UESPWiki:Community Portal

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the main discussion forum used for community-wide discussions about UESP's operations, policies, design, and improvement.

All members of the community are welcome to contribute to this page. Please sign and date your post by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar. If you would like to start a new inquiry, please place it at the bottom of the page with a two-tier (==) heading.

Before starting a discussion here, please review the list of other community pages below, as your question or suggestion may be more appropriate on another page.

Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:

Specific requests can be made on these pages:

  • Bot Requests — This page can be used to request that one of the wiki's bots take on a task.
  • Image Requests — You can request specific images for articles here.
  • Creation Kit Information Requests — You can request specific Creation Kit information for articles here.
  • New Page Requests — You can request a new page here if you were prevented from creating the page yourself.
  • Purge Requests — If you are having problems viewing an article on UESP, the page may need to be purged. New purge requests can be made here.

In addition, past discussions from the Community Portal can be found at:

  • CP Archives — Lists all of the past discussions from the Community Portal page, including major discussions and chronlogical archives.
Active Discussions

Many discussions of community-wide interest are held on pages other than the community portal. Discussions about specific policies belong on the policy talk pages, for example. The following table lists other discussions that are currently in progress on other talk pages. If you start a discussion on another talk page, please add it to this list. If a discussion listed here has been inactive (i.e., no comments of any type in at least a week), please remove it from the list.

Location Date started Topic Listed here by
Bot Requests June 1, 2022 Skyrim Book Editor IDs RobinHood70
Lore talk:CHIM 25 May 2022‎ relies on unofficial source & personal interpretation Wolfborn

Mer Names vs. Elf Names in Gamespace[edit]

There's been a lot of push lately on Discord to change the "-mer" names (Altmer, Bosmer, Dunmer) to their equivalent "Elf" (High Elf, Wood Elf, Dark Elf) names and move the pages appropriately. I thought we'd had the discussion on the wiki as well, and so I went ahead and moved them when someone asked, but I see now that the discussion never actually took place here. Sorry about that!

But, going on the "better late than never" premise, does anyone have any objections to using "Elf" names (and links) for the main landing pages (e.g., Skyrim:Wood Elf instead of Skyrim:Bosmer)? Yes, the pages are already moved, but if there's some overwhelming on-wiki push that we didn't come up with on Discord, I can always switch all the links back and revert the page changes, if needed.

In this particular case, we actually have a policy for using the "-mer" names, though I'm not sure where that policy came from. It can be found in the various race entries on our spelling page. I'm not quite sure why it was decided to use the "-mer" names when the menus all use "Elf", and I'm pretty sure that's consistent across all games from Morrowind forward. It may be that it's used more in dialogue, but I think even that's a bit mixed, especially if you look across all the games. I haven't confirmed that, though. Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone see any reason we should go back to using "-mer" names by default? Robin Hood(talk) 00:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Both the Character Creation screens and Creation Kit/Set of the affected games use the "Elf" terminology. This does not mean that "mer" cannot be used in prose. But according to the data of the games themselves, that is what they are. This is not an issue of lore or spelling, but adequate representation of the videogames. -Dcsg (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
What Dcsg says is correct. There is no discussion to be had. LudwigC (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
While I much, much prefer the "mer" suffix names, unfortunately the "elf" suffix names is what the games use internally and on display. I guess an argument can be made that not all races are called what they're named internally, the Snow Elf (coded as High Elf) and Sheogorath race comes to mind and probably some others. The big issue is mainly how alphabetically things will now change (Altmer are no longer at the top, Wood elves are now at the bottom) and how these races are categorized with a space as opposed to without, since the "mer" suffix ones are all one word. That's the main reason I don't support this change, all of the other 7 races are still one word simplifying things, the only exceptions in general are Dark Seducers, Golden Saints, Pumpkin Spectres, and Sea Giants; none of which are playable.
Still, I guess gameplay function takes precedence over context, so there's not much that can be done. There's no discussion needed to debate whether to make the change, just a matter of how, since it affects literally tens of thousands of pages. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed these moves and they make for a pleasant surprise. I am for the change. We need to go for in-game accuracy in gamespace, and that is what these moves achieve. I don't think there's much on-wiki discussion of the proposal, but in terms of precedent I changed the racial skill line names on {{Online Skills}} back in 2016 and there has never been any objection. Now at last the pages reflect those names.
I think it's a good idea to preserve the -mer names in lorespace. Gameplay accuracy is not a concern on those pages, so I don't think the wiki's existing consensus on preferred race names should be impacted. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with making them accurate for gamespace, but as legoless has said we should keep -mer in lorespace. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

() Further to this, I have also moved the Legends -mer pages back to their original article names. This change was made in 2016 but it's not what the cards say on them. A lot of pages such as Legends:Races already used the in-game names so much of the work is done. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Would also like to add that with terms like Altmer, it was both singular and plural and could be used in sentences quite easily. With a term like High Elf you're stuck with the plural being High Elves or sometimes High Elven, and there's now the concern to look out for and correct the incorrect High Elfs. I think that Altmer should still be used in prose for the paragraph parts of articles so that it doesn't cause issues like that. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
"High Elfs" shouldn't be a concern. The bot only did selective changes to specific link text, and one of the criteria was that the wording had to be singular and in a phrase somewhat similar to "is a X-mer". Anything not fitting into that broad pattern was left to humans, and at least Dcsg is working on them now...I think maybe one or two others are helping. Robin Hood(talk) 22:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise in Sidebar[edit]

Would anybody object to the addition of the Merchandise namespace to the sidebar? At the moment, it's only accessible to people who are aware of its existence. -MolagBallet (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it should definitely be there, I just don't think anyone got around to it yet. --Enodoc (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"The" in Article Names[edit]

I object to the prospect of renaming "Lore:The Pale" to "Lore:Pale". Wikipedia's policy on the use of "the" in article titles is as follows: "Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown)." "The Pale" is a proper noun; people don't refer to the region simply as "Pale". The same can be said for Lore:The Blight, Lore:The Radius, Lore:The Reach, Lore:The Pits, Lore:The Chain and Lore:The Rift.

For the Blight in particular, there is only one "Blight" people are looking for when they look for the article in question, and that it The Blight. It's not "a blight", it's The Blight: the one and only curse spread over the winds with an origin in Dagoth Ur's foul magics. Nobody says "I went to Rift", "I'm making a trek into Radius", "I'll be taking my caravan through Reach", "I'm sailing out to visit Chain", or "I'm going to be sent to Pits when I die"; "the" is part of these places' names.

Now, I'm certain there's a concept in Halo called "Reach", and if I have my videogame jargon right, that particular Reach doesn't need "the" in the name of an article covering that subject. To my knowledge, the way Halo's "Reach" and "The Reach" of the Elder Scrolls are referred to makes the case for why "the" deserves to stay in the titles I've listed. According to Halopedia, "Reach" is the proper name of a colonized planet. Somebody with more knowledge about Halo could attest to how characters in-universe talk about Reach, but The Reach of the Elder Scrolls is never referred to without the use of "the". It is The Reach.

"Green Lady" and "Scaled Court" are fine, they can be renamed. A Silvenar might say "I love my Green Lady", just as the Green Lady in ESO refers to her spouse as "my Silvenar". Someone who's opposing the Scaled Court might call one of the Courtlings "a Scaled Court wretch", or refer to "those Scaled Court bastards". Not so for The Pale and other locations.

One might use the logic for the Scaled Court to refute me, and they'd be right to challenge me. Again, I reiterate that the Blight in question is the only blight of historical note. "Blight" is only used without "the" in the case of "blighted monsters", "blight storms" or "blight diseases", but these are all things associated with the Blight. When people use these terms, they are not directly referring to the Blight itself, but instead talking about concepts and things that are derived from the Blight; blight storms carry The Blight, blight diseases are caused by coming into contact with The Blight, and blighted monsters are created when creatures are infected with blight diseases, which come from The Blight. The phenomenon itself is always referred to with "the". It is not just "a" blight. The Scaled Court is often referred to with "the", but not always, and if anybody needs in-game examples for anything that I have attempted to lay out in this post, they have only to ask, and I will provide.

In short: Lore:The Pale, Lore:The Blight, Lore:The Radius, Lore:The Reach, Lore:The Pits, Lore:The Chain and Lore:The Rift. These are the places/things' proper names, thus "The" should remain in the article's name. -MolagBallet (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's policy, there is no mention of "how the article title sounds when used without the article in prose." This is because you can place articles in the prose and still exclude it from the title, which many of our pages already do, which one doesn't even notice when it's done correctly. You also misconstrue the meaning of "proper name," which is intended to refer to things like publications, brand names, etc., which is a policy we already adhere to with our naming of books. The only argument to be made in favor of the mentioned pages including a "The" is that of genericness. Wikipedia might use the article in the title to differentiate from a different page. However, since as a wiki that does not seek to demystify real life, we should have no such issue naming articles with common words, which we also do already in many instances. -Dcsg (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
That same article's section on "other proper names" lists "The Bronx", a place, as a proper name that merits the use of "The" in the article's name. The Bahamas, a country, also uses "The" in its name; these are the names of places. The Pale, The Chain, The Rift, et al should follow the same convention. -MolagBallet (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MolagBallet, I also oppose getting rid of the in the names. Its because its what they are called, The Reach is what the Reach is called for the most part. So stuff like that needs to retain words like The in them. As that is what we know them as.TheVampKnight (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is indeed a small section which lists the exceptions, which don't make the rule. There are many other Wikipedia articles whose common use "always" include an article, such as the American Dream, the Netherlands, the Middle Ages, and many more. -Dcsg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I went digging because I got curious, and I've found several articles that aren't proper nouns that use "the" in the title of the article. Most noteworthy was "The arts", which was the subject of a proposed move in 2020, which did not pass for similar reasons that I've argued above. Additionally, the first condition listed on Wikipedia's page on article naming conventions is as follows:
If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.
Despite the fact that we aren't Wikipedia and don't have articles for every single concept in TES, no matter how mundane nor magical, I see no reason to move these pages. If Bethesda were to invent a more generic "blight" sans "the", we would have to move Lore:The Blight back to "The Blight" to disambiguate them anyways.
While we're on the subject of exceptions, I would point to "The Gabba", which refers to the Brisbane Cricket Ground, but is coloquially called "The Gabba". Wikipedia's article uses "The" in the title, despite there being no lone "Gabba" on site to warrant the disambiguation. Granted, Wikipedia's "Gabba" in itself is a disambiguation page that leads to several pages whose subject begins with "Gab", but they could have gone with "Brisbane Cricket Ground" and not popped up in my research. -MolagBallet (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Citing article-less Wikipedia titles could forever. The fact is that article-having titles are the exception, not the rule, and have good reason. Your first example, "The arts," has an article to distinguish itself from "Art". "The Bronx" and "The Bahamas" are the way they are due to legality in combination with prevailing use. The few people with a preappended "The" are due to overwhelming prevailing use, and there are only a handful of such titles on the whole of Wikipedia. I feel I must also restate that "how it sounds when written in prose" is not a criterion. These pages were created by people who weren't considering policies and we are simply rectifying the deviation that was made carelessly. If you have legitimate reasons which are acknowledged as valid by the policies, please bring it up. However, nothing you have said so far interacts with the actual intentions detailed by the policies. -Dcsg (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

() I won't comment much outside of Skyrim, since I'm not terribly familiar with any of those games, but within Skyrim, I think it's pretty easy. The Pale, The Reach, and The Rift are all named using the word "The" on the various maps that show region names as well as in books like The Holds of Skyrim. Thus, that's their official name and what we should be calling them in any wiki articles. To compare to the real world, the United Kingdom is only ever called "United Kingdom" in official sources while The Hague is referred to as "The Hague". Whether "the" is used colloquially is not relevant to the discussion unless you want to get into questions of how/when to capitalize "the" in those names, but that's a different discussion.

One thing that occurred to me for the Blight was to compare it to the Great Plague. Both of them are commonly written with a lower-case "the", which strongly suggests that "the" is not part of their official name, and Wikipedia confirms this. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion there, but I thought it made for a good point of comparison. Robin Hood(talk) 03:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Molag and Robin when it comes to "The Reach" etc. I think this boils down if "The" is an "official" part of its name. And judging from their names on the map, this seems the be the case. "Netherlands" has no official "The" in its name (and it can't even be used in that way in its own language, but that's another topic). Places like The Gambia or The Hague are used with "The" by their own ministries and administrations, which does not seem the case for countries like the Netherlands and the UK. However, we can't really reach out to any governing body of Skyrim, so I believe we can only infer it from the sources we see in-game (like the aforementioned maps) to base our policies on. --Ilaro (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I will concede that "the Blight" should probably be moved over, Robin has a point with the Great Plague. -MolagBallet (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia as a basis of standards on a wiki that covers very different topics is a very risky move that always needs to be looked at if its a needed change at all, cause in a lot of cases we don't need Wikipedia's way of doing things. I'm not a fan of mass standardizing; yes it makes things straight forward, but in this case its a bit much, we don't need to have an all-or-nothing "one way or the other" rule on putting "The" in article titles. I think we should keep things the way they are and use "The" on a case-by-case basis; hell Wikipedia does this too. I don't see a need for a mass change. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not about "mass change," though - it's about a few, specific names. (Which is also the point, I think.) I agree with Molag and RH, we've had a similar discussion before regarding a zone name, possibly The Rift. It's a little complicated topic though: more so for all non-native speakers (including me!). It's also more complicated by the fact that the TES writer team doesn't always follow the proper naming rules ;)
The one argument which I think is relevant here, is that omitting the "The" makes the name sound generic and unspecific. "Pale" is a rather generic word - if we remove the article, then it could mean what... an adjective? A historic person who was called Pale? A magic spell? It could be anything! Including the definite article tells the reader straight away that this is something specific, it is a unique name not belonging to anything else but that subject. Tib (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

All the "Deadlands" in ESO - please help with naming the pages[edit]

With the upcoming DLC, at least three pages need to be titled "Deadlands," so I'd like to hear if we can figure out how to sort this out. We've got:

  • Deadlands (DLC) - the upcoming DLC
  • Deadlands (dungeon) - the public dungeon released with Blackwood chapter
  • Deadlands (zone) - the zone for the upcoming DLC

Would it work to create a disambiguation page called "Deadlands," which then links to the three above-mentioned ones? I'm asking because the new DLC will be on test servers tonight, so it would be great to figure this out before all the editing starts :) Tib (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We would generally give precedence to the zone, as in the case of Online:Summerset and Online:Summerset (chapter). An {{about}} at the top could link to the public dungeon and the DLC? —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Need to check for accuracy first - the dungeon is called The Deadlands, not Deadlands, so if the zone is called Deadlands the disambig and hatnote would have a different purpose. --Enodoc (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the extant pages to ON:The Deadlands (dungeon) and ON:The Deadlands (DLC). Assuming the zone has the same name, we can now decide what to do with ON:The Deadlands, i.e. zone page or disambig. —⁠Legoless (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd go with zone page, personally. that's gonna be the "bigger" page, by far. Jeancey (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

() Sounds good! I wonder whether Fargrave might need its own page, similarly to Artaeum vs Summerset in summerset chapter. Tib (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Per this edit and WP:NAMB, I note that the hatnotes have been removed from the dungeon and DLC pages. I think these should be restored as a navigation aid for readers, given the confusion highlighted by this discussion. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting one. I don't think our common practice generally follows WP:NAMB and I'm not sure I agree with its premise. If the title of an article has a disambiguator, then the title by definition is ambiguous, and hatnotes should be used throughout. --Enodoc (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
We do generally follow NAMB when it regards hatnotes. There may be some exceptions, and I think this COULD be one of them, but I'm not convinced that The Deadlands (DLC) is really going to be confused with the dungeon, but people could be confused the other way around?
To Enodoc's point, by adding the disambiguator, it becomes no longer ambiguous. If there are two NPCs with the same name, say Kyle, and one is Khajiit and the other Altmer, if you land on Online:Kyle you don't know from the name which is which, so the hatnote exists. If you land on Online:Kyle (Altmer) there's no way you are confusing the page URL with that of Online:Kyle (Khajiit). That's the point of ambiguity, NOT the ambiguity of the pagename sans disambiguator. Jeancey (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I have no issues discarding NAMB in favour of our own guidelines, whatever those may end up being. The one thing we might want to consider here is precedent. In theory, whatever we apply to Deadlands pages should also apply to pages like Dawnguard, possibly Dragonborn, several Creation Club add-ons, not to mention Oblivion's various add-ons as well. They're all basically in the same boat of having the add-on named the same as an item or area. Robin Hood(talk) 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I do have an issue discarding NAMB overall. I would rather have specific exceptions that follow consensus rather than scrapping it all together. People aren't sitting on a quest page being like "It says (quest) in the name, I thought this was a DLC".... I think people are smart enough to realize "hey, maybe this page is for the quest, and not for the DLC. Jeancey (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Imperial City DLC Canon Chronology[edit]

Currently on the Wiki, we have the stance taken that ALL Imperial City content takes place before the end of the original storyline. I feel this is partially incorrect, as we have insight for what the canonical timeline for this dlc is from the The Future of ESO - QuakeCon 2014 stream.

At the 6:50 mark, the devs call this :"Molag Bal's Last ditch effort" where he is using the huge anchor at the White Gold Tower.

Starting at around the 12 minute mark, the Devs say this official statement.

"The Temple District, this is the Temple of the One of you played Oblivion, but Tiber Septim didn’t exist around now so its way way back in time. This is actually where they are trying to kickstart the planemeld. If you played the game, you know that in the beginning, you actually get sacrificed and get sent to Coldharbour. So they are starting to do that over again underneath the Temple District and you get to go in there and get to stop that from happening as opposed to getting sacrificed this time."

Additionally, in-game, the Xivkyn Flagellant say :""The Planemeld begins anew!"

Why would Molag Bal try making another Planemeld if his hasn't failed?

What follows is the opposition's stance. Lyranth's plotline in the Imperial City Prison involves freeing her Foolkiller clanspeople from their banishment. Because of this, this particular quest has to take place before the end of the original Coldharbour storyline. After completing the Coldharbour quest The Citadel Must Fall, Lyranth appears with her freed Foolkillers clansmen who were previously banished who we freed in the Imperial City Prison. This is further supported by the statements

"You proved very useful and earned the assistance I provided you.
But I wouldn't recommend lingering in my territory, little mortal. I cannot vouch for the patience or control of my newly awakened kyn."

and

So, now you're the Valkynaz of the Citadel?
"What possible interest could that be to you, little mortal? Let me guess. You're worried that now I will order my kyn to destroy you.
I assure you, a change in leadership can be a time of confusion. No harm will come to you or yours—for now."

So I propose the following stance we should take for documenting the DLC's story on the Wiki. It is clear that the Imperial City Prison takes place before the end of the original Coldharbour storyline, and so we should keep the mention of those specific events in that time period to coincide with Lyranth's statements, but as per the dev statements, the Imperial City DLC ends after the original main quest storyline does. It seems like the Imperial City's plot is overall intended to coincide with the assaults on Coldharbour, as well as the later parts intended to be in response to Planemeld being destroyed. The White Gold Tower seems to be the end of the Imperial City DLC as the anchor gets destroyed and the Planemeld Obverse is stopped.

Other possible viewpoints on the Imperial City DLC are appreciated. Even if this fails to pass, atleast we will have something to link to for why we took the stance.— Zebendal (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, we need to stop actively pushing a timeline we have to speculate on - Even under the current 'any order' rationale that ZOS currently employs, there's no reason to conspicuously list the dlc events out of order of release in this singular instance. The fact that its unclear whether it came before or after shows that we shouldn't be actively assuming. Jacksol (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not think it is ęxactly speculation this time given that in fact it is quite openly stated that parts Imperial City events do happen after the main quest of the basegame since they refer to its evens as second Planemeld that happens after first one failed. Tyrvarion (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This level of detail is probably unnecessary, but if we are going to speculate, then logically the DLC takes place after Breaking the Shackle (where you stop the original Planemeld), and before God of Schemes (where you defeat Molag Bal). He won't be trying another Planemeld before his original plan has failed, and he definitely won't be trying anything after his power is drained. So I think assuming general concurrency with the Coldharbour storyline without being specific works fine. --Enodoc (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Molag Bal is drained, yes, but he doesn't directly manifest in the imperial city aside from the Simulacrum of Molag Bal, but that isn't his full power. He primarily uses his minions to do his work here. However, Enodoc's stance doesn't necessarily contradict Imperial City, as he is using his minions and only a minor manifestation of him appears. So using logic and Legoless' stance, Imperial City Prison takes place before Lyranth appears in Coldharbour and her quest The Citadel Must Fall, with the rest of the DLC being after Breaking the Shackle.— Zebendal (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Enodoc. This is the sequence we are already using in lorespace. —⁠Legoless (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyways, I support either viewpoint. Using logic, I am more in favor of the original planemeld ending at the Breaking the Shackle quest, and ICP taking place before The Citadel Must Fall, and the Dev's statements coincides with Molag Bal's last ditch effort and his efforts in trying to kickstart another Planemeld (the Planemeld Obverse) is after the Great Shackle is destroyed. Imperial City DLC ends after Planemeld Obverse and the Drake of Blades becomes the host for the Sublime Brazier, and Molag Bal is finally defeated in the base game God of Schemes quest.Zebendal (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

() Just by way of update, myself and Zebendal have made changes to Online:Imperial City (DLC), Lore:Planemeld, and Lore:Second Era to reflect the consensus here. It would be great to get a page set up for the QuakeCon 2014 presentation, since this isn't the only notable information that should be documented from it. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the issue here that ordering it in such a way is requiring speculation to bend our own opinions around dev comments? I agree with Enodoc that this level of detail is unnecessary - unless we're told otherwise, we should just be having IC coming ambiguously after rather than speculating and adding our own headcanons on the ordering - I definitely don't think the right solution is to remove ambiguity like we just did by definitively shoving "The Planemeld Obverse and the Sublime Brazier" between "Tamrielic Invasion of Coldharbour" and "Banishment of Molag Bal". Jacksol (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The current page versions are as vaguely worded as I can possibly make them. There's no easy way to document these events chronologically when we don't know the exact order, but the new note on Online:Imperial City (DLC) explains the position. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


Skyrim Boardgame[edit]

Has anyone heard anything about it like release date? Also what would its namespace be, and the ancronym for said namespace? Any thoughts? --Hazak (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It depends on just how extensive it is. If it's relatively simple (i.e. really just rules and stuff, not a lot of unique locations) then it'll probably end up in the Merchandise namespace, with links to the location pages elsewhere on the wiki... As to release date, the funding campaign doesn't seem to start until November 2nd, so we likely won't know a release date for a while (unless I'm just misunderstanding how that website works, and the game is released on November 2nd.... which seems unlikely....) Jeancey (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing voting without a clear consensus[edit]

In the interest of some general clean-up, I noticed the Featured Article and Featured Image pages both are loaded up with nominations, some of which are well over a year old and most of which have less than the requisite 5 votes needed to traditionally call a consensus and close them. I was thinking, is there any reason not to close a vote off after some arbitrary length of time that is agreed upon by the community? Example: After 6 months. In my proposal to add a termination point for instances like the above where there aren't enough votes to traditionally close off a vote the appropriate closing response should be "No Clear Consensus". This would be the most appropriate reason to close the vote because lacking the requisite 5 votes precedent and policy dictates, it's inappropriate in my opinion to close the vote as either "Pass" or "Fail". This suggestion would apply to more than just FA/FI votes, but is a proposal for any instance where a discussion has died off and voting has stalled.

In the case of a discussion like a Deletion Review, of which we have one about to celebrate its two year anniversary in the DR process, the appropriate action would be to default to "Keep" lacking the consensus to delete content from the UESP.

In the case of major votes proposed on the Administrator's Noticeboard or Community Portal, those would have to come down to an administrator's best judgement on what the most appropriate action would be that maintains the status quo coming from the lack of consensus.

Thoughts? -Damon talkedits 01:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem leaving the FA and FI nominations open as long as needed to get the requisite 5 votes. They are not serious nominations and we do eventually reach a consensus on most of them. The reason many languish at the nomination stage is probably due to inactivity or lack of interest rather than any flaw with the system.
For that deletion review you mentioned, it looks like it was archived without ever actually being closed. I've closed it now, and I agree that "Keep" seems to be the consensus. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the Creation Club canon?[edit]

At the moment, UESP considers the content of the Creation Club to be a canon based on the words Cartogriffi. I asked the official Russian community manager and she told me that the Creativity Club is not a canon. Recently, on the official Russian channel of Bethesda, a video was released in honor of the new edition, which says that the Creation Club should be treated like ordinary mods. I clarified whether this text was officially approved, or whether it was an initiative of the Russian department, to which I was answered that the video was officially approved. I brought the words of Cartogriffi to the Russian community manager, to which I again received an answer about the non-canonical nature of the Creation Club. Since no one from the chapter of Bethesda told us how it should be about the content of the Creation Club, can these arguments be used to question the canonicity of the Creation Club? OktaviySchalidol (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be an internal miscommunication here. Bethesda's official corporate line is that Creation Club are official releases, and for our purposes (namely lorespace guidelines) that's good enough to warrant documentation and inclusion on lore articles. Personally I would not put much weight behind this definition of TES canon coming from a Russian language community manager, given that the game developers have generally shied away from such concepts. We can make a note of the Russian video somewhere on the wiki maybe, but to me this is not grounds to call Creation Club into question on every page it's mentioned. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ESO Furnishings Bot Job[edit]

At long last, I'm about to run a bot job that will move all the ESO {{Online Furnishing Summary}} data off the file pages and create individual pages for each, just like everything else on the wiki works. This will create disruptions to some of the furnishing-related lists and templates for the next little while, as there will be at least two separate bot runs and adjustments will be needed to several templates as well. I'll aim to do as much of the work as possible tonight, while the bot runs, but there will likely be cases where we've missed things or where I just can't get as much done as I'd like. Templaters, feel free to do whatever needs to be done if I'm not around, as this job may not be done before I go offline tonight.

Also, we're aware that the new item pages aren't quite what we'll want in their final form. Namely, even the body content is part of a single, monolithic template right now. But getting everything ported from the file pages to Online space is a requisite first step. We can discuss what needs changed once the basic structure is in place. Robin Hood(talk) 04:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board with this. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, the bot job appears to be done and all the templates should be done. Thanks to Erorah for helping with that part! I'm taking the rest of the night off, but I'll be around for a couple of hours if there are any urgent problems. For anything that can wait, I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Robin Hood(talk) 06:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Category and File Naming[edit]

It seems like we have two standards on the wiki right now. In Category space, we regularly start the names with the full namespace name (e.g., Category:Online-High Elf). In File space, however, we regularly use the short version of the namespace (e.g., File:ON-skill-Pounce.jpg). Within each space, this name seems to be very consistent, but it makes things very confusing for people unfamiliar with the conventions. While I don't propose any mass renaming projects any time in the near future, I think we should make some kind of guideline that covers both and start to use that.

While it's ever so marginally easier for newbies to figure out the long form, I don't think that's justification enough to use that. I'd suggest that we use the short form in both spaces, converting Category over to the short form as opportunities present themselves (like the ESO furnishing update currently underway). Does anyone else have any thoughts about this?

(Note: I could swear we've had a post about within the last year or two, but if we have I can't find it. I think it may have come up in the context of some other project rather than being brought up directly as its own thing. If anyone remembers/finds anything about this topic, please link it!) Robin Hood(talk) 19:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see an issue. Category Names, generally, appear in fewer locations, thus the longer name doesn't really matter. The File names use the shortened version because depending on the namespace, this name could be very very long. Imagine an image "File:Skyrim Very Special Edition-misc-whatever.jpg" compared to "File:VSE-misc-whatever.jpg". In addition, this generally hasn't been confusing for newer users who really fall into two groups: Those that see the existing naming scheme and name their images accordingly, and those that don't understand it at all and omit the beginning part entirely. Changing to have images use the longer name wouldn't help that group of new users who don't understand any part of the system, so it really just creates more confusion for those newer users who already use the existing system.
In terms of categories, new users don't make them. It really just doesn't happen. So only established users are created the categories and they understand the system and there doesn't seem to be a problem....
TLDR: We already HAVE guidelines that we follow. Categories use the full name, images use the shortened name. I see zero benefit from changing this and significant downside in tying up time and resources for something with zero benefit (plus the downside of confusing those users who DO understand the system and use it). Jeancey (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Rebuttal to one of your points: I'm an established user and until looking into it when writing the above message, even I didn't know that each space was self-consistent. Or, if I had known that at one point, I didn't remember it. I thought it was generally a mishmash. I know of at least one other user who was confused by it, since we've talked about it recently. That was actually what got me thinking of the fact that we're being inconsistent. Robin Hood(talk) 19:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know, we are 100% consistent between these two points. There shouldn't be any categories that use shortened names, and there shouldn't be ANY images that have, like, Online-misc-whatever instead of ON-misc-whatever. If any of those exist, they should be fixed, or there may have been a specific discussion to allow it (Off the top of my head, I can imagine such a discussion for the Very Special Edition if there are any categories for that). Jeancey (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I spotted a couple of instances of File:long namespace in a quick check, like File:Morrowind-Map-Issue.jpg, but the ones I spotted were all one-offs like that—none of them are part of any templates or anything else notable. I still think it's really bizarre that we use one naming convention in one namespace and a different one in a different namespace, but I suppose you have a point about it being a lot of effort for little gain beyond the consistency of it. Robin Hood(talk) 03:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

I received the following note on my talk page a while ago concerning a {{Needs Image}} tag I added to an article back in the summer:

== Image for Oblivion traps page is available on Discord ==

Hello!

You added the "needs image" tag to the "Broken Grate" entry on the Oblivion traps page, back in August 2021, after I created the entry for that trap.

There are a couple of images for that trap available on the Discord.  Probably only one of them needs to be added to the wiki; I just took two screenshots so there would be a choice.  I'm not sure if you are on the Discord, but if you are, https://discord.com/channels/261544750044282883/666710678492413982/903887768038539304 should take you to the post with the screenshots.  If you're not on the Discord, one of the other "name" wiki editors should be able to access that link.

I am dedicated to editing from an IP, so I won't be able to upload the images to the wiki myself.

Thanks!

73.3.58.200 09:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not currently on Discord and have very limited time at the moment to dedicate to editing the wiki due to other projects. If one of the other kind editors here has a chance to take a look at this and add the appropriate image to the article in question it would be very much appreciated. Thanks! — Wolfborn(Howl) 06:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have uploaded one of the images and added it to the article. For any future image requests, I would strongly advise this user to create a wiki account for upload permissions. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Achievement pages[edit]

So on the Veteran Dungeon Achievements page, in the survivor challenges, I notice that all of those pages serve as redirects to the main dungeon pages. I also notice that other dungeons, mostly the more-recent DLC dungeons do not serve as redirects. Similar pages, like the Assassin achievements, are not redirects. What exactly is the standard here? Redirects or no? Oath2order (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

News Page[edit]

for the moment, the ability to add proposed news to the News page is limited to administrators due to changes in MediaWiki 1.28 breaking our ability to protect specific sections of a page. It's possible we might be able to reimplement that feature, but realistically, we've hardly ever used it and I think most of our newer patrollers (and possibly admins) don't even know it exists.

Since we obviously won't want to leave Proposed News totally locked in the long term, I think that the easiest work around is to have Proposed News be a separate page which is editable by everyone. If we do that, then it makes sense to me to remove the "Proposed News" section from the page and put a link to the new page in a banner at the top...something to the effect of "To propose a new news article, add it to this page." I almost never edit or add to the news page, though, so I don't want to implement that without feedback from those who do use it. How does that sound to the news editors? Robin Hood(talk) 23:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and made the changes. If there's anything that needs changed, let an admin know. Robin Hood(talk) 07:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

() Coming back to this, AKB and I were just chatting about this. The current page doesn't show the "Proposed News" as a section anymore. Is that desirable? Or should we reinstate the section to be more like it used to be. It didn't occur to me at the time, but I believe that should still be possible. I think this is mostly down to AKB and Legoless, since I'm told that they're the ones mostly adding proposed news, but since we had an ongoing topic on it, I thought I'd ask here. Robin Hood(talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

While reinstating the section as it was would be nice if possible, having a dedicated section explaining where to go is a decent solution for now, to allow for the possibility that other users may get interested in writing news in the future. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The one slight difference would be that the section itself wouldn't be editable...you'd still have to click over to the unprotected page in order to propose news. Robin Hood(talk) 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I archived 2021 and/or bumped it to past news. I also made some formatting changes and re-added the Proposed News section. Let me know if there's anything wrong with any of it. Robin Hood(talk) 17:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Revocation of featured status for Skyrim:Thonar Silver-Blood[edit]

I believe that this article should have its featured status revoked as I don't believe it matches our standards of quality, little to anything on this page has to do with the NPC directly, and it reads more like a quest page or a lore page than a gamespace NPC page. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dcsg (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Deserves to be looked over and improved. -Zebendal (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe revoked temporarily if anything; if the page's dialogue is reformatted to a proper standard instead of the absolute jumbled mess it is right now it could remain a good article. A cleanup tag is needed. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with reworking the article to meet current site standards, but I don't see any need to revoke FA status. The article is still a high-quality Skyrim NPC article, and the inclusion of unrelated dialogue on the page is a carry-over from the 'Rumors' inclusion criteria for OBNPCRP. I'm not aware of any formal consensus to remove this info from Skyrim pages, so I certainly don't think it's grounds to strip FA status —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Morrowind maps for bodies of water[edit]

I have restored four old Bloodmoon map images that were proposed for deletion in 2011 (1, 2, 3, 4). The reason for their deletion at the time was due to the low quality of the maps and their redundancy due to our interactive map. However, this is inconsistent with our approach in the Morrowind namespace, where the same map images are still displayed to this day (see e.g. Morrowind:Nabia River). I think we need a consistent approach on this. Do we want these "overview" maps on individual pages for MW and BM bodies of water, or should they all be deleted? Personally I think it's useful to have a bird's eye view of these rivers without having to open the interactive map. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The interactive map is not mobile friendly and often cumbersome to use (especially pan and zoom), so I'll always support standard images of maps. I don't see them as redundant. --Jimeee (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Concur with Jimeee The Rim of the Sky (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Concur as well. — Wolfborn(Howl) 04:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

() Okay, I've restored the maps to their respective BM pages. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous[edit]

Its unclear whether the wiki follows the NAMB, a lot of older pages do but some newer pages are trying to. I don't see the need to follow this policy; while it makes sense for Wikipedia, which has about 20 articles under any given identical word, this wiki only tends to have around 2 to 3 bracketed pages at most. It would be a lot more convenient for readers to see "For the zone, see High Isle" on Online:High Isle (Chapter), otherwise they have to take the extra steps of figuring out exactly which page they're looking at and then manually search it up. I see no need to inconvenience readers over standardizing a superfluous policy copied from a much bigger wiki that functions differently. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the older ones do because I follow it and tried to make sure that they follow the wikipedia policy. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't. There could easily be some terms that are used a bunch, and it wouldn't make sense to follow it sometimes and not others. I don't support changing our stance on this, overall. If a specific page needs it, then a discussion on that page specifically can happen. Jeancey (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Dead-End Redirects[edit]

Just thought I'd throw a heads-up out there: Taking a look at the Double Redirects page I noticed a number of redirects which currently point to themselves, thus leading nowhere. I'm not familiar enough with the Online namespace to know where these redirects are supposed to be pointing; could someone who's familiar with these point them in the right direction so users who click on the links don't end up in limbo? Thanks. — Wolfborn(Howl) 01:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Those were all the result of a bot job run yesterday. The bot was expecting full-fledged pages at each one of those, but I never considered the possibility that they could be redirects instead. Since it found what it thought was a legitimate article, it updated the link to point to the new location...which ended up being itself. The only thing that needed to be done for those was to undo the bot's edit, which I've done. Thanks for mentioning it! Robin Hood(talk) 01:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Lore Links and Future Links[edit]

AKB and I were DMing earlier and he brought up a question of what, exactly, {{Future Link}} was to be used for as compares to {{Lore Link}}. It seems there's a lot of confusion about this, to the point that we feel it might need a new mini-project involving a few bot jobs.

First, to (hopefully) reduce the confusion, I've expanded the existing documentation and hopefully clarified it a bit. You can see that on its own here and it's also shown in the docs for both Lore Link and Future Link. If there's anything unclear, or you'd like more concrete examples, please feel free to edit it or make suggestions on how it could be improved. Besides that, we're proposing doing a couple of things:

Future Link

  • Run a bot job for any that correctly resolve to an existing page and convert them to hard links. That's always been the plan—I just hadn't gotten around to it.
  • In Lore space only, convert all Future Links to hard links. Using Future Link in Lore space is telling the wiki to search two or three times for the exact same page and if it fails, to display text, which subverts the entire purpose of having Wanted Pages. That's not only silly, it's mildly detrimental to the wiki.
  • Consider deleting Future Link altogether. This was brought up, but it was pointed out that ESO makes good use of that template when the designers seem to be teasing future mods. This can happen years in advance, so it makes sense to use a Future Link there in the likelihood that it will change to an actual link if an article is later created.
  • Possibly remove the fallback to Lore space altogether and just have it link to the current/parent namespace or show plain text. While this still bypasses the Wanted Pages feature, if properly used, that could be considered a good thing, much as in the ESO scenario, above, where a page is reasonably expected to be created in the future.
  • Another suggestion was to convert Future Links below a certain use count into hard (mostly red) links. This will make typos and such stand out, while one-off links to pages that are unlikely to ever be created will also become red links.

Lore Link
Lore Link has been widely misunderstood for years and many people think it's just the normal way to link to a Lore page, which is almost the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be used for. In 99% of cases, maybe even 100%, you should never use Lore Link outside of Lore space itself. The idea with Lore Link is that on pages that are transcluded from Lore space into other spaces (like books), you will be taken to the most relevant page—the one in the current namespace. For the most part (about 3/4 of the time) this has been used correctly, but that still leaves some 20,000 uses spanning 5,000 pages where using it is probably incorrect. We've come up with a couple of ideas to fix that:

  • Create a banner, much as is done with other projects, and add it to all the pages in gamespace (thus excluding templates and sandboxes). Like other project banners, it could be removed once Lore Links were fixed or confirmed as correct.
  • To discourage future "convenience" uses outside Lore space, rename the template to something longer, like {{Lore Transclusion Link}}, to make people more reluctant to type it.
  • Alternatively, or in conjunction with the above, we could take it a step further and have a standard Lore Link display an error if it's used outside of Lore space. Users could then override it to normal behaviour by confirming that the non-Lore usage was intentional. Maybe |confirmed=1.

Any thoughts on any of this? Robin Hood(talk) 02:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, one other option that I'd thought of for both templates is that instead of falling back to text as the last resort, they would fall back to red links (Future link in the current space, Lore Link in Lore space), thus highlighting pages that need to be created. Robin Hood(talk) 02:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't the whole purpose of Future Link to *not* create a redlink? -- SarthesArai Talk 23:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
It is, and I think that's still something it can be used for (like with future ESO mods), but it has the unfortunate side-effect of masking typos and slowing down page loads where there are a lot of Future/Lore links that are highly unlikely to ever resolve to anything. Future Links can make sense to hide red links, even in Lore space, if the links they're suppressing are for things that are almost certain to be created in the future...but masking the fact that a page is wanted makes it less likely that that will actually occur.
For now, I've modified both templates so that they can be made to show red links by setting a #local at the top of the page, but their default behaviour hasn't changed. I think, this way, it can help us to track down mistakes and such. I'll be documenting that on both pages shortly. Robin Hood(talk) 05:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
While all of these good options are working solutions for Future Link, my preferred solution would be deleting it after converting any successful usage to a hard link (and after a review of all the failed resolve attempts has happened). While reviewing its usage, it seemed like for every time it was useful, it was used in a detrimental manner 1,000 times. Whatever the intention behind it, it seems some editors decided to use it effectively as "Lore Link except everywhere". So they would attempt to use it in the Skyrim namespace to link to an article called "Nords", and they don't notice the error since it resolves that with plain text. I think just accepting there might be red links on article every now and then is a better way of going about things than this method, which may have stopped people from making needed pages.
I'm in favor of all of the options to help stop the misuse of Lore Link. Correcting the incorrect usages will be a lengthy process, but those steps will hopefully stop more incorrect usage from happening. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Future Links should be replaced with local redlinks, Lore Links should be fixed up (again) such that they are only used in books (which should be the only pages that are transcluded from Lorespace at all these days). --Enodoc (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

MetaTemplate Viewer[edit]

For those of you who do a lot of template work, or those who like to know how things work behind the scenes, I created a gadget yesterday that will allow you to see all the MetaTemplate variables saved on any given page. Those are the ones that templates #save and #load, along with those that you can use with #listsaved. To enable it, just go into the Gadgets section of your preferences and it's currently the last one in the Interface Gadgest section. As the description suggests, the gadget will put a link in the tools section of your sidebar that will take you to the list of MetaTemplate variables saved on that page, if any. Enjoy!

There is one minor flaw in the tool in that, sometimes, you can't page forward from where you are now. That's a limit of the MediaWiki design for special pages. To work around it, increase the number of values returned. In most cases, that should work. Robin Hood(talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Riven[edit]

As many of you already know, I've been working in upgrades and replacements for some of our oldest custom wiki code. The first of these, Riven, is now live on our wiki. It replaces, and in many cases adds features to, the old MetaTemplate versions of the following: {{#arg}}, {{#explodeargs}}, {{#ifexistx}}, {{#include}}, {{#pickfrom}}, {{#rand}}, {{#skin}} (now called {{SKINNAME}}), {{#splitargs}}, {{#trimlinks}}, <cleanspace>, and <cleantable>. It also adds one new feature, {{#findfirst}}, which will replace most of the code in {{Future Link}} and {{Lore Link}}.

Most of these are not mission critical, but between them, they're probably found on most pages of the wiki in some form or another. So, if you notice anything that seems different or just plain broken, please let me know so that I can investigate. If you're curious to know what the new features are or how they work, see the documentation or ask me for clarification. Also, please feel free to edit the documentation as needed. I make no pretense of being good with layout. Robin Hood(talk) 00:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I ran into a couple of relatively minor bugs, but one of them was crashing the wiki when loading certain pages, so I disabled Riven until I could track down the problem. I've finally found and fixed the bug that was causing the problem, but I'll leave Riven disabled for now, as I'll be out of the house until late-afternoon (Eastern) tomorrow. It's still running on both dev and content3 if anyone wants to check it out. Just be sure not to make any changes to pages/templates based on the new features except in sandboxes. Thanks! Robin Hood(talk) 03:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)