Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Quotes and Dialogues/Archive 1

Dialogue format

Style #1

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

Style #2

"Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious."

You look pretty serious.

"I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions."

I'd prefer the first over the second. The bold font seems to be a little too "attention-grabbing". And the quotes redundant, they are not present in the game and we can tell this is a conversation. Sometimes I also see the name of the NPC on every line which only makes sense if the dialogue switches from NPC to NPC which sometimes happens. --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree on style 1. The player lines are generally unimportant. —Dr Ishmael 13:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Between those two I definitely prefer the first one too. The quotes would be necessary if it wasn’t clear that this is a quotation/dialogue, but those dialogue blocks are usually within a dialogue section so… also if there were quotes, the player text would need to have quotes too. I would add a space after the dialogue icon though. poke | talk 16:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I greatly prefer the first, and not just because it saves the massive number of apostrophes used when creating dialogue where every line is bolded or . I wish we had some tool that allowed us to quickly build the trees (like you have a single dialogue and option text field, with buttons after each line to add another dialogue/option combo, another dialogue (without an option, for repeats), or another option (for multi-options), with a dropdown for the different icons on each line) and the tool would then output the necessary code to add it to the wiki. If I had skills I'd build one. On another note, how does everyone feel we should do the character switch when a conversation changes between NPCs? I've just put an italicized "(Dialogue switches to NPC)" (ex: see Inspector_Ellen_Kiel, the subsection "after beginning the investigation", where the dialogue switches between her and Levvi), but that feels awkward. Vahkris 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(“I wish we had some tool” – Noted in the back of my head…) poke | talk 21:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I should start all my ideas with that line. Vahkris 22:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to change the example used in GW2W:FORMAT#Dialogue to this (option 1), so the main general formatting rules go with how we've been adding the dialogue. I'm also planning on finding where the quotes dialogue formatting is and make sure it's how we've been doing it. Objections? Thoughts on putting this question elsewhere? (this statement is being added to that page too) Vahkris (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Style #3

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

Majesty is a big word.

Isn't it? I'm glad you appreciate it!

I don't.

We'll be on our way soon. Be patient.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

No thanks.

We'll try to find a good doctor on the way.

Rather than:

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

Majesty is a big word.

Isn't it? I'm glad you appreciate it!

I don't.

We'll be on our way soon. Be patient.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

No thanks.

We'll try to find a good doctor on the way.

This is very similar to Style #1, but the responses to the user's questions are on the same indent level as the questions. It makes sense to me, and it reduces the indentation creep that happens with long conversations (as well as some of the vertical spacing). --Alad (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What about a bit of an inversion, though, and keep the player response at the same level as the prior NPC line?

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

Majesty is a big word.

Isn't it? I'm glad you appreciate it!

I don't.

We'll be on our way soon. Be patient.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

No thanks.

We'll try to find a good doctor on the way.

The dialogue icons serve to visually indent the player responses, so this feels better to me. —Dr Ishmael 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That could do too. But I see two issues with it: It's really a "question-then-answer" sequence, even if the whole thing starts with the NPC saying something (i.e. an answer), so having the answer aligned with the question is clearer. Also, unfortunately, the icon width is not equal to the indent, so the left edges of your example look less aligned to me. Finally, since there are many cases where the end-dialog options are really just variations on "goodbye", they can be omitted without loss of content, and in that case, having the first line be the only one at the first indent level creates an automatic visual separator or a sort of title/header for that dialog, when several dialogues follow each other. I.e.

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

is clearer than:

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

Why are we still here? I need to be out there, in the thick of it, destroying things. You don't understand how serious I am when I say I "need". Look at my face. Tell me I'm not serious.

You look pretty serious.

I am. People don't understand—I'm an artist. My canvas is the world itself, and my paints are the flames I conjure. People just can't appreciate the beauty, the majesty of my compositions.

You're not serious.

Thanks...What? Doesn't it show? Can't you feel the poetic rage within me? Would you like a demonstration?

--Alad (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been using Alad's version because that looks the best imo. Yet this is the only place I have seen it, it is not on the actual project page here or in [Wars 2 Wiki:General formatting]. We should unify the guidelines for obvious reasons. I vote for this version but even if everyone agrees I don't dare to edit the formatting guides myself as I am still total noob. Rakuin (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A little late to the party perhaps, but while we're discussing this thing, I also prefer Alad's version (Style #3). I think it both looks better, and is more true to the in-game dialogue system. After you've chosen an option, you're left with a new UI window where the question is the headline, paired with /followed by a response. Then you get the sub-categorized follow-up questions (that's the way I see it at least). Titus 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The third set of dialogue (directly under "Style #3" is what is being used most commonly and is the format placed on the project page. Konig 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And that is why I said I like Style #3 better: I noticed that there was no apparent overweight towards either opinion, and it seems the suggestion has just been ignored. I fully understand the need to come to a consensus, so therefore - let's do a poll on it now, then we - once and for all - "just have to be bold and with no consensus, just decide a format and tell anyone who doesn't like it to try re-igniting the discussion.". So, as far as I can see:

- Style #3: User:Alad / User:Rakuin / User:Titus

- Current style (see article page): User:Dr Ishmael / User:Konig / User:Claret

Anyone else care to place their vote, and we'll close this case within the next 24 hours? (P.S. I should note that based upon all discussions on this page I've concluded these two options to be the most discussed and viable ones. If anyone disagrees with that, speak now or forever remain in silence). Titus 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you got what I was saying. Style 3 IS the current style. Looking at the article, it seems that the beginning '' for italicizing was missed in the basic format section. So fixed that. There's no need for voting, because what ended up reaching a tie - as you'd probably see down below - was between Style 3, and an altered Style 2 (indenting matching 3, but italicizing/bold being the same as style 2 - i.e., what's used in the example in #Converging options). And since I seemed to be the only one heavily supporting the altered style 2, I removed that just recently so we'd only have one style - Style 3 per this section. Konig 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Look again. Alad's Style 3 uses different indent style than the examples on the article page. The player's question is indented along with the following response. VS the article page puts a player's question on the same level as the previous response. Everything else is the same. Titus 21:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, for some reason my eyes didn't register the indent difference beyond each line being indented. May I ask why you think that is "more true to the in-game dialogue system"? Because if you want to argue that, the indent every line is more true, but that just leads to confusion in editing format (hence why less indentation is more par the course). I'm also seeing it more confusing, personally, to have the NPC's response on the same line to the PC line its responding to. It also results in solitude lines for when there's only closing, as opposed to the current use in which there is no solitude line - i.e., it's not as space consuming. Konig 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: All of this said, I'd like to suggest we archive this talk page and start anew, since until your post everything was half a year old and settled. It'd make navigation of new discussions and what still needs solidifying easier. Konig 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind archiving it. It seems we're closing in on a consensus now (with some bold moves, but I fully agree that it has been necessary). I'd say give it a day or two - to see if we can agree on the last few details, then archive the whole thing.

As for the "why" I prefer style 3, I think it all comes down to personal preference. I see there's been two sides to this particular discussion: one feel that style 3 is by far the best, the other thinks the current one is. And right now we're at a tie. It is clearly a matter of personal taste. Funny thing is, we're using the exact same arguments eachother: "It'd make sense to group the question together with the NPC response" vs "It'd make sense to group the NPC response together with the questions". I won't make a big thing out of it. If no one else comes in soon to support my view, I'll just let the whole thing pass. Titus 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Converging options

What is Claw Island?

"You must be new to Lion's Arch. Claw Island is the Lionguard's outer defense post. It's well-armed and heavily fortified. The Lionguard stationed there guard the bay into the city."

"What's your role there?"

"I'm the Vigil liaison for the Lionguard inspectors. I keep the Vigil informed of the status of defenses there, and gather intelligence about any Orrian movement."

I should let you return to your personal business.

Thanks for your time.

What are your responsibilities on Claw Island?

(same as "What's your role there?")

I think the dialogue tree should be kept as shallow as possible; which is not the case above but I want to discuss how to indicate that those two options lead to the same point. --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is very difficult. The “ask more” system in GW2 is really terrible as it often branches out and comes back with different questions. This can either lead to terrible and confusing trees, as for example on Head Researcher Levvi for which every option was reachable from many different levels and subquestions making it a pain to document (as it confused myself while documenting it) and probably just as hard to read. In that case I just left out the repetitions of answers to questions which were obviously the same as before (mentioning only the different question/player option).

The other extreme is a very stupid linear structure as on Wikki's Official Guide to Tyria. It makes no real sense to even nest that (especially as it’s always a “Read on.” or “Close the book.”). But of course we need some consistent way to document both these things in a simple and efficient way.

I’ve thought before about writing down separate explanation sections (i.e. repeating answers/trees) and just reference them always from within the “main” tree… Maybe I should make an example for that. poke | talk 16:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm running into a similar situation like this with Braham. He has four options (three personality choices and one normal one). All four have a different response (weirdly enough the option barely anyone will choose is the one that tells you to go back and talk to Rytlock as he has a new response now), but then all four result in the exact same conversation after that one line (meaning you do miss a non-personality line if you didn't choose that one). We need some easy way to reference when a response will match the answer to a different question. Currently I'm just putting the small text shown above and moving the rest of the conversation to the non-personality one. Vahkris 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason why they have to put options that take you back a step in the conversation, so you can ask the other questions, is because they can't show all the dialogue in that dialogue box. We can. So rather than showing "can I ask another question" in such dialogues, it's simpler and more efficient from every point of view to simply list all the user questions with the response (tree) underneath it. Readers will understand. And better than if they see a complicated technical flow chart attempting to mimic the in-game limited dialogue abilities. I did that a few times in such dialogues, but will have to search for hours to find them again...

What I'm trying to say is, user responses which are only meant to take you back a step in the dialogue, should not be entered at all. --Alad (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to see clear example of dialogue like that. Dialogues I have documented haven't yet been excruciatingly long, tho I have come across some jump back options and repeating dialogue under different paths. I have also encountered few dialogues that start differently depending on what race your character is and then continuing the same for all. Rakuin (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue variants

Additional branch

Welcome to Skovtrolde. What brings you out here?

With member of the Order of Whispers:

I'm seeking the unsought.

Then you've found the unfound. I've been told to inform you of a mysterious power coming from the jotun camp in Theign Kenning.

I guess in terms of OoW we could create a custom icon and add it to the dialogue, though that might be confusing and there might be other dialogues like this which do not involve OoW nor any other order. --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I find this example a bit confusing. There is (usually) two participant in a conversation like this and when you say "with" it can mean either of them. I used If character is member of the Order of Whispers: as it can only be understood in one way. Rakuin (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Pff. I'm not happy with my version either. Need's to be shorter, cleaner. Maybe like: if in Order of Whispers:, if human:

I personally like bolding this type of branching info but [Wars 2 Wiki:General formatting] advices otherwise, with brackets and no bolding. =/ Rakuin (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Entirely different sentences/dialogue

This popped recently with the Razing, e.g. Braham: Help from the Legions (the page isn't populated with all the dialogues yet). Rytlock's dialogue differs vastly based on who you are - if you're a charr he's kind of glad to see you. If you're not he is quite rude but if you've already become a Commander of the Pact he treats you well. This concerns the lines of dialogue up to "So, why didn't you help that norn?" I'd probably go for presenting a default dialogue (say, from a human perspective) and then list the rest in another section so it wouldn't disrupt the flow of the dialogue. --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Made a table of different versions for Braham: Help from the Legions --Sialor 09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don’t like this as a table (tables are so over-used on this wiki…). Make it a normal section or something and it works for me. poke | talk 16:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, though I am not sure about how clear it is section-wise (and I don't want to create more subheadings or add yet more indentation) --Sialor 15:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make dialogue in said page tidier and easier to read. There you can see how I handle difficult dialogue like it. Opinions? Is it better or just terrible? We need some uniform guideline on this too. Rakuin (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposing a format

For both things above and more. This is somewhat cohesive set I have stitched up of things I have seen been used around. Here "talking to" part is meant mainly for living story events and similar when there are more than one NPC to talk to.

Talking to Rytlock Brimstone

That young norn's ability to make it all the way to my office without being stopped is a sign of just how distracted we are with this refugee and Flame Legion situation. We need to get this under control.

So, why didn't you help that norn?

Two reasons. First, we've got our hands full. I can't spare a single soldier for the norn when my own people are dying. The Flame Legion are burning our assets. And second, he lied to me.

if not charr:

I doubt it. May your day improve.

if charr:

You're busy. I'll come back later.

As Commander of the Pact (Forging the Pact completed)

Commander. This is an unexpected visit. What can I do for you?

<Leader> sent me to help.

All right. I could use all the help I can get. We're spread so thin, we've got cooks out scouting the mountains for Flame Legion. What kind of help are you offering?

I doubt it. May your day improve.

Rakuin (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I prefer the statement, indent responses, indent next statement format. It just does not look right. But that's a personal preference not necessarily a criticism. --Claret (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was in a funny place so I moved it a bit. The indent preference is not what I wanted to show here but that should be discussed too. I think the dialogue looks better with less indents but I really hope more people would share their opinion on the matter. Braham: Help from the Legions has long and rather complicated dialogue I formatted as a test, go see it and tell what you think. I'm not afraid of critique, I'm asking for opinions, so thanks. =3 Rakuin (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My preference is as below

I’m so mad I could spit. My people are in danger, and this mighty tribune won’t help. I have to go to Hoelbrak now. Don’t suppose you’d want to come and help me convince Whitebear to send muscle?

Brimstone looks busy. Is that why he wouldn’t help you?

You’ll have to talk to him to find out. I’m not asking him to go himself, just to send some troops. So be it. I’ll speak with Knut Whitebear in Hoelbrak. He’s a wise man. He’ll listen to reason.

Why didn't you go to Hoelbrak first?

Let's just say I have ghosts from my past there that I try to avoid. My mother, to be specific. It never ends well whenever she and I are in the same room. I barely know her anyway.

I'm <character name>. And you are?

Braham. Braham Eirsson. You've probably heard of my mother. She’s a famous hero, a member of Destiny's Edge. Eir Stegalkin. I’m not bragging, mind you. I take after my father.

Interesting. Maybe I'll see you in Hoelbrak. (earns Braham: Help from the Legions Achievement)

I see. Well, good luck.

Best of luck.

Good luck, then.

Statement and responses on same indent. --Claret (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that include the first sentence too?

I’m so mad I could spit. My people are in danger, and this mighty tribune won’t help. I have to go to Hoelbrak now. Don’t suppose you’d want to come and help me convince Whitebear to send muscle?

Brimstone looks busy. Is that why he wouldn’t help you?

You’ll have to talk to him to find out. I’m not asking him to go himself, just to send some troops. So be it. I’ll speak with Knut Whitebear in Hoelbrak. He’s a wise man. He’ll listen to reason.

Why didn't you go to Hoelbrak first?

Just to make the whole thing consistent... I don't know, this version looks totally alien to me as I have been using the exact opposite. Rakuin (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And yours looks strange to me, but that's not unnatural, so, eventually, a consensus will be reached until the next time someone wants a change and then we'll go over the question again. That's a wiki  :) --Claret (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the dialogue options being on the same line as the NPC's dialogue because it creates less white space, and makes it *much* easier to follow with longer dialogue text trees (mainly _because_ of the less white space).

I also like bolding the dialogue options because it creates a clear difference between what the NPC says and what the PC says - and I sometimes find it a strain on the eyes in the larger dialogue trees; and I like italicizing and putting quote marks around the nPC dialogues mainly because it's traditional and it shows that it's speech - it's rare, but there are cases in which a dialogue box holds the NPC's _actions_ rather than words. One specific case (which isn't on the wiki) being Salina Scorchstep who doesn't talk but instead has a dialogue box that says (paraphrased) "Salina sizes you up and then looks away" - it also helps with differenciating between NPC dialogue boxes and object dialogue boxes, as the latter obviously don't speak (though may contain words) ... in most cases. Konig 15:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the "white space" point, and current dialogue format has lots of white space in it. We just have two different versions of the less spacey format to choose from. I'm against bolding the dialogue it self as to me the bolded text tells if the dialogue is different depending on some variable. And to me it's enough difference if the PC text is "quoted and in italics" and NPC text is not. But I see your point about objects and nondialogue dialogue and I'll give it a thought and see if I come in different conclusion later. Rakuin (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PC line shouldn't be in quotation marks, IMO. NPC should since - as said - it'll differentiate between spoken and acted dialogue boxes. Konig 21:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So something like:

"I’m so mad I could spit. My people are in danger, and this mighty tribune won’t help. I have to go to Hoelbrak now. Don’t suppose you’d want to come and help me convince Whitebear to send muscle?"

Brimstone looks busy. Is that why he wouldn’t help you?

"You’ll have to talk to him to find out. I’m not asking him to go himself, just to send some troops. So be it. I’ll speak with Knut Whitebear in Hoelbrak. He’s a wise man. He’ll listen to reason."

Why didn't you go to Hoelbrak first?

"Let's just say I have ghosts from my past there that I try to avoid. My mother, to be specific. It never ends well whenever she and I are in the same room. I barely know her anyway."

Hm. I like it. But I'm still strongly against bolding the PC text. Less white space is obviously better but we still have to choose which way we put the indents. I still vote for Alad's version, he has argumented it so well he has won me over. Rakuin (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My preferred version would be:

"I’m so mad I could spit. My people are in danger, and this mighty tribune won’t help. I have to go to Hoelbrak now. Don’t suppose you’d want to come and help me convince Whitebear to send muscle?"

Brimstone looks busy. Is that why he wouldn’t help you?

"You’ll have to talk to him to find out. I’m not asking him to go himself, just to send some troops. So be it. I’ll speak with Knut Whitebear in Hoelbrak. He’s a wise man. He’ll listen to reason."

Why didn't you go to Hoelbrak first?

"Let's just say I have ghosts from my past there that I try to avoid. My mother, to be specific. It never ends well whenever she and I are in the same room. I barely know her anyway."

The PC's lines should, IMO, be on the same line as the dialogue in which it responds to. The bolding and which get italicized, I suppose, in the end doesn't matter much - it's the indentation and quotation mark placements that I care about (and the latter only when it is actually words being said and not a description of the NPC that happens on very rare occasions), as well as so long as there's some sort of obvious differenciation between PC and NPC lines other than the icon. Konig 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The NPC's lines should, IMO, be on the same line as the dialogue in which it responds to. Sorry, this is getting tedious. I'll add your preferred version as proposal up there. Your version has it's sides, like no lonely first sentence. But I still prefer the Alad's version, first NPCs line, then indent and players options. Rakuin (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That can cause confusion in the larger trees, IMO - especially for editing them to fix something. But in the long run I don't think it makes that much of a difference, so long as there's a limit on the indentation in the first place. Konig 22:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm ready to go with your indent preference as that's all it is. A preference. But I'm still against bolding the PC text as bolding is attention grabbing and should indicate if the dialogue is different depending on some variable. I have seen such notes displayed like (this) and it's same as converging options noting. I think those should be different from each other. Different paths should be clear and loud, hence the bolding, and converging options should be discreet and quiet indicating it's already covered dialogue. Rakuin (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Types of dialogue, quote and placement of those

Idle chatter

There was a discussion on idle chatter over the cartography project. I am not sure if entirely agree with it. If it is an ambient chatter between, say, two Lionguard then I agree it should be placed on the page that concerns their location. On the other hand there are Epharr the Third and Winni (and I see someone deleted my dialogue page). Those two share a conversation about hylek which would then go under Quetzal Bay. I'm not sure how to resolve this, putting it on both pages is redundant (though that was my original solution) but it should be indicated that they do speak with each other. --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dropping by to say this is probably best titled "ambient scenes" according to the voice-over article. -Kymtastic (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Prompt quotes

Should we list those? I'm talking about stuff like "OOoooOO. Nice teeth." that every quaggan is bound to say if you interact with him. If yes, where to put them? --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

While most of them are the same for a given race, there are always some that are unique to a character. So far, I’ve put it in the “Quotes” section inside of a bullet list, while other quotes/stuff an NPC says is listed using a colon-indentation (example). poke | talk 17:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to drop by and let you know that voice-over categorizes this kind of thing as a character's "greets".-Kymtastic (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Story dialogues

Take Braham for example. He doesn't exist on the "outside world" and has dialogue only during the instanced events. I think said dialogue should be kept on the event page because it would lack context on the NPC page. On the other hand there is Laranthir of the Wild. He has a specific story-only dialogues but they are not connected to the story itself. As such I'd put it on the NPC page and indicate on the story page that he has things to say. --Sialor 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if it is separate “instanced” text, put it on the NPC page, otherwise if it is related to the overall event/story keep it on the event/story page. poke | talk 17:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a similar question regarding the Lost Shores conversations (none of which were instanced) and was told to always put it on the NPC page...of course I think the person who told me that is now banned, at least for now. I've collected what I believe is most of the conversations here and am going to spread it out but that's a lot to put on the different NPC's pages like I have been. Vahkris 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop by and document that in light of the information on the voice-over page, the kind of above dialogue is likely best titled "event scenes". -Kymtastic (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

NPC name on dialogue

I've been seeing around that some people are adding dialogue and sticking the NPC name in front of their dialogue, whereas others are leaving it off (like documented here and at http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/GW2W:DIALOGUE#Dialogue), so now we have various mismatching dialogue formats all over the wiki. Any idea what can be done, and do we actually have a real common format? Vahkris (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

NPC name is unnecessary unless the dialogue involves 2+ NPCs. Including it is simple bloat. —Dr Ishmael 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have repeated NPC's names as the examples I saw had it. Also, others would edit them in if I left them out. But agree, this is already a bloated wiki in everal respects, omit unless needed for clarity. --Claret (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I agree on NPC name being repetitive. If the NPC changes at any point during a specific dialogue, yeah, add it all the way to avoid misunderstandings. However, current style #1, to me, feels like it's missing something to make navigating between rows easier, visually. The NPC reply literally starts out of nowhere on its line, whilst every player reply is neatly and consistently lined thanks to the icons starting at the same place with more or less the same size. At The Ringmaster, I added bullets as a test, though Claret already gave an opinion on that and I agree that it's not optimal. Alad's new suggestion, inversed, helped mitigate this, though in the process you lose the feel of flow. I personally don't mind indentation - in fact I think it makes navigating the code easier and gives a good flow to the dialogue. What's pressing one more colon compared to easily finding which line it was that you had to add something to? --Sacropedia (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Indentation rather than bullets any day, please. --Claret (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, on the Ringmaster page, the bullets are indented. Don't worry though, there will be no bullets from me at least. :) I wish there was another icon that could be used for NPC replies though, after the indentation, to prevent it from simply being blank space->reply. --Sacropedia (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible Dialogue template

Random thought, is there any possible way to actually cause these conversations to become collapsible? (similar the way Reddit does their threads, including +/- symbols for collapsing the section and the verticle dotted lines matching up entries on the same level) That...might make it easier to read and follow. Might be too complicated though, even if it were possible. Vahkris 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well currently they're using the colon format. Making it use tables would be awkward to setup but might work. It might be possible to adjust the code currently at [[User:Chieftain Alex/Templates/Dialogue]] to use the html table tags instead, and then use class=expandable, but the second we do that then we've gotta implement some kind of custom formatting to replicate the current dialogue format.. which is awkward I can tell you :p -Chieftain Alex 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I hate when I get obsessed over something. Very ugly code (insert "I have no idea what I'm doing" meme here because it's very relevant), hard to follow looking at it, and I had to use image spacers (which I'll be deleting later) to indent the lines since the colon doesn't work inside tables (probably wouldn't work in the long run). I managed to get the command to expand the lines on the left. It'd be extremely difficult to create dialogue like this, although perhaps a custom tool/form/template could do it where you just enter the data and it builds it for you. Editing would be a pain unless it could do that too. Vahkris (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've looked at your examples and came up with this. Works without tables and without redundant parameters (e.g. dialogue2, dialogue3, …). The issue (which we can do nothing about) is that wiki templates don't like line breaks, at least not when dealing with basic HTML (hence the abundant <!-- and -->). As far as the [+] toggle is concerned changing it to [-] would be rather easy providing we can meddle with global CSS. (Though I'd rather do without a separate toggle).--Sialor (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, didn't see there was already a section mentioning collapsible dialogues. It would be nicer to just have to click the questions, though, not the answers as well; and click the line of text itself, not a [+] in front of it. --Alad (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Here's an idea that can collapse the huge spaces taken up by some dialogues and perhaps make it seem more like a dialogue rather than just reading. Place the first NPC sentence and the different user questions. The reader then clicks on a question and the NPC response appears below it, with the further possible questions below that. Etc... I realize this will probably require some programming help, but I believe entering dialogues must be done with some program/tool/javascript anyhow. --Alad (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Updated, you mean like this? (Test 1 was updated). If so, it's just a matter of expanding the trigger from just the icon to cover the whole line. However, Sialor's example above (v2) is basically what you're asking about, except it needs to also give the player responses too. Vahkris (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really see the point of collapsing line-by-line. If someone wants to read the dialogue, they're probably interested in all of it at once, so having to click and expand every individual response would be tedious. If you're going to hide it, just collapse the whole thing. —Dr Ishmael 18:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ishmael, it's "really neat" to collapse/expand it line by line but if you had a long dialogue, it would quickly become tedious. --Claret (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

From a simple user point of view... very, very nice! I like example #1 best, but I also must agree with the two above posts. Something like this I think would work really well with Raven Statue, as one example, to make it less of a spoiler. Yoe Dude (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like Test 1, except the cursor should show that the line is clickable, meaning the whole line of text should be a link, I suppose. --Alad (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I love this. I like the Test 1 version too but what with the Spacer_Blank_Test thing? Is it necessary? No other way around it?

I tried to play around a bit with it and while I somewhat figured it out I managed to brake it at some point. =D So some instructions would be nice for noobs like me. It would require some extra effort to make dialogues work like this but especially long and complicated ones would be so much easier to read. Rakuin (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal Storyline dialogue and possible upcoming project

I am strongly considering starting a Personal Storyline project (fueled by ArenaNet's statement of upcoming improvements to early storyline tutorials, etc.). Since dialogue is such a major part of the Personal Storyline missions, I though it would be a good idea to give a heads up here. I have some thoughts on the current format listed and there have been a few... "issues" about how to add some dialogue found in the story. Nothing major, but possibly worth talking about later. I feel like Quotes and Dialogues is a (major) subsection of Personal Story, but Personal Story is also much more, and very important to the game, which is why I feel it would be worth creating the project to work on it. If anyone is still bothering with this project (as the only listed name has no existing page), and would either like to help out with a Personal Storyline project, or even just help with the dialogue pertaining to the Personal Storyline, feel free to drop a note here and I will check back once I'm back home in my own country of residence. It would be rather difficult to attempt to streamline the Personal Story format all by myself, without discussion. 81.164.234.96 12:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, dialogue is extremely important for the story, mainly because it's the only thing on the page taken verbatim from the game. I'll help out, I've been working on dialogue for the Living World and helping add to the existing personal story pages (when I can, Living World takes most of my available time). Vahkris (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should add this here too (I'm the above anon), for future lurkers' sake: Project:Personal storyline - anyone who's interested, be sure to take a look! --Sacropedia (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Project

shouldn't this be GW2:Dialogue formatting?--Relyk ~ talk < 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ambient dialogue

Some may already be aware of this project that one of the community has started: Project Eavesdrop, capturing the various ambient dialogues that occur around the game to make it feel more alive. We haven't really captured much of the ambient dialogue in the game, and I'm not sure the best way to do it. These are mostly said by the various generic NPCs (local, citizen, etc), so that makes it a little harder. I feel this should be documented somehow, though, since they've shown they're willing to update existing areas and remove the previous stuff there. I did have a couple ideas on what we should do:

1. Place the dialogue on the page of the area/zone article in a dialogue section (or on a dialogue subpage), since most of the dialogue is about creating an atmosphere for that area. (example, putting ambient dialogue of the non-named generic NPCs for Lion's Arch on the Lion's Arch page, or subpage). Named NPCs get their own article with their dialogue, obviously, this would just be for the generic ones.
2. Create articles of all the different generic NPC names and put the dialogue in different sections based on the area they're in. (examples: Festivalgoer or perhaps Gossiping Citizen that I added the Great Collapse dialogue pre-Queen's Jubilee). The downside is this could get extremely long for NPCs such as Citizen, Soldier, and Local, who are found in several zones. Subpages could work here (one per map) though.

Formatting would follow the normal conventions that were updated here: GW2W:FORMAT#Dialogue Any thoughts? Vahkris (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no suggestions as to formatting; I'm stuck in exactly the same conundrum regarding the Player Chatter project I want to put together. I just wanted to say that Stephane Lo Presti replied to my babble about how to name different sorts of chatter, and I think what you're looking at would be: When two or more NPCs engage in conversation in the world, we call them scenes (ambient, event, etc.) [1]. When the time comes for you to insert the dialogue into the wiki, at least you'll know it's proper title. Good luck! I love the ambient scenes, so I hope you keep a slow, steady passion for the project and that it winds up here. -Kymtastic (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been working on The Grove, documenting dialogues and ambient chatter. I have been collecting the chatter under Ambient Scenes in the area pages and even in Point of Interest pages as PoIs are often representing an area in an area. I would put ambient chatter of the named NPCs in the area page too.

I have formatted the chatter like this:

Citizen 1: Are you going to be on the training field later?

Citizen 2: Oh, not for a few days. I have to focus on my studies.

against the instructed:

Citizen: "Are you going to be on the training field later?"

Citizen: "Oh, not for a few days. I have to focus on my studies."

It's obvious for me to use numbers to differentiate between nameless NPCs, but I have not yet figured good method to indicate if the same group of NPCs have several separate conversations. Some times it seems relevant. So far I have just listed them mixed with all conversations, always starting with NPC 1. Aand otherwise I have no reason as to why I don't use the instructed formatting. =F Rakuin (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it'd be better to have these on the area articles. Or perhaps both area and NPC articles. And for the format - I'd prefer a mix of your two brought up - having Citizen (1) and Citizen (2) but with ''""'' around the lines - except when it's just a line of e.g., (humming) - basically putting quotation marks around the words. Konig 15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If they are all put in the area articles the list is going to be really long on some pages. That's one reason why I have put some of them in the PoI pages. I see no reason to put these conversations in NPC pages though... You'd have to put the same conversation in several NPCs pages. Talking about named NPCs here. As for the formatting, I can live with quotation marks, but do you prefer italics too?

Citizen 1: "Are you going to be on the training field later?"

Citizen 1: "Are you going to be on the training field later?"

And brackets. Citizen 1 or Citizen (1). I like no brackets better but opinions please. Rakuin (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Citizen (1): "Are you going to be on the training field later?"

^Preferred format. The brackets help to show it's not part of the NPC's name - and yes, there are NPCs with numbers in the names. Konig 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Konig. We definitely need some sort of formatting to show the numbers aren't part of their names, and parenthesis seem appropriate. 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well argumented. Lets go with that then. =3 Rakuin (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Character info on talk pages

It would be great if people listed on NPC (and possibly event) talk pages what kind of characters they have acquired the dialogue with. Surprisingly many NPCs have different dialogue options depending on PCs race, order and personal story progression, even gender. Keeping track what has been tried and what has not would make filling the gaps much easier. I have been using this:

					lvl
					80	73	Hylek
					39	42	Skritt
					3	3
					15	14
					3	3

I stole it from Dr Ishmael and modified it a bit. I took away names because those are irrelevant and added some possibly relevant things. I don't ask everyone to use this especially if you can't read code at all, but please, list characters race, gender, order, current personality, level, and personal story progression level. Racial Biography options are also proven relevant, especially in cities. Rakuin (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Because of this very reason, I try to go to NPCs on multiple characters whenever they refer to one of my characters' accomplishment. Konig 14:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too. But I have only so many characters. For example, I found several NPCs that clearly had something different to tell if I had sylvari awakened in Cycle of Noon or Dawn. I can't access them with my Night bloom sylvari. I'm asking people to mark up with what kind of characters have they talked to the NPCs so it's easy to check if something has been tried or not. Rakuin (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Partially related, in terms of personal story the table'd probably have to include every "choose your next mission" choice. Take Elli, as a Sylvari you can meet her in Trouble at the Roots (OoW choice in the "let's see what order you'll be joining" part of the story) but not in The Bad Apple (Vigil choice). Many levels after, in Stealing Light, she has a dialogue referring back to Trouble at the Roots. --Sialor (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Descriptors on ambient dialogue

In documenting the ambient dialogue of lion's arch, I've found it handy to add minor descriptors to the generically named NPCs when their gender or race serve to explain or enhance the meaning of their dialogue. But apparently that's not how we do thangs round hurr. I think it should be. Take a look at the last entry of the page I linked, talking about how the "citizen" feels at home. Does it not lend extra weight to the dialogue to know that both those people are sylvari? It means something different than if they were any other race. I also find that its better to indicate their race when they say something with some sort of racial significance, like the norn bartender threatening to give someone the "hoelbrak hammer." You'll also note how the distinction between the male and female citizens was left intact in the dialogue where the guy gets totally shut down, even though that's not officially sanctioned formatting, because someone had to admit that the dialogue lost nearly all of its meaning when you stripped that descriptor away. In any case, besides the fact that its not in writing that we should do this, why shouldn't we? Psycho Robot (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"that's not how we do thangs round hurr" Way to be insulting, thank you (yes, the thanking is sarcasm -_-). If you actually bothered to read, it was discussed two sections above.

The point of the parentheses is to not falsify the NPCs' names - the name is "Citizen" not "Sylvari Citizen"; it is "Bartender" not "Norn Bartender". If it is truly such an issue, I would suggest following the gender or race in as much simplicity as possible within parentheses like when denoting there's more than one of the same-named NPC in the conversation. E.g., "Bartender (norn)" or perhaps more preferably since there's no race starting with m or f, "Bartender (n)". Like that, there'd be no issue from my part. Konig 08:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"that's not how we do thangs round hurr" - now I took that as humour. I know text and humour often don't mix as the body language is lacking but there is one absolute rule of the Internet - If you look for an insult then you are guaranteed to find one. If you read Psycho Robot's other postings, they are full of his brand of 'umour (as the Americans say as they don't pronounce leading "h"s {humour}.) --Claret (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty good with telling the mood from the vocab, syntax, etc. Didn't see humor there. I digress. And I'll take that last sentence as an attempt at humor, given how terribly off it is. Konig 09:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what part of America you've heard speech from, but I pronounce the 'h' in 'humor'. I don't spell it with a bloody extra vowel, though. ;) —Dr Ishmael 16:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Shut up claret, no one likes you, least of all me. So konig, you're saying I'm really bad at vocab and syntax? Calling me illiterate eh? I take acception to that! I don't see "falsifying" the name as much of an issue because they don't really have a name. I considered doing it parenthetically but it just looked weird. And when you removed it entirely, I thought you were presuming that the descriptors shouldn't be there at all. Still, its better than nothing and it lends much needed context to the scenes. Though I still disagree that it should be parenthetical because their names don't matter and it doesn't read as well. Psycho Robot (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

*exception —Dr Ishmael 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That's embarrassing, that I would make an egregious spelling mistake in the middle of a monologue decrying my hypothetical illiteracy. Now nobody can take me seriously. Psycho Robot (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ish, it's a British "joke" about the American habit of saying "'erbes" for herbs and "'omage" for homage etc. I realise not all Americans use that form. I wasn't serious about 'umo(u)r.

Psycho, I am desolate to finally realise that you don't like me. I had hoped, desperately, that one person might, and you were my last hope. I am weighing up suicide or psychobabbletherapy. Could you advise? --Claret (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have traveled throughout 38 states in my 23 years of living, and I have not once heard an American say "erbs" or "omage" or "umor". There's always been an h- sound.

Back on topic though: "I don't see "falsifying" the name as much of an issue because they don't really have a name." So... is Icebrood Wolf not a name? is Risen Brute not a name? A generic name is still a name, and as long as I've seen, the wikis have been about accuracy and completeness, with lack of speculation or alteration when we have proper terminology. And to me, "Norn Bartender" over "Bartender" is the latter ("alteration when we have proper terminology"). But I digress, this is far from an important matter when the content will be gone in a few days' time. Format can always be changed later, so long as we have all information. Konig 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Last minute Lion's Arch coordination

So I figure we could try to coordinate our attempts to get all the ambient dialogue a little bit, so we don't duplicate each other's efforts. This image highlights the areas of Lion's Arch that I've been around enough to know that I've got all of the ambient dialogue in that area. In addition, I have the following notes to add:

• The area of trader's common I got includes the docks and the npcs talking directly outside the trading post, but I know for a fact that I'm missing part of a line from Yomm's mercantile where one of the asura npcs asks about Zojja.
• The area north of Lion's Court that I covered was due to the fact that a group of Revelers go on an all-night bender and I suspected that they started there. I was interested in following them from start to finish, which I did. If you see the group of revelers, you don't need to follow them.
• There is no ambient dialogue in the tavern above the mystic forge, except for possibly ambient dialogue where the revelers begin their bender, since this is where they go when they finish it, and presumably this is where they start it as well. I will get that dialogue if it exists.
• Macha's landing contains npcs that cycle through dialogue extremely slowly. I don't think its reasonable to park here and try to collect it, but if someone is talking when you pass through, grab it, as it might be one I don't have.
• I know for a fact that I am missing parts of dialogue in the ship-bridge connecting grand piazza to the western ward. That is where I'm heading next, but if you've already covered that area, let me know.
• Fyr Gnashbeard walks slowly from the eastern ward waypoint to the trader's forum. He says nothing the entire journey, except when he arrives. I have this so you don't need to follow him.
• There is some generic ambient monologue shared by a lot of npcs. The npcs on the western edge of durmand pirory cycle through this at a faster rate than other npcs. If you see any of the following lines, with nothing else, then its generic monlogue that you don't need to stick around and see. I mention this because i saw an npc say "that's the last time I listen to your advice" and i thought, there's obvioulsy more, so I waited for like an hour. nothing. Don't be fooled like I was!
  • (laugh)
  • He keeps the leg in the house. He wants everyone to know what can happen if you play around with a hay sickle.
  • That's the last time I listen to your advice.
  • Hey, did you miss me?
  • Maybe the charr have it right. Maybe the Six Gods aren't what we think they are.

Ok, that's all I got for now. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Only dialogue left in Fort Marriner should be the one I added the verify tag for. I saw two sets of NPCs with ambient dialogue in Farshore, though there's still the matter of checking the ambient dialogue with the verify tag in Bloodcoast Ward which I think is actually in Farshore (wouldn't doubt it, I saw no Worker/Scholar in Bloodcoast). White Crane and Hooligan's I don't think has any, but worth verifying. Konig 01:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Welp, I think I can say with confidence that I've documented every NPC name out there. When I can, I'll be contacting Plagiarised from reddit to get whatever he's got with ambient dialogue and put those up. On most of the area pages I denoted where I heard but could not record dialogue to be too, which should narrow the "sitting around and waiting at every place". Konig 08:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll tidy up the area pages, surprised some NPCs don't even have pictures up, but have been in the game since launch. Unless Psycho wants to take over, since he's superior-er to me in that department. --Ventriloquist (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Getting npc pictures is my lowest priority since the pictures you've taken are just fine. I will focus on collecting poi, landmark, and area screenshots and finding ambient dialogue when its night. This image shows the areas I've now covered, including fort marriner which konig says has been covered. I will be investigating the northern part of trader's plaza/canal ward next. If you're looking for an area to eavesdrop in, the ship bridge leading from the grand piazza to the eastern ward has dialogue that I know isn't covered in my screenshots. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you get the ones at The Cloud Skimmer Tavern? I know there's a group of Reveler NPCs that go from Trader Jikk's to there to the open sylvari bar in Eastern Ward before leaving eastward... somewhere else. From what I saw, the only places not in green in your image that have ambient dialogue I didn't record: Lion's Shadow Inn, Canal Ward's exit to Gendarran; one more point on the bridge; Eastern Ward Waypoint and Smuggler's Waypoint; Farshore Waypoint and just north of it; and lastly Devroul Island. There were also some near Western Ward's waypoint which isn't on the wiki - dunno if you've got screens of them though. Konig 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the reveler's journey fully documented. There is no ambient dialogue at all in cloud skimmer's funnily enough. There's a charr and a human girl in the western ward waypoint and i once saw the human girl say to the char "that's the last time I take your advice". I chilled out there for about an hour and they never said anything again. Later on, I saw someone else say "that's the last time I take your advice", and they went on to say a bunch of things as I detailed above. Its possible that you have something that I don't have, since I only saw them say one thing. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"There is no ambient dialogue at all in cloud skimmer's funnily enough." There is conversation between the Revelers up there. Didn't record since I was editing at the time (I don't mute GW2 at times like this when I'm documenting dialogue, so I can hear and go "okay, I have to return here to get more). But it was a denotion of birthday, asking for a "Quaggan's <something>" drink and the other (female norn) saying she'll have that too, then they're joined by another, who got stood up by a date where the norn says they'll be going to the sylvari nectar bar next. Konig 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I meant "besides the revelers". Psycho Robot (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC:)

Burárum. Should have kept eyes on the wiki. I have the dialogue in the eastern parts - Lion's Shadow Inn, Tokk's mill, the workers nearby.

• revelers - I got those as well, but I never saw them at Cloudskimmer, they spawn at Grand Piazza and then go clockwise until they reach the bar on the beach, and in the morning head back to Grand Piazza.
• Fyr Raggedfur (is this who you meant?) - he has a few lines of dialogue in the moa racing area

--Sialor (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The revelers do in fact go into the cloud skimmer tavern. Its really strange, and I assume that its a glitch. They walk up to the grand piazza then vanish in front of the bridge. If you wait around a while longer, they reappear and begin to walk across the bridge towards the crow's nest tavern. If you follow them across this bridge, your game will crash every time. But you can load it back up and follow them to the cloud skimmer. There, some additional dialogue takes place. As for Mr. Gnashraggedfurblade, yes, that's who I meant. I got confused because all those charr look alike, you know how it is. I followed him the whole way and he never said anything until he reached the end. Its possible that he doesn't say it all the time, or maybe I just overlooked it. Areas that I have not documented myself, and that I do not remember other people saying are documented, is the bridge connecting the grand piazza to the eastern ward, the lost grotto, coriolis plaza, and hooligan's route. I will continue taking screenshots by day and collecting dialogue by night, and will report here with areas that I covered. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fyr stops at the wooden arch in front of Lion's Shadow, the Caravan Guard asks where the quarry is and Fyr says it's not far away, then they make a stop near Tigg and unload some crates, then it's nothing until they reach Gorgonis in the crafting area. I have the bridge and Coriolis Plaza (there's only one dialogue in there), I have some from Hooligan's Route but it takes ages for the pirates to say something and among those are some default racial quotes. --Sialor (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the map of covered areas again. Voila. The white crane terrace has no dialogue unique to that area, rather the npcs occasionally spout out one of those generic monologues I mentioned above. They seem to be based on race, (humans mention farming, charr mention warbands, and even some hyleks and quaggans have some) and that leads me to believe that we're missing quite a lot of them, however they probably also use these in other areas, so its not the end of the world to have them missing. I've also discovered that these random snippets are way more common the first tiem you enter the area. Like you'll waypoint in and see two or three of them in quick succession, then nothing at all after that. therefore when I finish my screenshots I will attempt to bait as many of these as I can. Seeing what I have covered, and knowing what you have covered, what areas have yet to be covered? Psycho Robot (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think all areas have been went through so all that's left is double checking for anything missed. Konig 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen it, but Project Eavesdropper uploaded most of the dialogue that are missing on several areas of Lion's Arch. I'd upload it, but I'm not home yet, so if anyone wants to do it before me, feel free. (Do we have their permission to do so?) --Ventriloquist (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. So long as it's recorded somewhere, somehow, the immediacy isn't important. On a similar subject matter - since it's likely all NPCs, dialogues, and even appearances shall change, how should we go about documenting the old stuff? Given the whole "change the face of Tyria forever" bit, I'm doubtful that LA will just simply revert fully, more likely result akin to Kessex; so I suggest moving all location articles that hold a huge amount of altered information (the area articles, specifically - PoI/Landmarks don't need to retain the ambient dialogues if it's on the area articles, IMO) to a [[(Article name)/historical]] placement; e.g., [[Western Ward/historical]]. Thoughts? Konig 09:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately he squashed several zones together so in some cases we might not know where to put it. --Sialor (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps just slapping "historical" on it seems a bit too vague? Maybe [[Western Ward/Original]]? Or pre-release. How did gww handle pre-searing areas? --Ventriloquist (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Most pre-Searing things were small or different names. The few NPCs that are seen on both ends were just a single article, locations were split between, for example, gw1:Ascalon City (post-Searing) and gw1:Ascalon City (outpost), or gw1:Regent Valley and gw1:Regent Valley (pre-Searing) - only other case of shared name locations was gw1:Fort Ranik and its various states (mission, post-Searing outpost, pre-Searing outpost). The thing is, unlike with GW1's pre-Searing, this won't become available ever again (going off of Kessex Hills and the whole "the face of Tyria will be changed forever" bit). I don't think we should do [[Fort Marriner (historical)]] or the like using parentheses - no real purpose to doing so. And historical isn't very vague, unless we end up having multiple such states. Original can do, but pre-release is outright wrong, since LA went a massive change between alpha and beta (just look at the original trailer - happened to both LA and Hoelbrak). Konig 14:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We can first see how Lion's Arch'll change, then decide accordingly. 3 more hours (give or take) ! --Ventriloquist (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

5* Konig 15:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked through project eavesdrop and there were very few things there that I didn't have, and most of those were the "generic monologues" i mentioned above. I will be editing everything I got in over the next couple of days. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As I am writing this, Lion's Arch is being destroyed. We saved everything, I believe. --Ventriloquist (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Post-destruction LA

Patch's here, obviously, so how do we do this? Some NPCs died, like, all of them moved somewhere else and have completely different dialogues which obviously requires a new page. NOW WHAT. --Ventriloquist (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My vote is that if they died, they stay on their page with a note that they've croaked. If they haven't died, we move the current page to a /historical subpage with a note that it reflects how they were before the destruction of LA, and document how they are now on the main page. Psycho Robot (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, there were named NPCs that died? I only saw some brand generic "Lionguard" as dead. Anyways - for NPCs, if died do what we did with Captain Theo Ashford; if moved, do what we've been doing for those like Braham which move every two weeks (make a ;Historical locations section). Changed dialogue can simply add a sub-title saying ===Before Escape from Lion's Arch=== as it would only be two separations (sans the Captain's Council but that's only 3 - sans, again, Kiel and Magnus, but the former there has a subpage for old dialogues anyways). Only subpage needed for them would be a /dialogue like Braham/dialogue if they get too long.

I don't think a full subpage are needed for moved NPCs, simply because we've never done such before and Canach and Captain Ellen Kiel already have location, dialogue, and even appearance or name changes but no historical subpage (just the aforementioned /dialogue subpage). Konig 22:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For locations, I suggest the same as above where we should move them to a /historical subpage, copy/paste the format, and move over. Exception being Tenanera's Pit as that was removed, it should stay in place and added a | historical = y parameter to the infobox akin to Maw's Rise with a note how the id was re-used for Gunnery Range.

Lastly, images. I would keep to the trend set already and just move them to a new name including (historical) in them. Unless their location doesn't survive like Tenanera's Pit or Cloud Trimmer Tavern (it got toppled :( ). Konig 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, some of the NPCs' deaths are dependent on the players, such as the Racing Moas (dialogue with Tigg also changes). I also can't find certain NPCs anywhere, does that mean they're MIA, dead or ANet simply forgot about them? Also, I agree with your choice; I'll edit them in about a week when the dust settles. Unless someone wants to do that before me. --Ventriloquist (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be a /dialogue subpage like other NPCs for pre-destruction LA dialogue.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Golem speak

I don't know how many of you had to transcribe a golem's dialogue but all those dashes really hinder proof-reading. I've made a template that will golemify the NPC lines so that we can have this

{{golemify|CAPTAIN SMASH DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO SMASH YOU.+BUT CAPTAIN SMASH WILL IF CAPTAIN SMASH MUST BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT CAPTAIN SMASH DOES.+SO PLAY NICE.}}

instead of this

CAPTAIN—SMASH—DOES—NOT—WANT—TO—HAVE—TO—SMASH—YOU. BUT—CAPTAIN—SMASH—WILL—IF—CAPTAIN—SMASH—MUST
—BECAUSE—THAT—IS—WHAT—CAPTAIN—SMASH—DOES. SO—PLAY—NICE.

The result will be:

CAPTAIN—SMASH—DOES—NOT—WANT—TO—HAVE—TO—SMASH—YOU. BUT—CAPTAIN—SMASH—WILL—IF—CAPTAIN—SMASH—MUST—BECAUSE—THAT—IS—WHAT—CAPTAIN—SMASH—DOES. SO—PLAY—NICE.

Unfortunately there is no support for regular expressions so we'll have to use something for spaces between sentences (currently "+"). The template is in my subspace here. Thoughts? If there are no objections I'll make it a regular template. --Sialor (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for it, especially since there's a lot of golems in Tyria and I know the struggle of making their pages. Also the verb 'golemify' is pretty amazing. --Ventriloquist (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You can use the — character directly instead of the HTML entity, although you'd have to copy/paste or use the alt code ALT+0151. That's what I do on the rare occasions I transcribe golem dialogue.

And about the sentence spacing, you could just use multiple instances of the template.

{{golemify|CAPTAIN SMASH DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO SMASH YOU.}} {{golemify|BUT CAPTAIN SMASH WILL IF CAPTAIN SMASH MUST BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT CAPTAIN SMASH DOES.}} {{golemify|SO PLAY NICE.}}

Or you could use plain dashes and have the template replace them with em-dashes.

{{golemify|CAPTAIN-SMASH-DOES-NOT-WANT-TO-HAVE-TO-SMASH-YOU. BUT-CAPTAIN-SMASH-WILL-IF-CAPTAIN-SMASH-MUST-BECAUSE-THAT-IS-WHAT-CAPTAIN-SMASH-DOES. SO-PLAY-NICE.}}

—Dr Ishmael 16:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. If the copy-paste of — is done instead of typing the & mdash ; out, then using the subst: prefix would help negate the use of the template in the article so we wouldn't even need to move the template (lazy man here!) and would avoid mass vandalism via altering the one template. In the edit box, it'll show up without the massive mdash-ness, but with the dashes themselves, thus if the dialogue ever gets altered, it'd be possible to copy/paste the character in the very same edit box. Konig 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it should have to be subst'd. Its obvious to even a new editor what the template is doing, so its not obscuring any function. Substing just ruins convenience for anyone else editing the page after the initial user edits it. If someone is using copypasta to paste the mdashes in is something reasonable to expect of people, then why make a template at all? As for concerns of vandalism, Infobox templates are all unprotected and are rarely vandalized. I doubt golemspeak templates would be a hot target for vandals. Lastly I think the template should just be Template:Golem since its shorter and still communicative about the function. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dialogue rarely changes, which means subst:ing the template is exactly what should be done so the wiki doesn't have to parse it every time. The most likely situation will be a new editor adding dialogue to a page that doesn't have any yet, in which case they wouldn't be exposed to the template anyway.

Also, I would expect {{golem}} to output a golem, by which I mean, it doesn't communicate the function at all. —Dr Ishmael 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple instances are fine, but I think the less code the better. Plain dashes won't work when the text already contains them, e.g. when Heal-o-Tron tells you his name. --Sialor (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If so, how about two dashes to be converted to em-dash? --BryghtShadow (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Psycho Robot Linguistic Phenomenon

While collecting ambient dialogue in Lion's Arch, I discovered a new type of npc speech pattern that we currently have no methodology in place for documenting. Since I discovered it, I get to name it, and I choose "the Psycho Robot linguistic phenomenon". The PRLP is different than ambient dialogue because it is not dialogue. The NPCs just yell it out with no response. It is also not limited to a single area. NPCs all over Lion's Arch share the same PRLP. Some examples are tied to race, others seem entirely generic. It is also much more random than ambient dialogue. You're most likely to experience a PRLP when you first enter a zone, you'll often see three or four at once, and after that, you can go hours without hearing another one.

Because they're not limited to an area, an npc, or even a type of npc (a Citizen and a Villager can share the same line), we can't really document it in the same way we document ambient dialogue. After I finish adding ambient dialogue, I will go to other cities and see if the PRLP is shared across all cities, or if it was unique to Lion's Arch, as I suspect. If it is tied to Lion's Arch, then we could just add it to a "Psycho Robot Linguistic Phenomena" section, separated by race, with a note of explanation that these lines are used randomly the first time you go to an area, and very rarely afterwards. If it turns out that they are shared across the entire world, what then? My best guess is that we create a page for these PRLP where they are documented by race, gender, occupation, or whatever winds up being necessary. We could also document the greetings there as well ("greets"? really?). The page could be called, tenatively, Psycho Robot Linguistic Phenomena and other NPC Quotes. I think that has a nice ring to it. Until such time that a course of action is decided upon, I will list them here, so I can delete these zillions of screenshots:

Human

• That's the last time I listen to your advice.
• Don't concern yourself with it.
• (laugh)
• Another group sailed south just the other day to join Trahearne at Fort Trinity. Seems like suicide, if you ask me.
• Take my advice: don't mess with anything twice as big as you.
• He keeps the leg in the house. He wants everyone to know what can happen if you play around with a hay sickle.
• Hey, did you miss me?
• Maybe the charr have it right. Maybe the Six Gods aren't what we think they are.
• Lion's Arch may be the only city where the black market does more business than the open market.
• I can't believe it!
• You think you can take me?
• Seeing this, it recharges you. Makes you see the beauty in the world.
• Take my advice: never anger a quaggan.
• Be sure to kill skale from a distance or they'll vomit all over you.
• That reminds me, I'll need to make a stop at the Exchange later. I have something I need to send to Ebonhawke.
• Captain Magnus runs the Lionguard with aplomb. I wouldn't want to sail on the wrong side of him, that's for sure.
• Come close. You should here this.
• You'll never guess what happened next. And I'm sure not going to tell you!

Sylvari

• Could you lend me your ear for a few minutes? Not literally, of course.
• They say a sprig of goldenrod will attract your true love.
• Trahearne is so noble, standing watch between us and Orr. And to do so without being a part of any of the orders... (sigh)
• I'm going to pause for a brief meditation.
• I have so much trouble understanding charr technology. It's so lifeless. But I continue to try.
• (sneeze) (sneeze) (sneeze) Ooh. There must be a cat nearby.
• Smell that? There's a hint of mint in the air. [fun fact: this line was captured 15 seconds before my client was forced to restart for the patch]

Charr

• Bah, it's nothing. Don't let it distract you.
• Some of my old fahrar are buried near here. Lousy fighters, all of them.
• We may call this place home, but if the legions ever called us, we'd go. That's just how it is.
• Some days I really miss my warband. But we all have to move on sometimes.
• Impossible
• When I get some time off, I'm gonna come back here.
• Eh, I've seen worse.
• Never fight something with more arms and legs than you.
• Look at that. You can find beauty here, and dozens of ways to die. I like that challenge.

Asura

• Asuran technology is so advanced, it can often seem broken.
• The product of a genius mind.
• The three orders are at it again, bickering amongst themselves and competing for recruits. They must know something we don't.
• I hear someone's trying to improve on asura gates. As if that were possible.
• You'll never beat my brilliance!
• Try to have a large family. It's like having your very own work krewe.
• I think I need one of those for my lab.
• The safety of your assistants should be your last priority.

Norn

• Let's not speak of this.
• That's nothing. I once killed a minotaur and used IT to kill another minotaur.

Hylek

• A priest would be welcome right now. They could read the sun and tell us when the next rains would come.
• Sun. Water. Perfection.
• (throat clearing) [this sounds very froggy]
• Many in this city seek our expertise on alchemy and poison making. It surprises me they haven't all poisoned each other yet.

Skritt

• Grey-ears aren't so bad. They treat skritt like wurm pook, but they're smart. Would be dumb not to learn from them.
• Help me, yes? Help, and I'll help you! Deal?
• More stuff. Stuff. More stuff stuffy stuff!

Quaggan

• Coo coo kachoochoo!

Psycho Robot (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you propose a link in all of the generic NPCs' pages to this...Phenomenon? Also, I think I recall a sylvari saying the unknown line, but I'm not 100% sure. --Ventriloquist (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Its a possibility. I'm not really sure how we'd direct players to this page, should it be created. Whatever method we used for this could also be used to document greetings as well. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a sylvari. I think we should just make articles for generic NPCs (e.g. "Asura (Generic NPC)" or "Generic NPC/Asura"?) and list everything generic about them. And that's races, then there are orders and organizations (though maybe single-race groups like Seraph have just the same quotes as "regular" humans). As for the word "greets", I wouldn't say "Do you work for me?" is a greeting. :) (Although having checked the dictionary greet means lamentation, so yeah). We should also make articles for the generic NPC names (Villager, Citizen, …) and point them to the generic-NPC pages (most of them already exist I think); however sometimes these generic NPCs have a line of dialogue (Researcher (Loch Jezt), Explorer (NPC)), we could make a list of those that can be talked to.--Sialor (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest going the route of Guild Wars Wiki. Example. Generic quotes onto the group/race's article. I would be against articles named "Asura (Generic NPC)".

Side note. The cat nearby comment is male sylvari. Konig 12:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? None of you are on board with calling them PRLPs? I see what this is, is a goddamn witch hunt. Well fine! Be that way, all of you! Cataloging them on the race page is fine with me, but if not PRLP, what do we call them? Ambient chatter maybe? Psycho Robot (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Racial quotes? Typical/common lines/quotes? --Ventriloquist (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Section title: Quotes Sub-secgtion Titles: Greetings, Aggro, Downing foe and disengaging, death, ambient (all titles already exist in some form sans ambient). Konig 01:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Generic NPC's

I'm thinking it might be more sensible to put the dialogue (not ambient dialogue, which we already do this for) for generically-named NPC's (Citizen, Farmer, Beggar, Seraph Sergeant, Local etc.) on the area/point of interest page, rather than the NPC page. I feel like if they have dialogue, it's usually more specific to that area and it's not particularly enlightening or likely to ever be read on the NPC pages. Thoughts? –Santax (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So far I've been solving it by using "NPC (Area)" - i.e. Explorer (NPC). --Sialor (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thinking on the NPC Dialogue Page and the Living World

Hi there :) I was hoping someone could humor my questions or point me in the right direction for past/current style policy discussions on adding ambient scenes to an NPC page, both as a sub-section of the main page and as the character's dialogue sub-page. I know some of this probably overlaps with NPC Formatting discussions, but I've read all the NPC Format talk page and figured most of this was more up your alley..?

This word dump began when I noticed "Quotes" as a header being used for two different types of voice-over between the main NPC page and the NPC's dialogue sub-page. For example, we have Ellen Kiel and Marjory Delaqua. On both main pages, there's a separate section for "Dialogue" and "Quotes". From looking at various dialogue sub-pages, I can see that "Dialogue" on the sub-page houses text-based interactive conversation trees, and I see that "Quotes" has been the header for ambient scenes. However, Ellen Kiel's "Quotes" on her main page seem to contain her greets, while Marjory's quotes are empty with a forward to the dialogue sub-page, and Braham and Rox don't have the "Quotes" section to fill in at all.

The Dialogue Subpage

1) Marjory's empty "Quote" main page section forwards users to the "Quote" sub-section on her /dialogue page. Which is great, but Marjory's forwarding wording (similarly found on Kasmeer Meade and Rox's main pages, for example) seems to imply to me that the dialogue type "Quotes" are the same. Should there be a change on the dialogue sub-pages to rename "Quotes" to "Ambient Dialogue"?

1a) An alternative idea is to keep the "Quotes" header on the /dialogue page and then simply further sub-categorize below that. That option seems a little redundant to me, as only ambient chatter seems to be placed within the "Quotes" section of the /dialogue page. I could see this working in conjunction with talking point #3 down below, though.

1b) ...please refer to point 3, haha.

The NPC Main Page

2) Should there be a change on the NPC main pages to make dialogue-type sub-sections within "Quotes"? Taimi has all her main page "Quotes" sub-categorized into "Greets". Trahearne's greets are uncategorized -- yet he has "Upon entering combat" and "Upon death" sub-categories (both of which seem to fall under the category of combat chatter, as an aside). If in favor, also discuss unifying the style of titles such as "Upon entering combat" and "Upon death". For example, I would put them both under "Combat Chatter", but as something like "Engagement"/"Death" or "Upon Engagement"/"Upon Death". Or I'm sure someone can come up with something more elegant, or I could always try twitter to see how devs refer to them. Just trying to brain stew.

Living World

3) The Living World is going to continue indefinitely. So I was surprised to find the /dialogue pages categorized not foremost organized by chronology, but chronologically within the two categories "Dialogue" and "Quotes". Imo, the current format makes it more difficult to read the character's story, and I imagine this fragmentation will only grow as the Living World does. Should the NPC /dialogue page be formatted chronologically? I have a rough example of what that might look like here. I notice that my chronological version makes the TOC longer, fwiw. Which leads me to wonder: When do dialogue pages get archived and a new one started? Is there already a plan for this? I imagine at some point certain NPC dialogue pages will get unwieldy. It would make sense to me if dialogue pages were archived according to Living World Season, if there's enough clutter to warrant it. Archived pages could be linked in the opening of the main /dialogue page until a more elegant info/nav box solution because necessary. Not sure what the naming system would look like.

3a) This may be a topic most suited for the NPC formatting page, but I'd like to continue my train of thought and cast a wide net for feedback/guidance. NPC main pages have a "Living World Involvement" header. Ellen Kiel's differs from the template on the NPC format page. Hers is indented and very readable when compared to an NPC page (Kasmeer, for example) that follows the non-indented bullet point style. If the NPC/dialogue page were to change to the chronological format, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just link to the /dialogue page and eliminate the entire section. Unless it becomes used as a living world history summary, which I am in favor of. Currently, some NPCs have living world history up in their first, uncategorized paragraphs (ex. Marjory). Others, like Kiel, have near nothing in their opening paragraphs but everything placed into a "history" subheading. I think ideally the opening paragraphs would contain basic factoids (ex. Kasmeer's hiccuping) as well as pre-Living World history, while the "Living World Involvement" subsection stayed on as a summation of their history specifically with the Living World (if any). If that sounds terrible, I'd ask to at least consider formatting the Living World list a la the Kiel LWI section.

Phew. Okay. I'd like to thank anyone who got through that and who responds. -Kymtastic (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Wow, okay. I'm going to comment piece by piece.

The Dialogue Subpage

I think that we should retain the Quotes on the main page (containing JUST the greets or whatever) and renaming, as you suggested, the Quotes in the subpage to Ambient Dialogue; simply because quotes doesn't really describe what's listed - entire scenes of dialogue that happen from time to time. Quotes should always be only one or two sentences long, describing a greet or whatever it is that the NPC does once a player interacts with it.

The NPC Main Page

This was actually discussed (see 2 posts above this one) but it all just kinda...went nowhere. I'm still an advocate for these changes to be made, we just need an incentive or something to kickstart these changes, with the wiki's consensus, of course.

Living World

Chronologically, god yes. I agree that the current LS-related pages are a bit messy, and we should sort this stuff out before the next season starts. Your example looks actually pretty great, there was really no need to split "Quotes (or ambient scenes)" from the other dialogue, so this is a welcome change. As for the archiving of the pages, it's generally once the dialogue changes, the old one gets moved. This is done to keep the freshest dialogue on the wiki, and to avoid any confusion/clutter. Ellen Kiel's page does contain more history because it's simply who we know more about. We had a short story about her as a child and some bits of lore thrown in here and there. Also, Ellen Kiel was one of the first (or actually the first) Living World NPC so it makes sense that her page would be more updated, but I'm positive that the other Living World NPCs pages will get more populated with info over time.

Huff puff. It's kinda late and I'm kinda sleepy so there is a chance that I misunderstood or blatantly incorrectly interpreted some parts, so feel free to scold me on that. I'm glad that someone's taking the initiative to "fix" the current state of LS-related pages, and I'll be happy to jump on that bandwagon. --Ventriloquist (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So many thoughts, so little time!

1. On both NPC pages and subpages, the current usage is to have the "Dialogue" section be for the window that comes up when the NPC is spoken to, i.e. that NPC's conversation with the player, and the "Quotes" section is used for greets, combat chatter and other dialogue that appears when the NPC is interacted with (there is not normally the need for a section on the subpage for historical quotes, as these usually do not change between releases). It is not used for "ambient dialogue", meaning idle dialogue or banter between that NPC and other nearby NPC's. That dialogue goes on the respective instance or area pages, otherwise we'd be documenting every conversation an NPC has had with any other NPC on that NPC's page, which would mean duplicating the conversation all over the wiki and having unreasonably long pages.
2. Agreeing on a formal way of dividing different types of quotes within the "Quotes" section is cool with me, but I have no opinion on how that should be done.
3. It always made more sense to me to document past dialogue reverse-chronologically. The dialogue subpages are less about "telling that character's story", as you say; rather they are just for ensuring that the dialogue that NPC had in a particular release is documented somewhere. And for those reasons, and those given above, I don't think ambient dialogue should be included on those either (these should be on the instance page or a historical dialogue subpage for that area (if dialogue occurs in the open world), instead).

As for related issues, the "telling the character's story" part should be done in the intro section imo, or if they are long in a "History" section at the beginning (although I think "History" would be a poor choice of name). For the "Living World involvement" section, I'd rather indent by season than release, since most releases only feature one instance (or a character only appears in once instance in that release), and there ends up being indentation all over the place, which doesn't do anything to help organisation. It also kind of modularises the character's story into releases, which doesn't feel in keeping with the spirit of the LW. Although to be honest, since the progression of a character's story is split between story instances and the open world, I think the whole idea of a "Living World involvement" might need rethinking altogether, since it's not directly analogous to the personal story in that way. I'm open to the idea of the intro section being a brief introduction with a quick overview of important events, character traits etc., and then going into more detail in prose in the "Living World involvement" section.

Even more separate issue, but I'm against including a "Historical locations" part under the locations header; as the LW progresses I'm confident it's going to seem increasingly ridiculous to document every single location an NPC has ever been, and I don't see the benefit in doing so.

Anyway, these are my initial thoughts, but like Ventriloquist I'm extremely tired at the moment so forgive me if I've completely misunderstood your proposals or if I seem overly curt. I'm just trying to get everything down before I fall asleep on my keyboard. And a thanks from me, as well, in helping with documenting the LW :) –Santax (talk · contribs) 00:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful responses! They are much appreciated :) I know I get a little cross-eyed trying to keep track of what is being said about what, so I absolutely do not begrudge any to-the-point sentences or confusion (probably caused by me, heh). Continuing the conversation...

The /dialogue Page "Quotes" Heading

"On both NPC pages and subpages... [The Quotes heading] is not used for "ambient dialogue"..." -Santax. This makes sense to me as a definition for "Quotes" headings -- except that this does not describe the current reality of "Quotes" on the NPC /dialogue subpages, which is where my issue arises. So, should the Quote /dialogue page sections (as they exist currently: containing or forwarding to locations with ambient dialogue) be basically deleted? For example: Thunder_Ridge_Camp/dialogue and Marjory_Delaqua/dialogue#During_Tower_of_Nightmares_2. Marjory's dialogue page essentially duplicates some of the ambient scenes and contains more scenes undocumented by the Thunder Ridge Camp page. My solution would be to cut undocumented Thunder Ridge ambient scenes from Marjory's /dialogue page and paste them to the TR page, then forward to the TR /dialoge section under the appropriate Living Story header in Marjory's /dialogue. I think we're all agreed on that, if I'm reading our conversations correctly. However, if I did this for each Quotes section on Marjory's /dialogue page, then we'd have the entire bottom half "Quotes" sections full of just forwards and it still wouldn't be correct under the definition of "Quotes". So do we change the name "Quotes" to "Ambient Scenes" (and perhaps add as necessary/separate out a "Quotes" heading that actually contains archived "greets, combat chatter and other dialogue that appears when the NPC is interacted with") or get rid of the ambient scenes on these pages altogether? I'd be upset at deleting the ambient scene forwards because unless you are an editor working on this project, it appears that the page is about the character's dialogue in a general sense. Without forwards to pages like Thunder Ridge /dialogue the NPC pages and their /dialogue pages are literally devoid of all mention of the historical ambient scenes in which those characters partook. But this leaves the formatting issue of a half-page of empty sections with forwards and my attempt to solve it (see next topic).

Chronology

"...the "telling the character's story" part should be done in the intro section imo, or if they are long in a "History" section at the beginning (although I think "History" would be a poor choice of name)." -Santax. Ah, I completely agree. Summaries in prose should be left for the main NPC page (though a thorough Living World Involvement write-up section could get huge on some NPC pages). I meant it more in a "I'm going to this NPC's dialogue page to read all their dialogue and relive their thread of the story like re-reading a book" way. I understand not putting another copy of the ambient scenes' content on the NPC /dialogue page, but I must say I think these pages would lose a sense of 'completeness' without forwards or mentions of ambient scenes. After all, "Quotes" are supposedly archived here and they are not "Dialogue" in the heading sense ("the window that comes up when the NPC is spoken to"). Reposting a link to my chronological example for ease of reference: Chronological Kasmeer page (I've kept the page's ambient scenes and not tried to delete them/forward to the location's /dialogue subpage or Quotes mainpage subsection because I am lazy -- feel free to pretend that under "Ambient Scenes" is a "Primary Article: WHATEVER" forwarder and not a block of text). If Dialogue + Ambient Scenes were combined under LS Headings this way, Quotes as Santax defines them could be, too.

The main reason I could see to do it in reverse chronology would be to keep the freshest bits at the top -- but because the main page is supposed to contain the latest tidbits it feels unnecessary to me (especially with a TOC present on the /dialogue page).

Also, is there any reason location /dialogue pages like Thunder Ridge Camp's shouldn't be given proper TOC headers like the NPC /dialogue pages? Because I'd love to start doing that for legibility/ease of use.

Archiving

"As for the archiving of the pages, it's generally once the dialogue changes, the old one gets moved." -Ventriloquist. This is easy enough to determine for pieces of dialogue on the main NPC page moving to /dialogue subpages, but when does a /dialogue subpage itself get archived? Some of them are starting to get pretty long and I think it might make sense to, for the more plot-involved NPCs at least, make a new page based on Seasons of the Living World (no idea how these would be named; /dialogueS1 /dialogueS2 perhaps) to keep the /dialogue page "fresh". The /dialogue page would therefore contain always the latest season of Living Story's dialogue with perhaps a link at the top pointing to the archived season(s') dialogue page(s). I imagine this will be less of an issue for location /dialogue pages (theoretically less clutter to collect), or at least one that presents itself further into the future.

I think I'm making some mental progress on this ^^; Maybe. Thanks again for indulging me and nudging this discussion in the right direction, guys. -Kymtastic (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

ETA: Another epiphany of logistics: Let's assume all ambient scenes are really meant to be documented on a Location/its /dialogue page and should be moved off of NPC /dialogue pages and replaced with a forward, which is the impression I am getting from the above. It makes things very difficult to maintain up-to-date NPC /dialogue pages in this style when current ambient scenes are not on Location /dialogue subpages. Either the NPC /dialogue subpages will never list current content or the forwarding links will have to be hand changed on every NPC's /dialogue page from a Location main page to a Location /dialogue page. I think it would be most logical to reproduce the current scenes both on the Location main page and the Location /dialogue page, so the links are correct. This NPC/dialogue forwarding re-enforces the need for TOC style headers on Location/dialogue pages, imo. -Kymtastic (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yolo, since no one got back to me after my request for comment I made a Dialogue Pages Project for anyone interested in continuing the discussion in a slightly less confusing/easier to find format. Come bug me! -Kymtastic (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotes and Dialogue not in the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes page

I noticed that there is no entry under Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes for Quotes and Dialogues would that be a good thing to add. Anzenketh (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, this low level minion is gonna go ahead and say: Yes, yes, a million times yes. That's the first place I looked for Dialogue formatting and couldn't find it. I think this project's low profile compared to full page practices is making it difficult to maintain dialogue consistency across the wiki. If you choose to add it, I'd put it under "General". -Kymtastic (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ambient Scenes: 1) Location Page Header Title 2) Placement

1. According to the year-old discussion regarding ambient dialogue above, it seems like the consensus (perhaps not "consensus", but no one presented a different opinion or dissented from Rakuin) was to put these scenes under "Ambient Scenes". Currently, the Location formatting guide has them going under "Ambient Dialogue". I'd like to confirm the wording here and go about making everything uniform (and altering the header on the Location formatting page, if necessary). My personal vote is for "Ambient Scenes", which conforms with voice-over categories.

2. I'd also like to get a consensus on reproduction/placement/forwarding to of these Ambient Scenes for the Dialogue Pages project. The idea Vahkris had during the previously mentioned year-old thread that seemed to be accepted was (emphasis mine), "Place the dialogue on the page of the area/zone article in a dialogue section (or on a dialogue subpage), since most of the dialogue is about creating an atmosphere for that area. (example, putting ambient dialogue of the non-named generic NPCs for Lion's Arch on the Lion's Arch page, or subpage). Named NPCs get their own article with their dialogue, obviously, this would just be for the generic ones." Yet, in my topic above, it seems like Santax is suggesting that no ambient scenes should be on NPC /dialogue pages at all, rather that these pages should forward to Location /dialogue pages. So, which is it? Do we:

• A. Place full Ambient Scenes on Location pages and forward to the Location pages from NPC /dialogue pages? This seems to be the notion Santax put forth.
  • Pros: Has the advantage of being easily cross-referenced between both the main location page and the NPC /dialogue page. Requires only one full reproduction of the scene.
  • Cons: Creation of a lot of Location /dialogue subpages. NPC /dialogue pages would then be half-full of forwards.
• B. Place only Ambient Scenes without named characters on Location pages and keep full ambient scenes of named NPCs on NPC /dialogue pages? I believe this is what Vahkris meant.
  • Pros: Reduces the number of Location /dialogue subpages.
  • Cons: Disconnects these past atmospherics of Living World events from any reference on the Location in which they happened. Each singular scene would need to be pasted on one or more NPC pages.
• C. Reproduce Ambient Scenes of named NPCs only on the NPC /dialogue page and forward to these pages from the Location /dialogue page? This is the opposite of A.
  • Pros: The NPC /dialogue pages (which I imagine would be looked at more than a Location /dialogue) have a bit more actual content vs forwarding.
  • Cons: The Location /dialogue pages would then be mostly headings with multiple forwards under them. Each singular scene would need to be pasted on one or more NPC pages.
• D. Reproduce the scenes in full on both pages (assuming NPC is named) and do away with forwarding?
  • Pros: Both the Location /dialogue and NPC /dialogue subpage would be filled with more content than just a half page full of forwards. This avoids any issues with forwarded links breaking due to the archiving of pages and/or shuffling of /dialogue content.
  • Cons: Each singular scene would need to be pasted on one or more NPC pages plus a Location page.

The current state of the /dialogue pages are a mix of A and D. Personally, I prefer D (if we're going to make these pages, we may as well flesh them out as much as possible), because I'm invested in having these scenes as immediately readable as possible and avoiding broken forwarding link issues. However, they all have their merits and more than my own opinion, I just want to be able to give these articles a unified format. So, please disagree :) More than anything, I just don't want it to be another year before the issue simply gets brought up again, nonetheless enacted. -Kymtastic (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)