TaRapedia talk:Mission project/Mission page layout

Getting started
I have written up what I recall the current practices to be. As can be seen, there are several "Alternate formatting" sections. This is where current practice isn't uniform and we need to agree on a standard form. Please don't pay mind to if your personal style was listed as the "main" style or not, it isn't policy until we reach agreement. I've started some discussion below. - Dashiva (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview section
I prefer no indentation, no bold. I can accept indentation if there's significant support for it, but I do not like how bold looks. - Dashiva (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bold is added automatically when you link to the current page, and I personally think that it looks good as long as it's not a full sentence or so. I agree that there shouldn't be any intendation, except for subsections such as the Intel Recon (which isn't really affiliated with missions, but it was just en example). - Mekwall 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of bold refers to e.g. Rising Up, where the entire briefing part is bold. Non-mission articles are another fight, another day.
 * I was still behind on this. Switching to no indentation here on in. Unfortunately, I changed several others in the process of fixing other things so I'll have to go back and move it again. -- Silarn 10:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to worry too much about formatting at the moment. It will still be a while before we have a stable layout. Until then any change to make could become outdated the next day. Of course updating isn't a bad thing, but there's no need to feel an obligation to do it. - Dashiva (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectives section
I prefer sections. It keeps the syntax sensible (one-item lists are not) and mirrors the dialogue section, which has sections for each dialogue objective. I support icons if we can get some reliable way of producing them, and a policy for what to do with name collisions. - Dashiva (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather have a list that reflects the in-game look of how the objectives are presented. I also think it's good it doesn't mirror the dialogue section since that just makes it more of a mess to see what is what. Using sections just creates a bloated look & feel and clutters the ToC. - Mekwall 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize I didn't mention that Template:Mission includes a NOTOC directive. Thus Mission articles never have a ToC. That aside, could you make a non-section example here for reference? - Dashiva (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll refer to the example for that, since that's how I think it should look like. - Mekwall 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've flipped back and forth on this. Personally I don't prefer either one, but I pay attention to new quests and try to keep current with formatting. I've been using bullets recently because it seemed in greater use and I assumed it was agreed upon. -- Silarn 10:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a close relationship with view source, I don't like the markup generated by the current example style. I have added the example style and a suggested compromise to the main article. The suggestion avoids using a heading, but uses a definition list to mark the objectives rather than a single bullet. Comments? - Dashiva (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue section
I prefer no quotation marks at all. The dialogue section contains only one thing, dialogue, and therefore I see little reason to add quotes. I can accept full-dialogue quotes if there's significant support for it. - Dashiva (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this one and got nothing further to contribute. - Mekwall 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How should mission choices in the dialogues be displayed? Icons, like in Judge, Jury, and..., or labeling them as Option A or Option B, or something else? Mrspathi 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good spot. I've seen two different ways of doing it.

With images:
 * Give Skeev the Corman vaccine
 * Refuse to give Skeev the Corman vaccine

Without images:
 * 1) Give Skeev the Corman vaccine
 * 2) Refuse to give Skeev the Corman vaccine

I don't mind either way myself. - Dashiva (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think with images looks nicer (mimicing the in-game look), but with numbers has the advantage of being able to refer to each choice as option 1 or option 2, making further dialogue from each branch or follow-up mission differences less confusing. Mrspathi 17:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In practice I believe we've mostly ended up referring to the choice by abbreviation, e.g. "Agree" and "Refuse". I don't think relying on the order of choices is reliable, so (if you ask me) it's basically a question of extra effort to look nice or not. - Dashiva (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking policy
This isn't mentioned on the main page, but we need to get it hashed out still. My initial suggestion is something like this:


 * Only relevant NPCs, enemies, items and specific locations should be linked.
 * Thus, common terms like Thrax and AFS should not be linked.
 * Nor should general locations like Torden in a mission concerning Plains.
 * Links should be limited to the overview and walkthrough sections
 * Does not affect name of speaking NPC in dialogue section
 * Also allowed to link walkthrough section for a specific objective (e.g. many ToO)
 * Avoid adding links if the page is already linked in another section (mission box not counted)

- Dashiva (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that links should only go in Overview with some in the Objectives if needed. Overviews don't necessarily list every type of monster or whatever while objectives generally have more specific detail. I'd keep links out of walkthrough info a) because I honestly think any relevant items should already be linked at that point and b) because walkthroughs should have the walkthrough template which works badly with links. If you must bring attention to something, bold it.
 * - Silarn 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The walkthrough boxing is going away if it's up to me. It's rather silly to hide the text when it's already in a section marked as walkthrough, at the very bottom of the page. A more complete analysis is at TaRapedia_talk:Formatting. I know I also discussed it with Zarevak elsewhere, but I can't find the page. - Dashiva (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Template parameters
There are a few things to settle here as well.


 * Should we mandate including / not include RewardGiver and RewardGiverLocation when the mission goes full circle back to the original mission giver? Making it required can avoid accidentally forgetting to enter it, but also leads to more copy-pasting and redundancy. Personally I'd prefer to require leaving it out.
 * Requirements is for missions you need to complete to obtain the subject mission.
 * Current issue: Level also goes in requirements at the moment, but we're probably going to add a level parameter.
 * Followups is for missions you cannot obtain unless you complete the subject mission (but not necessarily only the subject mission).
 * Current issue: There are a few exceptions, like when one mission is required to complete parts of another mission (Temple of the Patriarch Protector is the third objective of Pieces of the Puzzle). I would prefer not listing these here, but rather in the overview or walkthrough sections.

Big issue: Some missions have different reward givers depending on a choice. The current template cannot handle this (it doesn't consider choices at all). How do we solve this?

- Dashiva (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For no particular reason I've been doing the 'duplicate' RewardGiver stuff, but I understand why it's better not to. I'll switch over on this issue.
 * For the requirements, what if you need to have obtained (but not necessarily completed) another mission in order to get it? I'm all for the level parameter.
 * For the followups, including the info in the overview sounds good to me. What about missions like Infection Connection? It requires Surgical Strike to obtain, but depending on choice you fail one mission or the other. (It branches, in other words.)
 * As for multiple reward givers, there probably aren't enough cases to warrant a 'RewardGiver2' type deal. I'm not sure. -- Silarn 10:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything you listed seems to be restricted to missions where you make a choice, or mission pairs where you have to choose one mission. Basically, choices suck.
 * For the second group (need one mission active to get another, completing one failes the other) the current template is good enough. Requirements and followup are free text, so we can do e.g.  Requirement=Do something (in mission list)  and  FollowUp=Change Your Mind (while mission is active)  (but with better wording).
 * For the first group, I suggest making a second mission template tailored for choice missions. It would support three different RewardGiver/Location sets (we can extend it if we ever find a quad choice) and a label parameter to indicate which matches what.
 * How does that sound? - Dashiva (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)