Skyrim talk:Ennis

Quest Related Dialogue

Should any of the quest related dialogue be on the NPC page rather than on the Quest page itself? 107.192.193.123 18:44, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

All of the NPC’s quest related dialogue should be on the NPC page. However I’m not sure about the responses that are in bold, I don’t think we include them anywhere else on other NPC pages? — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:53, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

All Quest dialogue belongs on the NPC page. As for your question Kimi, the player responses are on quite a number of NPC pages. Virtually everyone that the dialogue has received considerable attention and the player talks to the NPC. You can find examples of it on Skyrim NPC pages, and on the occasional Oblivion page where the topic text was descriptive enough to deserve mentioning. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:05, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) I was wondering the same thing about player dialogue, it seems like more than is needed on this page. — ABCface^◥ 19:07, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

There is the exact right amount on this page, as it is all on this page. Removing any of it is entirely pointless and would only diminish the value of the article by removing some documentation for no reason at all. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:08, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

I've seen it work well when formatted differently, like what was done in here. ⇠eshe^talk 19:11, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) That's more of a preference in formatting, I personally am not a fan, and as such edit the pages I work on the way I prefer. If anyone wishes to change the formatting, I don't care enough to protest about that, but removing information from the article for the reason that it's more than needed when it is currently just documenting all player lines is out of the question. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:16, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

I don't think anyone was actually suggesting we remove stuff, AKB. I think the point was that it's just a bit difficult to read as-is. Sort of the "wall of text" thing, I guess. ⇠eshe^talk 19:18, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) I never suggested removing it, but the likely reason that it seems like more than is needed is probably because of the current formatting. I'll go ahead and make some tweaks to the format, similar to the example Eshe provided, sometime in the near future. — ABCface^◥ 19:20, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but I was incapable of interpreting such from your original comment. However, as that was what was intended, then I don't have a problem with you altering the format to whatever you want. I know I'm probably the weirdest editor when it comes to style (I have a tendency to experiment with them, wherever I go. Reading through my history is like reading through a madman's diary, no two pages rarely match up), so it doesn't bother me in the slightest if other editors want to change them around. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:25, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) Needed to log in so I could weigh-in properly... in Resp. to Eshe - yes, I was suggesting removal of dialogue from NPC pages when it directly relates to quests. (From here it looks like a move to forums is in order as I am now proposing an SR-wide redesign thingie) There shouldn't be a need to include such information if that dialogue doesn't exist outside of the related quest. We already point out that the NPC is involved in the quest, why post the dialogue twice? Looked at from the other angle; why is dialogue that only relates to quests not included on the quest's page? So far I've only seen a couple that do include it (no, don't wanna search 'em, too lazy) I do understand that want that makes us include all the information on an NPC page, but I don't understand the need. RCWizard (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

Yeah, I tried to edit my response to say that you'd said so, but got an edit conflict and gave up ;). Honestly I think the best argument for including only some dialogue on quest pages is to keep it simple. People use the quest pages as walkthroughs, so a little dialogue adds flavor but too much just gets in the way. Personally I don't see the need to include every scrap of dialogue on NPC pages, but I don't mind the practice that much. I suppose it's done for the sake of completeness. ⇠eshe^talk 20:10, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

The discussion belongs on the wiki, not the forums where only a very small number of users are anywhere near familiar with the wiki. However, dialogue always belongs with its NPC first, not the quest. While I'm not a fan of redundancy when it's avoidable, it's better to not add dialogue to the quest page where you can adequately explain what happens in the quest without it then it is to remove dialogue from NPC pages where you cannot completely explain everything about the NPC without things like their dialogue. As you said, only a handful of quests contain NPC dialogue as it isn't necessary for a quest page to include the dialogue (it's largely added to explain difficult conversation paths or for flavor, from my experience), unlike with the NPC who do need the dialogue. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:31, 25 October 2012 (GMT)

RCW: As AKB said, that sort of discussion belongs on the wiki, not the forums. And both he and Eshe are correct-- quest pages are generally used as walkthroughs, so including all quest dialogue on a quest page is often not ideal. Given that, the dialogue should go somewhere, as that's what this wiki is about: documenting the game thoroughly. The most reasonable place for the NPC dialogue is the NPC page.

Also, I've now reformatted the page to match some of the other NPC pages we have out there in regards to dialogue. I used Eshe's example for a small portion of it, this table as an example for the dialogue choices including the bribe/persuade/intimidate options, and this page as an example for the conversations between NPCs. I wasn't quite sure where to put that one rumor, so if it seems odd to have it on the bottom of the conversations section, feel free to improve it somehow. Hopefully this format is easier to follow, let me know if you don't think it's acceptable. — ABCface^◥ 06:01, 27 October 2012 (GMT)