RuneScape talk:Style guide/Transcripts

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Style guide/Transcripts page.

Player Choices[edit source]

So I've seen two ways to handle player choices during dialogue.

Option 1:

  • Player: I said something in a dialogue box with a chathead!
  • NPC: So did !
    • Player: This was a choice in a menu without a chathead!
      • NPC: This was my response!
    • Player: This was another option from that menu without a chathead!

etc.

Option 2:

  • Player: I said something in a dialogue box with a chathead!
  • NPC: So did !
    • This was a choice in a menu without a chathead!
      • NPC: This was my response!
    • This was another option from that menu without a chathead!

etc.

I personally prefer the latter, because it makes clear that the line in question was a menu choice and was not spoken verbatim - sometimes you can choose something off a menu and then get a player chathead dialogue box that says something similar to that option, while other times the game implies that option was spoken by the player verbatim and just shows whatever happened next. This, along with the bullet indents, also makes clear that it was an option in a menu where there were multiple options and that it wasn't just a continuation of the same linear conversation.

However, I've noticed users editing my transcripts to change the second option to the first - is that standard? It's not specified in this style guide. Sorator (talk) 07:22, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the second version. Although it can end up with some silly artefacts like:
  • This is a choice in a menu!
    • Player: This is a choice in a menu!
But I suppose that's a minor annoyance compared to how large transcription/dialogue pages usually are anyhow. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 08:09, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
There's some discrepancies in how options are displayed from when I last did a transcript. Sometimes you choose the response and say that response. Sometimes you choose the response and instantly move onto the next line in the conversation. With that in mind, I'd go with the latter example. cqm 20:18, 30 Mar 2014 (UTC) (UTC)
Style guide has been revised and is updated to reflect this preference. JivaSoul (talk) 14:55, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in Options[edit source]

I noticed that the Style guide has an apparent contradiction. It says in Regular dialogue that "An option should be on the same level as the preceding text to avoid confusion when reading. Every time a new option is explored another indent should be used, until that line of conversation is exhausted." However below, it places options on a different level. I don't know when the Style Guide was changed to have this additional info. My personal preference was to place options on the same level as the previous speaker. What is the preferred style, because I have written/edited several transcripts to put the option on the same level (except when there is a statement other that "Select an Option:"). Cache117 (talk) 16:49, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I've always done it like this for different options, personally:
  • Person: blah blah blah
  • Player: What do you want me to do?
    • Person: blah blah blah
  • Player: How are you?
    • Person: blah blah blah
jayden
This is my preferance. But the Style Guide has both that and and the following listed as the correct style.
  • Person: blah blah blah
    • Player: What do you want me to do?
      • Person: blah blah blah
    • Player: How are you?
      • Person: blah blah blah

Cache117 (talk) 19:48, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

Modernising NPC naming in transcripts[edit source]

I'm aware that we've been styling NPC transcripts like this for ages:

NPC's name:
Hello!

However, the in-game chatbox always capitalises the NPC name (and dialogue option heading), and trying to determine what would be proper uncapitalised format adds unnecessary cognitive load for the transcriber. I suggest, and been doing it with some transcriptions, that the NPC name could always be capitalised, and that the colon could be omitted to bring transcriptions closer to what you see on the screen, like so:

NPC'S NAME
Hello!

Option headings would appear like so:

SELECT AN OPTION
Option A
Option B

Thingummywut (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer NPC names to still be followed by a colon to make it easier to find on a page when an NPC speaks. I'm unsure about capitalising NPC names. Most of the time, it's obvious the NPC dialogue name is the same as the actual NPC's. I would prefer to keep it that way in case our transcript style or Jagex's dialogue style changes. Since we already show names capitalised, that lets us switch between each style easily without going back to change it, but I understand this isn't always the case. Agree on bolding option headings. Habblet (talk|c) 10:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Combining split dialogue[edit source]

We currently favour splitting consecutive dialogue by the same person: "It is preferable to combine split dialogue displayed in multiple consecutive chat boxes that is spoken by the same person in this way." Is this a view that many share? I hate to follow dialogue with the game where multiple chat boxes are combined since it makes it so much harder. I much prefer if the transcript respects the in-game chat box switches. Some scenarios where keeping it split helps:

  • You're space-baring for some distinct dialogue in-game, and when the transcript is combined, it doesn't tell you how many times you should space-bar.
  • Breaks in chat boxes add favour to the dialogue, such as:
    • NPC: Let me think about that...
    • NPC: ...
    • NPC: ...
    • NPC: Now I got it!

I've seen many cases where in my view the far superior split transcript has been combined, seemingly because of this favouring we have in the style guide. I suggest we still allow combining, but only favour it when it's clear that the in-game split is caused by technical limitations that don't transcend to the wiki, e.g. the chat clearly just overflows one dialogue box. Thingummywut (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Single lines[edit source]

Currently the style guide states: "Transcripts that do not belong in this namespace: Single lines in the chatbox or single frame dialogues that are prompted by using an item; e.g. "You eat the shark."" Is this really appropriate? Where should such transcripts then go? I wouldn't really want to pollute the main articles with all such trivial one-liners. Why should item usage be an exception? If a one-liner is triggered by something else such as interacting with an interface, that should be all good to transcribe, but if it happens to be triggered by an item, suddenly it's no good. Thingummywut (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)