Talk:Deeds

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

Deed article naming scheme

What is the "official" naming scheme for deeds, specificially slayer deeds. I've seen, for example "Orc-slayer", "Orc-slayer_(Angmar)", "Orc-slayer_(Advanced)_(Angmar)", "Orc-slayer_(Angmar)_(Advanced)" etc. I can see the need to put the region in the title, because multiple regions have slayer deeds for the same type of mob, but what order should they be put in in the article name? "Mob-slayer_(Advanced)_(Region)" seems the most logical to me because the deeds in game can me "Mob-Slayer" and "Mob-slayer_(Advanced)" so should the region always be included, and always be at the end of the article name.

If this is the case, then a lot of articles are going to need to be renamed/redirected/deleted etc. I don't mind doing this, I've been adding and updating deeds a lot lately. Bpollock00 14:20, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

The idea is that a deed is called Mob-slayer or Mob-slayer (Advanced) (insert appropriate Mob at "Mob"). If there are multiple deeds of a species in different areas, there should be added (Region) after the usual deed name. So that would result in Mob-slayer (Region) and Mob-slayer (Advanced) (Region).
If you see any Mob-slayer (Region) (Advanced), they should be corrected to Mob-slayer (Advanced) (Region). Adding the region is only needed if there are multiple deeds with the same name but in different regions. Hope this helps. --Ravanel 07:28, 9 September 2010 (EDT)

Separate article for every deed

What would you say about creating a separate article for every deed? Has it been discussed and deemed unnecessary? IMO it would be easier to find the information you are looking for this way (eg. deeds giving a specific virtue as a reward). Orions 08:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are pages for Virtue Deeds, Virtues by Region, Virtues ordered by attribute etc... but they quickly become outdated as new deeds and areas are added. Each deed ultimately should have its own page, and I believe there is a deed template for this, but my first priority is just getting a master list of all the deeds (especially the hidden ones) before working on them individuallay. I usually personally verify hidden deeds and titles before I add them; fortunatley I am a deedoholic and title collector. MysterX 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Deed template

Ok, I've created a template for deeds, Template:Deed. Several deeds are already using it, I'll be steadily converting more. Orions 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

With the next content update Turbine Points will we granted to those who compleet certain deeds, i've allready added a couple of new deeds in Enedwaith with their ammount of points... maybe it's possible to add this to the template?? --Tiberivs 07:47, 9 September 2010 (EDT)

Deed structure

I've begun reworking the deed structure, beginning with regional deeds. The new structure is:

The Deeds page links to appropriate Categories, not to plain text articles
Every category has a link to the former plain text article - see Category:Angmar_Deeds
Every Deed should be created as a separate page, and appropriately categorized - which can be done with Template:Deed

Orions 08:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


One comment - Pages should link to articles, rather than categories. Categories are just a list, but the articles can (and should) be ordered and have additional information such as deed level, region etc; they provide more information than a simple list. Uloria 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, articles surely provide more info than lists. But IMO if you want to get precise information, you should be easily directed to an article concerning specific object (in this example an article describing a single specific deed). And in order to be easily directed, you have to have a clear list. The present deed articles (for example Angmar Deeds) are clear and full of useful information, but I think that categories are easier to maintain in the long term (that is when new deeds appear, deeds change their effects and so on. Orions 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
One problem is that the search function does not bring up Categories. There have been a lot of articles on this Wiki that were entirely written on the category page, where they would not be found. This also means that the actual articles need to be kept up-to-date, manually (where additional useful information can be included, if desired).
In any case just a long alphabetical list is of very little help. In other words, if someone simply wanted to look up a deed (which is the purpose of an alphabetic list), they would simply use the search function, not go to the categories. Uloria 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was once told my the admins before me that categories should remain in the background. In other words never seen by the common viewer (unless purposely gone to). There does need to be article pages and links to articles instead of categories. If the problem is what we have for article pages is too lengthy or doesn't have enough information that needs to change, not the link. Uloria is correct, the search function does not take into account categories, however it does provide options if the person doesn't search correctly and those options DO include categories. So, this has changed. Rogue 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see your points. Especially the categories not being searchable kind of puts a dent in my master plan to rule the universe :P I have two reservations though - first, if that is the case, what is the practical use of categories at all? Just grouping articles for the ease of editing and maintaining? Second reservation is something Uloria mentioned - the need to manually edit all articles. Let's consider an example - assuming we do not maintain deed categories at all - now lets assume a deed somewhere in Bree-land changes its reward from say +1 Valour to +1 Honour. We have to update that in 4 places - on the specific Deed article, Bree-land Deeds article and on the Valour Deeds article and on the Honour Deeds article... That is something I wanted to work around with categories. Any suggestions? Orions 05:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Automatic updating can be done through templates. (Categories just skirt the issue by not giving the information at all.) One way I can think of would be to add <noinclude></noinclude> tags to the cut-and-paste Deeds template. In theory, this would allow you to use the individual deed pages as templates ({{:deed article name}} on these other pages, just filtering in the relevant information... Uloria 16:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand what you have in mind. I'll try to sandbox it a little and see where that leads me. --Orions 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Instances Deeds

I started to add the new deeds from those last 2 new instances, and I noticed that many instance deeds have are listed as Regional, and it's specific region.... I think we should move all those deeds to the right place. And I'm planning to do so, what do you think?? For instance, Great Barrow -- Maze Wing is listed as: 

|Deed-type    = Regional
|Deed-subtype = Bree-land
|Regional-sub = Slayer

This should be 

|Deed-type    = Instance
|Deed-subtype = Shadows of Angmar
|Regional-sub = Slayer

or 

|Deed-type    = Shadows of Angmar
|Deed-subtype = Bree-land
|Regional-sub = Slayer

or adding a new variable 

|Deed-type     = Instance
|Deed-subtype  = Shadows of Angmar
|Deed-subtype2 = Bree-land
|Regional-sub  = Slayer

What do you think? --Tiberivs 13:08, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Hmzz or should we stick to the setup used recently for the In Their Absence Deeds like:
|Deed-type    = Instances
|Deed-subtype = Northcotton Farm
|Regional-sub = Explorer
And add the catogory from the subtype to In Their Absence Deeds in this case? --Tiberivs 13:21, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

RoI Changes

All deeds don't seem to have an initial deed and then an advanced version anymore. This means we'll have to delete >50% of all our deed pages and update the rest with their appropriate number of kills and rewards. --Ravanel (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Pfff really, we just got lots of deeds ready :( --Tiberivs (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
Just checked my deed-log, still got normal deeds and advanced deeds, which ones are you referring to?? -- Tiberivs (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Rise of Isengard Deeds

The Tower of Orthanc, The Foundry, Roots of Fangorn, Darg, Fangorn's Edge, Pits of Isengard deed pages have been created. I believe I created most of them, However more details could be added for the T2 Challenges that I cant see yet. Most of them are categorized "Rise of Isengard Deeds", but they need to be labeled uniformly and have 'lore' or 'slayer' deeds added. There is several comments on the Talk:The Tower of Orthanc page. (Majikk17 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2012 (EDT))

You are doing just great. The Deeds template is not user-friendly at the moment, we tweaked how it worked but the parameters are misleading I guess. Check up on some deeds for areas lower-levels than Evendim and you'll get the idea, these are for certain updated and categories fixed, though I believe Magill fixed many (or all?) of the higher level areas. The general idea is to figure out how to connect the categories so they are at one point or the other included in relevant parent-categories. And also in geography, etc. Our categories does not 100% match what is seen in the deeds log, I guess that there is not, for example, an entry in the in-game deed log that reads Rise of Isengard Slayer Deeds, right? Whether we have it or not is another question, should Tower of Orthanc Slayer Deeds be in RoI Slayer Deeds or in Nan Curúnir Slayer Deeds? That is up to ourselves to argue pro and cons --- personally I tend to think: how many X categories will it be in this category? If just one I'd perhaps use another equally fitting category. However, remember the geography categories, that is one way for visitors to find what is available in for example Angmar, or The Trollshaws, or... you get the idea ;)
Don't be afraid to go ahead, almost anything can be fixed later on.
-- Zimoon 13:37, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Meta deed additions in Update 13

Around 70 Meta Deeds have been added to the deeds for all regions.
Meta deeds for Slayers Deeds, Lore Deeds, Explorer Deeds -- and Meta deeds for completing all of the Meta Deeds in Regions!
Most Meta deeds will be awarding Lootboxes and Marks.
I've got a list started at over here. It looks like a lot of deeds now have Marks as rewards, even the non-meta deeds, so they will all need checking when everything goes live. Neum (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Deed Icons

Someone with access to all or most of the deed icons should update the icon database with them. There are plenty of deeds out there with bullets instead of the proper icon next to the objective (ex. Dol Amroth - Buildings and Discovering the Descendant). There should at least be nine, as seen on this Talk page's main page. --Gestrid (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

U 18.1 changes many slayer deed requirements.

I do not know now accurate the list is, but it is worth using as a starting point. I Inserted it into the page called Category: Slayer Deeds.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 23:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Regional Deeds - Namespace notice

When I look at the links to regional deeds, they link to category pages that contain:

  1. a listed overview of all deeds in that region
  2. the actual regional deed pages

This goes against a basic rule: pages get stored in categories; information gets stored in articles. This is because articles are meant for readers and categories primarily for editors. Linking to categories should be kept to a minimum! To follow wiki standards, 1. (the overview tables) should be moved to article pages - only 2. stays in the categories. If necessary, we can transclude the article info into the relevant categories, but in the case of regional deeds I'm not a fan because it clutters the category pages so much that you have to scroll down in order to find the actual pages (the main goal of categories). See for example Category:The Plateau of Gorgoroth Deeds. --Ravanel (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Locations

Hello, i have noticed Suruki started making location tables for deeds. However as of now they have been putting them into the objective parameter. In my opinion it should hold only the objectives, and the deed tables should be outside, probably outside the whole deed template at the bottom of the page.
However i also had an idea, that we could modify the deed template so that the objectives would use locationlist. One disadvantage i see would be that sometimes the objective have rather long descriptions, so not sure how would that play out.
I'm also not sure about location tables on meta deeds, for example Explorer of Lhingris. In my opinion they shouldn't be there.
--Drono (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I've been adding location lists for deeds for about a month now as I passed through the regions of various characters, is there any particular way I should do this? For example, should I have the location list in an easy to see area or should it always be at the bottom of the page?
Also for the meta deeds I might just create a new page that shows everything rather than having that on the meta's. Suruki (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The way I and some other people have been doing it is
  1. list the objectives without the coordinates (and with additional flavor text, if any) in the objectives parameter of the {{Deed}} template
  2. add a ==Locations== section below with a {{LocationList}} table in it, for those who want the 'spoiler'.
--Thurallor (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem with copying all of the locations to the meta-deed is we now have two copies of the same data to maintain. I have added some parameters to the {{LocationList}} template to automatically merge the tables. See example at Explorer of Udûn Combined Deeds. Rather than having this on a separate page, I would prefer to include it on the meta-deed page, perhaps inside a collapsible Questbox. --Thurallor (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
See example of combined locations in a collapsed box at Explorer of Udûn. If combining them all into a single table isn't appropriate, you could combine them into however many tables is appropriate. --Thurallor (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Main problem now is that all of the explorers are merged, not just the similar types. Suruki (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on which types should be merged? --Thurallor (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we should separate them by type of deed, for example in Udûn there are two deeds, Forge-works of Udûn and Forge-fires of Udûn which are very similar in structure; we should group them, however, we shouldn't group them with collectable deeds, things like Rare Gorgoroth Chests of Udûn or Treasure of Udûn, and finally we have the old kind of explorers, like The Way Into Mordor, I think we should have three separate groups for them. The reason I would separate Forge-works of Udûn and Forge-fires of Udûn from The Way Into Mordor is because the former two don't have markers on the map displaying if you've found them, but the latter does. -- Suruki (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that there is a lot of room for differences of opinion. Some people like knocking out all explorer deeds at once; others prefer doing them sequentially. To some people it doesn't matter whether the deeds are of similar "types"; they're all explorer deeds which just involve going to a place and clicking on something. I'm not sure that your personal preference for how to combine them is a compelling enough reason to combine them in those ways on the wiki. I'll try to bring in more people to comment on this. --Thurallor (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I personally do not like the deeds being combined, for me it is too many points on map to be useful. I do not see much point putting the combined tables on one page if the points are actually not in one table, not sure how it is different than from looking on the actual deed pages, i mean yes you need to click the deed page you are interested in, but if we overgeneralize we could also put everything on one big page... If the locations in one big table is preferred, i think it might be nice if they had different color depending on deed. --Drono (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I like that idea, and I think it could be done relatively easily. We'd just add an optional |color= parameter to {{LocationList}}. Then specify a different color for each sub-deed when doing the merge. --Thurallor (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I went ahead and added this feature. --Thurallor (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Another idea that would probably require lot more work: what about similarly when you click on the coords it opens big map, it would open that big map with list of deeds and checkboxes to show/hide that deed locations. --Drono (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think adding the combined LocationList on the metadeed page is fine, collapsed how it is on Explorer of Udûn so as not to be too cluttered. It gives the option for someone who wants to knock them all out at once an easy way to do it, or people can just do one deed at a time if that's their preference.
And I also think that this should not be in the "objective" parameter of the {{Deed}} template but rather outside the template as supplementary information.
There are a bunch of explorer deeds where {{LocationList}} has been put in the "objective" parameter in the {{Deed}} template but IMO that shouldn't be best practice.
TBH I might have done it a few times myself lol --User:Gaerlin (via Discord)
In my opinion it is useful to have all the deed location from one region in one table somewhere. Would it be possible to have a third collumn in that table that gives the deed, so that the deed is more easily visible and not in the directions/description collumn? But I agree with Drono that the coords-map gets is really full that way. Feuerhaar (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly possible, but the "prefixes" are intended to give a reasonable approximation of that. We could combine the sub-deeds without re-sorting them, leaving the full sub-deed name in the description field:
...but if we're not resorting them, then like Drono said, we're not really adding much value by combining the tables. It's just one extra click to go to the sub-deed page. --Thurallor (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I am not a fan of combining all explorer location lists, since I mostly look up these lists to quickly find one or two things I have missed when questing through the region. However, I can see that some people just want to go through them all at once and then it can be useful to have a shortest path to do them all. The problem in combining these location lists in one big list, is indeed how we should do this. Should we just group all explorer deeds together, or just those deeds 'that are similar' (whatever is meant by this). I like Feuerhaar's suggestion though. --RoyalKnight5 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Providing a shortest path would indeed be beneficial. However, that's one of the hardest algorithms in computer science, so we can't automate it feasibly. We could manually create such a table, but then we lose the benefit of automatically merging the sub-deeds (i.e. not having two different copies of the same data laying around). --Thurallor (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not even sure providing an shortest path would be possible. I mean a valid shortest path that would not sent you of cliff, although that might be doable, but climbing back is not ;) --Drono (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we would be able to automatically create the shortest path since the coordinates don't include height differences and information about cliffs and walls and such. And in addition the shortest path might even differe per user depending on what ports/stables they unlocked already. So it would be alot of work for alot of deeds Feuerhaar (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


I'm not of the opinion that we should have completely combined lists, like what is on Explorer of Udûn; furthermore, I think we shouldn't change everything to be combined, only for giant regions. Explorer of Dor Amarth Combined Deeds is more of what I was thinking for the deeds "that are similar" thing. Three pages is manageable, that is what I found while I was going through Mordor, one page with all locations is indeed far too cluttered; also I like the idea of adding color sorting to them, it would be better than simply a blue circle for every deed location.
Having individual pages for each deed with the LocationList is good enough for anyone, but for regions that have more than a few explorers with intermingled locations across the map it's slightly annoying to have multiple tabs to look through before moving on.
Suruki (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Setting aside the topic of combined location lists for meta-deeds....)

I believe there is a consensus on how to specify locations on deed pages. I have edited Eastern Durin's Way to demonstrate. Note:

  1. The locations are listed without coordinates in the Objective = part of the {{Deed}} template.
  2. There is a section down below, == Locations ==, containing the coordinates in a {{LocationList}} template.
  3. Since the spoilers appear at the bottom of the article, it is not necessary to collapse the table. (A {{Questbox}} is not needed.)

There are lots of deeds that don't currently match this format, but we're working on it gradually. Thanks, --Thurallor (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


I think if we are removing the locations in the above area we should definitely put the locations in the LocationList higher, that way people don't need to scroll down/not see it and think the locations aren't listed. I'll be editing Dunland in a bit just before running through on a new character, I'll try out this new format.

Suruki (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think enabling the table of contents (shown at Eastern Durin's Way) is enough to address that concern. --Thurallor (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
OK HERE WE GO. First, it is good editor etiquette (practice) to follow our wiki guidelines and to not change how we format pages. This was done in the past and has caused the wiki to have multiple formats on things and we are then forced to "fix" things which takes time, effort, and energy away from adding new content or updating what needs to be updated. We are MORE than willing to discuss additions / changes / major updates that will effect essentially entire sections of pages (such as Deeds) either here or on discord BEFORE adding said changes. As you can see (as well as I) from this LONG thread that there are vastly different views here and this most definitely needs to be addressed and decided on by the admins before more edits continue. We are big on voting, on collaborating, and creating a cohesive wiki for all to enjoy. I will ask that no more edits involving - LocationLists happen until this discussion is resolved and a decision is made. Thank you. Rogue (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Combining location tables for meta-deeds

Before trying to resolve the various open questions about specifics, let's establish a consensus on whether to include combined location list tables for meta-deeds in any form:

Name Vote
Suruki No
Thurallor No
Rogue4ever No
Eldalleth No
Feuerhaar —
Drono No
RoyalKnight5 —
Gaerlin —

Conclusion

We will not create combined location lists for meta-deeds. There is no consensus on the best way to do it, and the location lists on the sub-deed tables are deemed to be enough. --Thurallor (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


Okay, just to see the different formatting that people had in mind I made Talk:Deeds/Explorer Deed Format Testing, which uses the The Farms of the Shire as it's base, if anyone has free time, feel free to show what you prefer/make what you think it should be. This should allow us to more easily come to a discision on what to do I think. -- Suruki (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://lotro-wiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deeds&oldid=1864931"