchains with the artificially created ones. --Drono (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Great summary, Thalion! Already long since we used to include "related quests" but if it was a named chain we often displayed in italics those quests that did not read that name. Often such related quests were somewhere in the middle of a true chain but they were never many. What I personally frown at are those looong lists that rather should be on area-or-region-quest pages, unless almost all of those quests actually depend on each other. And even then, if the list becomes too long I believe it is better to split it, maybe on locations.
Good and balanced points, Drono, as always. There is one (1) extra situation when the questchain parameter may be used: when the values of both that parameter and the questgroup parameter are identical. Then "Quest Group:" is hidden from the info-box display. But that is seldom the case so...
Please, tech solutions can wait until we have come to an agreement.
Regarding page or category, I think how I have done it recent months is OK, isn't it? The content is on the geographical category pages for transclusion but hidden under collapsed tables. But that is really another topic which we could have on some other talk page, this page is about the boilerplate and policies.
If I do not misinterpret any comments it seems we might agree that we should display true quest-chains, meaning dependency chains. And it is OK to include a minor amount of related quests, whether optional or side-quests. We should not use the questchain in a way that "Quest Chain:" shows false information on the info-box, only "named chains" are allowed there. Is that a fair summary? If it is, who would like to review and fix the boilerplate and related help pages? — Zimoon 16:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Boilerplate:Quest#Quest Chain was updated per the discussion and the decision we agreed on. OK? — Zimoon 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Quest Objects and Formatting

I have seen many existing quests with "quest objects" in the dialogues. Historically editors used to create pages for them and link to those. Much work perhaps but those were the days. When recently editing quests in the Yondershire I added the info to the "Walkthrough & Notes" box, but having them in the dialogue probably adds more value. So I like that and might walk over the Yondershire quests again.

However, what I do not like and hence is asking about is the formatting. Currently it may look like...

STRONG VINES OF THE WINTERFIELD "These vines look strong enough to hold your weight when tied together."

... which to me has three problems: we are screaming (upper case), in bold moreover, and it ain't suggested in the boilerplate. Nothing about quest objects is found. Meaning the wild-west rules.

  • The boilerplate has rules for NPC names and their text: in bold, spoken verbiage in plain text and unspoken in italics.
  • System messages in italics.
  • Chat dialogues should present the speaker in italics (incl. 'says') and the verbiage in plain text.

I believe quest objects fall in the system messages / chat section. Which implies nothing in bold but italics + plain text. What about...

Strong Vines of the Winterfield: "These vines look strong enough to hold your weight when tied together."

At least it does not interfere/compete with NPCs and contents from the quest itself, right? Kind of humble looking but yet conveys the extra content in a familiar fashion. Is this something we can agree about? Or not? — Zimoon 16:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If i understand correctly which part you are talking about, it should be bold according to the boilerplate, and they are not system messages. I agree they shouldn't be capitalized. --Drono (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think you understand correctly except those things are not covered at all by the boilerplate. It covers NPCs and system messages but not interacting with landscape objects. At the time RTC and others formed and polished the looks of quests we never added them into the dialog but we created item pages for those. E.g. Quest:The Lost Map with its Mining Map.
So the issue is rather if such objects and their text should be there at all? It is not mandatory to see/read that text.
But if we want the objects' text, how to format it? Interacting with an NPC a dialog pops up but not so in this case. The text is captured from mousing the object before interacting with it. That is why I thought system message instead of NPC style: no dialogues, voluntary to read, and not-bold is less obtrusive.
My personal taste goes with less obtrusive, but what do others think? — Zimoon 13:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not understand, is there some issue with the Quest:The Lost Map? Unless the Mining Map exist as inventory item, it should probably be an Object instead of Item. I do not think these texts should be part of the quest dialogues, they are displayed when hovering the items/objects. --Drono (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Quest:The Lost Map is an example of how editors, incl. me, did back then, adding a small page for the items/objects. It was done so for items only visible as icons in the quest-log (e.g. 10 bear hides), objects in the inventory (no matter if you interacted with them or just carried them somewhere (rare)), and objects in the landscape you needed to interact with. E.g. Quest:The Father-lode has both the 1:st and 3:rd kind.
I am talking about newer quests and it seems the extra text is only about landscape objects (as far as I remember). I have lessened the obtrusiveness so far but One Really Long Rope is one example. I have no idea who and when this was introduced and how far-spread it is.
Sometimes they add interesting info or atmosphere to the quest dialog but most of the time, not really so. — Zimoon 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I think where issues arise is a landscape item that doesn't have an icon anywhere and therefore isn't well suited to the Item namespace. If I really thought it was worth documenting I'd probably just make a page with the object's name if it didn't already exist so as to not have a conflict with the item tooltip template. I'm not sure if that's actually what I should do, and I agree that some guidance given here would be very helpful.
In answer to Zimoon's question, I think less obtrusive is better, absolutely. I don't know that we should encourage the adding of that text to the quest page unless it provides real value to completing the quest, though. We may want to have a mention on the Help:Quests page or on this page about it. Also, a short guideline about timed quests would be very valuable, I think. I don't spend enough time in quests to feel I could write one though.
Tangentially, I always make a page for the quest items if I can, but it's true that not many others do now. I'm thinking of doing a page for the Watch-fires in Quest:Writhendowns: Hope Alight since I got a nice screenshot of one and that might be helpful to someone doing the quest, and that is not an item. However, I wouldn't be inclined to make a page for the Loose Stones in Quest:High Knolls: Tremors on the Tors, although I do have a screenshot of the hover text, there just doesn't seem to be any value to adding it anywhere, and as mentioned, the template doesn't have an adequate place for it. ~ Ruby (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor Update to Boilerplate

Today I did a minor update to this boilerplate. Feel free to revert if you disagree to it. Some was polishing but there were some changes that should be non-controversial:

  • startinglocation should be mandatory - that is not enforced by the template (yet) but hopefully it will be so rather soon. And then there will be some code that handles the quite few exceptions there are, see Quests-project
  • questgroup must be mandatory (and made so in the template too) - in-game there is no quest without a "category" in the quest log (which equals quest-group at the wiki)
  • for any of class, profession, or race, when the value equals questgroup (which is read as "category" in the quest log) there is no reason to display those values two or more times in the quest's info-box, is it? The quest will end up in the correct wiki-categories anyway, so once is enough

Hopefully you agree this is OK, right? — Zimoon 12:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes in full – for several reasons, which I'll explain below.
First off, I don't agree with your point #3 above, at all. Quite the contrary, in fact; if a quest _specifically_ pertains to a certain class (or race, profession, and so on), then the associated parameter should most definitely be used, always, regardless of what the questgroup parameter happens to be! This is because the important thing here isn't in which wiki category a particular quest page happens to become filed into behind the scenes, but rather the information that is being presented to the reader on the quest page. When coming to look for information about a certain quest, it is often very useful (I know some would even consider it really important almost to the point of being downright vital) to know which character(s) can or cannot do the quest in question. So yes; there is definitely very much a reason to use these parameters to display that information, irrespective of other parameters used. In fact, I would even go so far as to say it is probably more important to show e.g. "Class: Guardian" rather than "Quest Group: Guardian" (if the two happen to coincide), since the first will (in most cases) be far more useful and informative for the reader; i.e. provide much more 'benefit', as it were. To undermine the value of these parameters – and what they're there for – based on some coincidence that happens to be going on behind-the-scenes (i.e. which category/-ies a quest page gets added to), is not beneficial and will lead to a worse result for the end users, I feel. I also fail to see what would possibly be gained by removing this information, in the first place!? :O
Additionally, I disagree that startinglocation should be "mandatory" – or worse; "enforced" – simply because there are lots of quests that do not have a startinglocation at all, and trying to enforce such where there is none doesn't really make sense. Just off the top of my head we have all the info/vector quests for the various festivals, and other events such as e.g. Hobnanigans, that pop up on login and every level-up during the times of the year when they are active. Similarly with the '<insert faction name> needs you!' mission hub vector quests. Then there are also e.g. the quests that pop up when you reach a certain level and the like. All of these quests (and more) will activate no matter where you are in Middle-earth; thus, they are irrespective of region, area, location etc., and hence have no 'starting location'. Trying to add one where there clearly is none, would just be more confusing than anything, I feel. :)
Now onto my final point, and also the (main) reason I did a full revert of these changes:
In general, I think that any changes to Boilerplates and similar such pages, especially when these effectively amount to policy changes – which affect guidelines and direction on how something is to be done, or used, for all users going forward, and might even get applied retroactively as well! – should be thoroughly discussed, and obtain clear consensus BEFORE such changes are made! This is a collaborative effort by a community, after all, and the group as a whole should have a say in the shaping of its future! :)
In fact, I even think pages of this nature should be set to protected. This may not be the time or place for that particular discussion though, but as it is related to the point at hand, I will mention it here anyway.
--Stargazer (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough 🙂
I realized later that the class parameter actually linkifies to the class page. That should be retained of course.
On startinglocation I disagree. It should be mandatory ... with the means to disable any error messages of course. I think you did not read Quests-project, right?
Boilerplate comments does not enforce anything so for the short period they are harmless. Nevertheless, I say fair enough and I did tell anybody to revert if they disagree. No need to beat the big drums, right? — Zimoon 17:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Re-made some edits that do not change policy. They rather adapt the comments to recent decisions (e.g. use of questchain parameter), or policies read elsewhere (e.g. the Rewards box). Plus minor polishing. — Zimoon 10:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)