UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 32

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Dawnguard - New namespace?

It may be a bit early to have this discussion, but it sounds like Dawnguard might be a major enough expansion to warrant its own namespace, along with the letter-code for images. "DG-" isn't taken and seems like the obvious choice. The question is still open whether this is large enough to warrant such actions, or if we're just looking another KotN-sized upgrade. Anyhow, I'm sure we'll expand on this when we know a bit more, but I figured I'd just get the ball rolling here. --TheRealLurlock Talk 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's too early to discuss this. elliot (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's also DLC, and not described as an expansion. It might be major, but hey, it's Skyrim--the more hype they make, the better. Vely►Talk►Email 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The Snow Prince lived on Solstheim, which suggests it might be large enough to be an expansion (guess work obviously). But too early just yet for reasonable debate on details. The Silencer has spokenTalk 02:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As we have almost nothing to go on, I would say it would be too early to decide if it needs its own namespace. It might be clearer in a month, once it's revealed at E3. However, I do agree that "DG" would be the best and most obvious choice if Dawnguard is large enough to require its own namespace. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, am i to assume that its late enough now? Interviews with Todd Howard has brought up a massive amount of content, with a 10-20 hour storyline, is that, i daresay, big enough to warrent a namespace? Vos 05:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we've decided that we're going to wait for Dawnguard to be released before we really decide if it's big enough to warrant a new namespace. There really isn't any other way of knowing whether it needs it's own namespace, to be honest. • JATalk 05:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Darn, I hate all this waiting. Ah, but i guess it means the wiki is sound, without falling prey to conjecture and false assumptions, its the price of perfection. Vos 05:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

() Time to kick this subject again. There are enough reliable sources saying that Dawnguard is approx 15 hours long, whether this is enough for a new section I leave to the more knowledgable. The Silencer has spokenTalk 17:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should make a new namespace. A lot of the content seems to be about expanding Skyrim, unlike in the previous games' expansion packs which focused solely on creating new areas. It would be easier to just integrate the new content (perk trees etc.) than to create a whole new namespace. --Legoless 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree a bit with you there Legoless, screenshots from the soul cairn show a massive new piece of land, plus, even if we did intergrate it, we would need to make it very clear what info is and isnt from Dawnguard, I say using a namespace and using the "DG" to navigate would make the whole thing much simpler. New info also puts its size between KotN and shivering isles, at least the size of one of Morrowind's expansions. Vos 05:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Since everyone is disagreeing, I have another idea, although it will probably be unpopular. We could just wait until Neph and her team of hackers get all the game data opened up, and then we see what we have and what's worth doing. Easiest way to determine whether it deserves its own space, although I'll admit it will probably be a lot of trouble up front since we would have anons making pages trying to fill content anyways. Unless we were to put a lock down on page creations. That's the only idea I have. Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 05:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
My question is this however, what are we comparing its size to, in order for it to 'achieve' its own namespace? is there some sort of specification, or is it just put down to some sort of vote? Vos 05:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As has been the case between the expansions and plugins of the past, I would consider an "expansion" to include new regions where the plot is centered around. But, if it were to just be a couple new buildings, a new faction, and a few pairs of armor like Knights of the Nine, I would look at it like a plugin, unless BethSoft specifically said it was an expansion, rather than a plugin. Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 06:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Under that mindset, Dawnguard is indeed an expansion, and not just another plug-in. Though as there still is disputes about this, and if a decision cannot be come to, then I would probably go with your suggestion Eric, as much as it irks me to say. Vos 06:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Eric Snowmane, I don't think that waiting is a very good idea. Remember that the DLC will be Xbox 360-exclusive for one month, and then the beta is available for only Xbox 360 users even earlier. We can't wait that long to start adding Dawnguard content, or we'll fall behind other wikis. • JATalk 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So whats the plan then chaps? Vos 20:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

() I guess we just start winging it? The best course of action for anything :D Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simply because the DLC includes a new world space doesn't mean it deserves its own namespace. What about that new NPC in the Ratways? Do we want to separate him completely from his surroundings, even though he has nothing to do with the DLC's main quest? No, I think we should use the {{Mod Header}} template like usual to distinguish the added content from the vanilla game. --Legoless 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not fully accurate but Todd Howard in an interview today said "You're still going to be exploring the land mass that came with the game, and then, but there are at least two very large new areas. The Soul Cairn is one of them." I bolded the important part. The Silencer has spokenTalk 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Lego, it just doesn't seem big enough to warrant a namespace, I don't believe it will be anywhere like Shivering Isles. I can't imagine much is actually added into the game, sure a few place pages want creating as well as some quests. But it still seems small scale when compared to SI, or either of the MW expansions. --kiz talkemail 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I vote for keeping it in the SR namespace now and changing it once the beta's out if necessary. Vely►Talk►Email 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I say that in comparing it to other namespaced expansions in size, you can't accurately do that. Morrowind, Oblivion and even Fallout 3 had different defintions of size and content for their expansions. Dawnguard in itself seems to be adding quite a heck-load of new stuff, be it zones, animations, locations or whatever, but for all we know, it may be the biggest expansion they release. So i swing my 'vote' in favour of a Namespace to accurately document the huge amount of new content, if that means something. Vos 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So, has a decision been reached yet? or is this a wait-and-see situation? Vos 21:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

() After looking into it, I am of the opinion that we can include it in the Skyrim space, so that will be my vote. Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 00:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break: Dawnguard

I'm surprised that this discussion hasn't been revisited since Dawnguard was released (the only truly relevant time to discuss this). I've played about halfway through Dawnguard myself, and I'm of the opinion that it still does not need a new namespace. This add-on is bigger than Knights of the Nine, but definitely smaller than Shivering Isles (and from what I've heard, smaller than Tribunal and Bloodmoon). According to the category Category:Skyrim-Dawnguard-Items, there are approximately one hundred and fifty new items that are added, plus approximately thirty new enemies, and these all are much better being integrated into our existing pages. • JATalk 15:21, July 2, 2012

All I have to go on is the categorys, as I have neither Dawnguard or Tribunal. From what I can see, considering that new pages are still needed, I estimate that Dawnguard will eventually have forced more new pages than Tribunal. I think that Dawnguard is big enough that it needs its own namespace. The Silencer speaksTalk 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jak. There's a lot of new content, but it's better off integrated into the Skyrim namespace. For example, the DLC changes a few aspects of leveled lists and vampires - how would these be covered in a new namespace? It would be far less clunky to list them beside their vanilla equivalents. —Legoless 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, thanks to Nephele's work with NepheleBot, most of the pages that need to be created already have been. If you look at Skyrim-Dawnguard, there are a total of 403 new Dawnguard pages (this includes items, NPCs, factions, etc.)
As more of a general observation, Shivering Isles deserved it's own namespace because it had both a huge new landscape as well items that were completely independent of the main world items, including Amber and Madness Ore armor just to name a few. The locations and items that the add-on Dawnguard adds are just that, add-ons. With the exception of the Soul Cairn, all new locations are just integrated into the mainland. Castle Volkihar is due north of Northwatch Keep and due west of Solitude, but it's still easily within the bounds of the world. Castle Dawnguard is the same. Places like Dimhollow Cavern, Forebears' Holdout, and Redwater Den are all on the mainland. The two new dragon types, Revered and Legendary, are integrated into the existing leveled list for dragons. Dragonbone weapons are also integrated into the existing lists. Fletching is hardly a standalone skill - it's integrated into the existing Smithing options. Just about everything that's added with Dawnguard is added into the vanilla game, similar to Knights of the Nine, rather than acting as a standalone expansion, like Shivering Isles. If I may be so candid, there's a reason that the 1.6 update changed it from "Loading Downloadable Content" to "Loading Add-Ons". • JATalk 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Jak's done a great job of detailing many reasons why Dawnguard should remain part of the Skyrim namespace. Most of the newly added content doesn't need individual pages, and fits into already existing Skyrim pages quite well. The mod header and {{DG}} template do nice, simple jobs of highlighting the fact that the new content is from Dawnguard. I support leaving Dawnguard info within the Skyrim namespace rather than creating its own. ABCface 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Jak. In fact, integration is a far more important factor than size IMHO since users are going to expect integrated content to be equally integrated on the wiki. Shivering Isles is completely divorced from the main content so a separate namespace made sense. With it installed, you could leave prison at level one and head straight into a different world without ever needing to look back or, never go through the door and have nothing changed except a floating island in Niben Bay. With Nights of the Nine or Dawnguard some of the content, like a prophet in Anvil or an orc inviting you to join the Dawnguard, will happen anyway. New places can be encountered while exploring, like the Priory of the Nine, Fort Dawnguard, or the ruins added by either of these DLCs. While new game spaces are useful tools in determining the integration level of the content they cannot be the only measure of what is or is not worthy of a new namespace. Coronus 03:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Sneaky Spammers

This was brought up just a day ago on a usertalk page, and since I've seen at least a half-dozen cases similar to this in the last couple weeks, I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up here. There have been a number of sneaky spammers lately who create an account with no contributions except their userpage. Their userpage says something quite innocent and endearing, such as:

"What I need to I say about me , perfectly .. I like this topic so considerably and I
actually like to speak and examine about every thing . If you have everything to request me make sure
you do it I will be additional than content to remedy you !"

or

"I am happy to b e part of this site. I am a new member and hope I can help tho I am new."

Then, there's a new line, saying

"This is one my side hobby- [EXTERNAL LINK TO UNRELATED SPAM SITE]"

or

"Here is my weblog ; [EXTERNAL LINK TO UNRELATED SPAM SITE]"

The top paragraph seems innocent enough, and given our policy to assume good faith, it's a rather sneaky and effective way of making editors unsure of how to deal with it. But, given the fact that it's a pattern that's occurred several times already (just that I've seen, perhaps more) and the "users" in question never have any other contributions, I think it's rather obvious it's a new form of spam. I just wanted to make the community aware of this, since it is probably only going to happen more in the future (I just {{speed}}ed one right before making this post).

Obviously, we want to be very careful not to accuse someone of spam if it's legitimate. I think the best thing to keep in mind with this is looking at their contributions, and what the URL of the link they post is. If it's something with "freeiphone" or "louievuitton" in it, it'll be obvious enough, but generally other common spammy-type links as well. ABCface 13:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Template help - adding mod fields

I want to add a "mod=" parameter to the Place Summary template. It's mainly for the Tamriel Rebuilt work I'm doing right now, but it could apply to official mods as well. I've already done so for the Morrowind Town Table template, but that was much simpler since it doesn't cross namespaces. It also already exists for NPC Summary and Creature Summary. It might also make sense to add it to other templates like Quest Header, Faction Summary and Artifact Summary. Might be a few more, can't think of them off-hand. My template skills are a bit out-dated (I'm still trying to figure out what "cleanspace" is all about, that didn't exist a few years ago), so if anyone can help, it'd be appreciated. --TheRealLurlock Talk 13:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanspace is a really handy add-on Nephele designed that lets you format portions of your template code without having to worry about the whitespace appearing in the output. You can read more about it (and a bunch of other features) here. I'll go ahead and add the parameter to Place Summary for now; if we want to do the others, we can work on those at need...no point adding something unless we intend to use it (though I'm more than willing to add it to all, if you're sure we'll use it). Robin Hoodtalk 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that turned out to be a simple addition. Let me know if you spot any problems, since (as you noted) the template changes from one space to another, so it's difficult to test it across the board. Robin Hoodtalk 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice work, I was going to ask about this for the Dawnguard places, as the NPC's have it but I guess this will work for that aswell? Also unrelated but something strange happened to the TOC on this page after the discussion on headers... — Kimi the Elf (talk | contribs) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the mod parameter should work for all places. I've also just fixed the TOC at the expense of altering the formatting of the header discussion. It could've been made to look as it used to without altering the TOC, but that would probably have taken about 10+ minutes of formatting work, so I figured Pre tags were the way to go. Robin Hoodtalk 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, seems to work so far. I probably will have a use for this on the Quest and Faction templates at least. Artifacts I don't know about, at least as far as Tamriel Rebuilt is concerned, though I could still see it being used for artifacts added by official mods. (e.g. Auriel's Bow apparently made a comeback in Dawnguard, and Mehrunes' Razor in Oblivion, etc.) As for cleanspace, I guess that explains why I can't find any documentation on the internet, since it was Nephele who designed it... --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, added to both {{Quest Header}} and {{Faction Summary}}. Robin Hoodtalk 03:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandboxers Unite! (new template)

For those of you keeping a sandbox or two full of links to pages they're working on, I threw together this handy little template - you'd be amazed how much time it saves not having to load and view a page before immediately editing it. It could use some improvement - namely I'd like some way for it to automatically change all spaces in the link into '_'s for the edit URL so you can type it just like a normal link rather than being forced to use '_'s. But it works pretty well other than that. If anyone wants to use/edit it, well, here you go: Edit Link (edit) --TheRealLurlock Talk 03:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it - now it'll automatically replace spaces with '_'s, like so: {{Edit Link|Template:Edit Link}} Template:Edit Link (edit) • JATalk 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice! I knew there had to be a way to do that. Only other improvement I can think of would be to maybe get rid of that external-link icon that appears on the edit link, which I think is possible though I forget how. I thought about also having it auto-detect namespaces, but decided against it as I'd say the primary uses of this template will be for pages in other namespaces than that in which it's used. (e.g., I'm using it for Tamriel Rebuilt pages in Tes3Mod space, but the links are all on my sandbox in User space, which is pretty much the only way I'd see people using this.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 04:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Better? Robin Hoodtalk 06:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Much! Thanks. --TheRealLurlock Talk 11:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

2MB Limit

I've never seen a discussion on this before, but why do we have a 2MB file limit for the wiki? Is there any way to circumvent it? User abg asked about it on the forums and is attempting to upload the third Daggerfall demo to the site. The other two demos are hosted on the old site and are over the 2MB limit, as are many other files linked to from Daggerfall:Files. (It would probably be beneficial to migrate these to the wiki.) I don't think the reasoning behind uploading this demo can be brought into question - but is there any way to do it? —Legoless 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Two MB is the default limit. Nephele or Dave can change it at will (see Set maximum size for file uploads). Robin Hoodtalk 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Easter Egg notes in articles

I know I've seen this discussed somewhere else before (I think I may have brought it up), but I would like to revisit it here where everyone can easily see it.

Occasionally, someone will add a note to an article referencing an approved easter egg related to that article. It often gets reverted, even though some articles have contained these notes for quite a while. I would like to see each easter egg noted in its respective article, maybe just in the form of "This name/place/quest is an Easter Egg", with the link pointing to the appropriate section of the page. It would standardize this for all of the eggs, preventing poorly-worded edits, and provide a point of interest for users of the site. I know I would LOVE to have this, as I often check the article before entering a dungeon for the first time. Thoughts? --XyzzyTalk 18:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's something that I would also like. I think there are a number of Morrowind articles that have this, actually. I've seen this done on some wikis and it looks like it works fine. Vely►t►e 18:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It's much more likely that you'll notice an easter egg note on the relevant page than you will on the Easter Eggs page. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't normally review that page for interesting tidbits, whereas I certainly do review the pages of quests I'm doing or people I'm interacting with on a regular basis. Robin Hoodtalk 19:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
With all the times that editors have tried adding such things to articles, I think it's pretty clear that a lot of users would support this. I think having such information on the individual pages would be relevant and convenient for users who don't know the Easter Eggs page exists. ABCface 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am against any inclusion of Easter Eggs, approved or not approved on each individual article, because I am concerned that the Easter Egg pages and nomination process (for lack of a better term) would be circumvented on the logic "well, one is there, let's add another", which may result in every stupid thing anybody finds being marked as "This may be an Easter Egg referencing whatever" on each individual article. I only see a mess in the making, and unless someone has a convincing idea to solve that and can change my mind. Snowmane(talkemail) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We could prevent any Eggs from being placed on articles if they are not already on the Easter Eggs page. Vely►t►e 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

() I kind of assumed that Vely's idea was what we were going for here. Only the approved Easter Eggs from that page would be placed on articles, and the same rules would continue to apply on the Easter Eggs page itself. If this is the way we did it, I would support allowing Easter Eggs on articles. Otherwise, I have my reservations. ABCface 02:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ABCface - as long as we only include Easter Eggs already present on the Easter Egg page, then I think it's a great idea. If we are changing this policy, though, shouldn't we do the same for Elder Scrolls Historical References? They are essentially the same thing, except that they are references to past games instead of the real world. • JAT 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For consistency's sake, someone would have to go back through all the Easter Egg pages for each game to add all those in where they aren't already there. I imagine we wouldn't be doing this just on Skyrim. I have my concerns about this but, if this is the consensus, then have fun guys. With my crap net, I am not going to be here for show though. Snowmane(talkemail) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a way to discourage unapproved eggs being added to other pages would be to only provide a link to the main easter egg article for the approved ones, requiring the user to actually go to that page to see it, along with the bold note about posting proposed ones to the talk page. I know that it won't totally prevent editors from adding their own eggs to other articles, but then again nothing will. As far as historical references, I don't see a problem with that either, considering that many pages already have these as well. --XyzzyTalk 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"This name/place/quest is suspected to be/have/include an Easter Egg". I'd support that. I'd like to avoid definitive statements that something is an easter egg absent confirmation from someone at Bethesda. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The one issue I see with this is that it might lead to people using the articles themselves to circumvent the approval process on the eggs talk page. Especially if we use the wording "suspected to be an easter egg", when the egg approval process is clear about including only things that are beyond a reasonable doubt referring to a specific thing. I have to agree with Eric, this seems like something that will create more problems than it solves. ThuumofReason 14:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

() But we needn't list the Egg on the article page, just provide a link to the Egg page. Any notes actually saying what the Egg is could be removed. Vely►t►e 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Easter Eggs, but I think that for the Historical References we should list those on the actual article, because a reference to a real-life item may be coincidental, but a reference to another game is almost certainly intentional (excluding the most obscure of references, of course). • JAT 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Credibility of the 2920 Series

A trend has developed recently in the lorespace which I find disturbing: some people are treating the details of the 2920 series as fact. We currently have entries for Miramor and Cassyr Whitley as historical persons, for example. In my opinion, this is unacceptable. We might as well have an entry for Decumus Scotti. Though based on historical events and considered "generally well-researched" in the TES universe, the 2920 series is still a work of fiction which teems with creative license. Its details just can't be trusted. I think prudence demands that, absent a corroborating source, we remain vague when the 2920 series is the only support for an assertion, and creating sections for minor, behind-the-scenes characters like these is definitely not remaining vague. "If there's any doubt, there is no doubt" should be our standard for in-game historical fiction.

I've brought this up before elsewhere, but it's more widespread than I initially thought, and I think a community ruling on how far to take the 2920 series would be appropriate. While I admit that it's difficult to know where to draw the line sometimes, I think we can only trust the 2920 with the broad strokes: names of rulers, the occurrence of some battles, the order of major events, and some other things in that vein. Most of that stuff is corroborated by other sources, anyways. Even so, any "broad stroke" which isn't corroborated by some other source should be conditioned carefully so we avoid stating conjecture as fact. What say you? Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the 2920 series was considered a work of historical fiction. How do we determine which in-game publications are considered fictional, and which are authoritative? I'm pretty new to the Lore side of the wiki, so I apologize for my ignorance. I was working under the assumption that pretty much anything that was from an official Zenimax release could be considered more-or-less canon. --XyzzyTalk 05:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other historical fiction in TES currently, though they could add more in the future. There are many non-fiction books with factual errors and conjecture from the in-game author, of course, but none of them purport to elaborate on the truth and present it as fact. Since Fire and Darkness calls 2920 historical fiction, making the distinction here is easy, but it's apparent just from reading the series that the author is claiming creative license. 2920 includes dialogue and other nuances that go far beyond what any "true" historical record could reasonably relate as fact. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 06:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There's definitely other historical fiction out there - the works of Marobar Sul, for example, or the Beggar/Thief/Warrior/King series. Depending on your interpretation, either "Biography of Barenziah" or "The Real Barenziah" must be fiction. Plenty of examples, but it is often hard to distinguish between them. --TheRealLurlock Talk 11:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe King Edward is also historical fiction, according to the writer (who was a tester for Daggerfall I think). I haven't read it in its entirety, but I usually treat the series' characters as fiction and everything else as fact when using it as a source. I don't think there's any question about the 2920 series. —Legoless 14:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I forgot about The Real Barenziah; that has to be historical fiction, even if its general narrative is closer to the truth than Biography of Barenziah. There's a lot of dialogue and clandestine activity. BoB is definitely non-fiction, though; even if some of its information is false, a fiction/non-fiction designation is just a reflection of the author's intent. Not sure about King Edward; I always assumed it was just fiction. But if we can confirm that it is based on real events, we could probably cite to it more than we currently do in the lore section. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always been told to regard the works of Waughin Jarth as historical fiction. As for Barenziah, I've always had the opinion that 'The Real Barenziah' is more accurate than the Biography. It is less clean, and Barenziah does keep Plitinius Mero around in Tribunal. --Ratwar 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Template help again

Okay, I give up. Somewhere between Non-Relevant NPC and NPC Data, I'm trying to get the Faction template to use the altname= parameter so that on Nethril Plantation, you'll see the short name for the faction rather than the full one. So far I've just tried it on one: Salume Nethril. My template skills need some serious updating, because I can't get this to work. Anyone? --TheRealLurlock Talk 11:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I was asking RH about this, I think he is going to look into it, but that looks fine for me now. She is showing up as Indoril (Councilman) instead of Great House Indoril (Councilman) now, however they do not get added to the categories. Also it still doesn't work well with the {{NPC Summary}} template, such as Fara and Mothas Sarem on the Fort Umbermoth page who are showing as Mainland Imperial Legion instead of Imperial Legion. — Kimi the Elf (talk | contribs) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's occurred to me that Salume Nethril is almost certainly a relevant NPC anyhow. (If for no other reason than being a rank 8 in the faction - typically anything 7 and up is probably important.) Anyhow, at least it works now in this case; we'll probably have to modify the NPC Summary template similarly to make it work in all cases. --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh wait - did I fix that? I thought somebody else figured it out, but the last edit on each of the pages in question is mine, so I guess I did. I tried purging all the pages, but it didn't make a difference. I guess it just needed a few hours for the server to catch up or something. (This is why I hate working on templates - sometimes you have no way to tell if you did it right.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I just haven't been very clear-headed lately, so I've been putting off looking at this. Looks like what you've done should work. I'm looking at a somewhat different approach (using the {{Faction}} template like we do in other namespaces), but I'm not sure if it'll work. If it does, I'll need to get the bot to go through and change all the current Morrowind NPCs and switch them all over. I need to do some more investigation when I'm feeling up to it, but I'm glad to hear you've gotten it working in the mean-time. Robin Hoodtalk 23:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, as mentioned in the next section, I've made various updates to all these templates. With those changes, the {{Non-Relevant NPC}} and {{NPC Summary}} templates should both be properly using and saving factions using the standard |faction={{Faction|...}} syntax now. So, if an altname is specified there, it'll show up everywhere. I've removed the additional parameters from Non-Relevant NPC in favour of the standardized syntax, which is what HnB is busy updating. Robin Hoodtalk 04:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Morrowind NPC Factions

Just to let everyone know, I'm making a few minor changes to the {{NPC Data}}, {{Non-Relevant NPC}}, {{NPC Summary}}, and {{Faction}} templates to improve some of the coding and reduce some redundant saving of data on our server. While the changes are minor, a good number of Morrowind NPCs will need to be updated by bot as a result of the changes, and until the bot gets to them, the NPC faction data in Morrowind space may temporarily disappear or be reduced to the name of the faction only, with no link and no rank.

Because of the large amount of work involved, this will probably take the bot a few hours, and may take the server a little while to catch up after that. If there are any notable problems, let's say by 12 hours from now (16:00 UTC), please let me know. Robin Hoodtalk 03:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A change of approach was needed, so it's basically a case of "same stuff, different day". The factions in NPC Data may look odd for a bit until the server catches up. Shouldn't be too long. Robin Hoodtalk 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Effects of Difficulty Level

I was poking around trying to find out what effects adjusting the difficulty level has, and all I could find was a note under Combat. Are these the only things that difficulty level affects (damage dealt/taken and the cost per second of the Equilibrium spell)? Whether it is or not, should this be listed somewhere a bit more prominent? I had a heckuva time finding it. --XyzzyTalk 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Amount of damage increase from leveling weapon skills

Another question that I have recently seen: what is the magnitude increase in base damage inflicted by weapons when increasing skill level? I couldn't find anything on this in the Two-handed, combat, or leveling articles. --XyzzyTalk 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Past and Future Site Developments

Its been a while since I updated everyone on general site things and now is a good time as there are a few important things to bring up. Usually I post this on the admin noticeboard but there are things this time that apply to the UESP community as a whole.

  • Servers and Traffic - Since the Skyrim explosion the servers have been doing well with a steady decline of traffic over the winter and spring from a peak of 8 million page views/day to the summer average of just under 2 million with the usual spikes after the Dawnguard release (though not as large as previous expansion traffic spikes). UESP has 9 servers at the moment with the majority of traffic using 6 of them (one offsite backup, one development, and one stand by). This should be more than enough server capacity for a while although the traffic growth from TES:Online can only be guessed at now. The server lease is also coming up for renewal in February and I'm considering other options. iWeb is a good host but certainly not a great one and there have been a number of support issues from them in the past year that is making me reconsider them.
  • Wiki Upgrade - I never had enough time after the failed upgrade to try again but that is one of the top major priorities in the near future. May-July is always a very busy time for me with work and vacation. Now that my vacation is over (sadly) my available time for working on the site is back to normal, or more so as I try to catch up on everything. There are a number of other things that require the Wiki to be updated first (new extensions for example).
  • Advertising - While some may consider advertising a necessary evil it through this that the site has managed to survive so far. Depending on how the site grows in the next year or two a six figure yearly server cost is not out of the question and I need to make sure that the advertising revenue can keep up with it. I think there is a good balance somewhere in the middle of "no ads" and "intrusive ads" that can be reached to keep the servers running and the users happy. One change that will be likely happen soon is to remove most ads for logged in users and put an ad "above the fold" at the top of the page for anonymous users. It is very difficult, or impossible, to talk to quality ad servers without an ad unit "above the fold" even with the huge number of page views we do. I hope that adding it for only anonymous users is a good enough comprise. I've also moved to the DoubleClick for Publishers platform on Google which won't change anything from your perspective but it will make managing multiple ad contracts and layouts a whole lot easier and it appears to result in faster page loading to boot.
  • Mobile - I had incorrectly assumed that mobile users were but a small portion of our site's audience but looking at the numbers recently and I see that around 30% of page views are from mobile devices lately. We do have "mobile.uesp.net" which is only a quick mobile friendly skin around the wiki but getting a better mobile experience for the overall site is something that has to be looked at more carefully. Currently almost all the mobile visits use the standard wiki site instead of the mobile one.
  • Site Incorporation - Earlier this year I created a company, Emergent Game Design Inc, that now technically owns the site. The purpose of this is primarily for accounting purposes (much lower tax rate on any profits) as well as to insulate the site from me and vice-versa. This doesn't really change how the site is running but if you see "EDG" pop up in places that should explain it.
  • Site Partners/Buyouts -- After TES:Online was announced I received a few offers of partnerships or buy outs. At this time I'm not at all interested in partnering with any other site or selling out. I hope to see many more years of seeing the site grow and improve and, of course, more ES games. Being one of the larger private wikis and ES fan sites means we can pretty much do what we'd like and hopefully lead the pack in ES site content and features.
  • Full Time Job? - As some of you may know, or have guessed, I've had a regular day job for the past 13 years or so that keeps me more than busy. A minimum work week is 50 hours and with travel or projects it can far exceed that. Unfortunately, along with regular life this regularly leaves very little time for me to work on the site, and, heaven forbid, if I ever were to get married and had kids even that time would disappear quickly. At the current income levels the site almost makes enough for me to quit my current job and do the site full time. I'm exploring this option in more detail and will see if it in fact an option. Site revenue and expenses can vary a great deal so before I quit a good job I like I want to make sure it is a viable option and that I can still make my house and car payments each month. Obviously, me being able to do the site full time really opens up a large number of possibilities, such as:
  • Site performance (it is good but can be better)
  • Better game maps (a lot can be done and improved upon)
  • Site contests and prizes
  • TES:Online specific features (may require a different content layout and features than the single player games)
  • Mobile Apps
  • Site Redesign (new improved skin)
  • Social Site Integration (a lot could be done if desired and deemed useful)
  • ES/UESP Fan Convention (assuming Bethesda will let me)
  • Mod directory (think TESNexus/Steam but better)
  • Mod development sponsoring (a lot of great mods being made where a little money can go a long way)
  • Game development (a long time dream of mine to publish a game)
  • Community Feedback - I've always valued feedback from the admins, editors, and users of the site and now is no different despite the scale of some the things. There are a number of large potential changes in the site's direction so let me know what you think about it and any of your ideas as well. Chances are that someone's ideas will be way better than mine any ways. The list of possible things to work on is large and even if I can work on the site full time we'll have to choose priorities.

-- Daveh 12:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of days here and no feedback? And, on a fairly important issue as well? Well, I have been here for a few weeks shy of one year, so I wouldn't consider my feedback the most useful, but here it is. The advertisement in particular is what I am curious about. The inconspicuous advertisements are, among other things, one of the reasons that I like our wiki over the competition. I just find them to be a distraction. If TESWiki had our level of content, I still wouldn't browse the site, because it just appears to be one big advert capitalizing on the popularity of the Wikia. And, even if just for anonymous users, I am not a fan of "top of the fold" advertisements, because big, flashy ads are a pretty big distraction when you want to read. My other, bigger worry is that loads of adverts is going to affect a new visitor's impression of the site. How would an anonymous user know that the ads are only affecting them? If they even need to know, that is.
Ultimately, I would accept whatever you feel you need to do to keep our marvelous wealth of information alive, and as a registered user, I wouldn't even be bothered by your hypothetical arrangement of advertisements, but that was just my initial thought. Would it be viable to just increase the amount of lower space available to advertisements? That way, you can have more ads and income, yet keep them all out of the way? And, I would rather have that and apply to all users, registered and anonymous alike, rather than have our site's first impression be that it is one big advertisement with ads everywhere.
As for the rest of your suggestions for improvements and additions, I am in favor of them. After all the improvements and what not, I think mod directories, social media, contests, and the like would be wonderful. A great way to connect with and interact with our users more. As for making the site your job, if it proves viable, I think that would be a wonderful option. It would be excellent for our users to be able to interact with you more. And, with you always on hand, it would become a lot easier to solve the problems only you or Nephele can fix, and feedback on the condition of the site could easily be given to you to help further improve the site.
I apologize for writing the biggest wall of text I have ever written. I am not usually a verbose person, so this is out of the norm, but I hope it's a reasonable concern. Snowmane(talkemail) 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't had much to say, though I've thought over this for the past few days.
The advertisement at the top seems to be a bit much, though it is less than some sites have. It seems like half the possible advertisements have movement, too, which is even more distracting. At least it doesn't hover over the page (which Wikia seems fond of doing; I can't reasonably access TESWiki through the Steam in-game browser), though it looks really weird on the main page (since the white background is pushed down). It's something to get used to.
The list of things you'd do if you quit your job sounds pretty interesting. The rest of the list of things sounds good to me--I haven't got much of an opinion on them, but keeping the site private sounds like a good idea. Vely►t►e 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been meaning to reply to this for the past few days, but have repeatedly forgotten or I've been too distracted to do so. First off, it's always nice to have an update on how things are going in general. I can't say I'm particularly surprised about most of this, though. I would guess that the reason we didn't see a major activity spike for Dawnguard was due to how the release date was staggered for the other platforms, unlike with Shivering Isles which had the PC and Xbox version release at the same time. Fewer people needed the info at a specific point. As for the change in advertising, I can't say I disagree with it. I believe you're the only person on the site that truly has any kind of understanding of the financial side of running this site, so it's hard to offer a fair opinion. However, I'm a bit doubtful that anyone even noticed the increase in advertisement, as I haven't noticed any other complaints about them besides the regular inappropriate ad issue. However, I may had missed any cases of actual complaints, so if anyone is willing to point them out I think they should be noted.
I think the big thing that will be the real focus of this discussion besides advertising will be the topic of this becoming your full time job. To which I can say little on. As with advertising, if anyone would know if that would be the best decision here it would be you. However, I do wish to point out that I'm definitely am interested with improving our ESO section, which will be quite the task since our previous methods of information extraction will almost surely not be an option. Increasing our ties with the modding community also seems to be a good move, as that is an entire section of the ES fandom we've more or less given the cold shoulder. Regardless of what is done, as long as we remain focused on adding and improving content I'm sure this site will have a bright future. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it can go without saying that you have a very large pool of untapped and rather ignored potential within your site, and that lies with your long lost cousins over at the forums. Yes! The forums! I am happy to report that we are a very busy and chatty little section of the site, and we do have the potential to grow. Actually, the growth we have done on my short time on the forum staff, and my slightly longer time on the forums (albeit not by much), has been rather phenomenal. I have several ideas and plans for how we can not only develop into a better forum but also serve the wiki better and, thus, the whole umbrella of the UESP site, and while we may be forgotten by a majority of wiki editors, I would like to reintroduce us into the spotlight and try to act as a go-between for improving relations and ideas.
However, we do require a little more assistance. For one, we have no active admin, and I am only a partial-site admin, unable to look into some site issues. I do have no qualms taking over more responsibilities in that regard. It will help as I rearrange and strengthen our forum staff, and take some pressure off of you in regards to pestering. We hit the ground running when I was first appointed but we've sort of lingered a bit, and I'd like to know how we can get that positive relationship going again. Forum users are always impressed and elated to see both you and wiki editors and users popping by. In that regard I need some help better understanding how I can reacquaint the wiki with the forums, so that we can serve you better. --Avron the S'wit 02:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Avron the S'wit - we need a much stronger integration of the main site and the forums. I was a member of the site for over four months before I found out that we even had any forums. I suppose we should also integrate the blog as well, but it's nearly deserted (hopefully that will change soon). I propose that we also set up our own IRC server. #uespwiki on ChatSpike (our wiki IRC) is doing pretty well; it hasn't grown or shrunk, since 99% of the conversation is between the regulars, but I believe that that's largely due to lack of exposure. I admit I know little about the forum's IRC, but I personally don't think there needs to be two separate channels.
Concerning the original post, I also support the idea of you working on the website full-time. I've read some of your old notes on what you think could be done with the site, and I agree that you would need to work on the site full-time in order to accomplish even half of those goals. Also, since AKB brought it up, assuming the rest of my life permits I'd also be willing to work on ESO. • JAT 07:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Per comments about IRC, it would be a bit of a stretch to merge them. I frequent them both (and help run the forum one) - and I must say, you would have two very different conversations going on. Half of the time #uespwiki (not #uesp as previously stated) on Chatspike is site-related, and for people not on the wiki can be confusing since we do use a lot of shortened words and bizarre phrases. Whereas #uespforums on Xertion is much more general channel used for socializing and basic chit-chatter (check General Discussion thread on the forums for the idea of it). Mixing them would be a very strange mix. If a mix were to happen (though I suspect just putting both channels on the same network) I would say to move to Xertion - since chatspike has had its problems.
The thought of having you around full-time, does seem a very good idea. Improving site service and features can only increase traffic and thus revenue surely?
On the thought of mobile, this would be something greatly appreciated on my end! But, logging in navigates you to www.uesp.net not mobile.uesp.net - which makes load times *very* long on my phone signal.
Ads, I use Ad Blocker personally - the pop up adds increase load time and get in my way, if it could be fixed to make them less intrusive, i'd let them pop up. I would say, would opening donations up not be a bad idea again - just so that both ads and a donation pot are coming in, i'm sure there are some generous people out there! (I would donate, but I lack the financial standing to do so).
I also think, were it possible, Facebook and Twitter involvement would be a nice feature (we do have a UESP FB group though!) to wriggle in. A twitter feed or something, and a group could serve as free advertising from our point of view too.


And thats my feedback, also me and Elchzard had IRC chat just now, and i'm sort of leaning towards talking about an IRC move from Chatspike to Xertion. They offer bot hosting services for Peregrine, as well as irc.uesp.net being able to point to our channel as well. Elchzard is always there to help in the forum channel - and I believe that it would make sense. But a bit of discussion should probably be re-re-held on the IRC talk page about it - but i'm unsure what to say that hasn't already been discussed there. --kiz talkemail 17:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Google +1 box pushing the sidebar below everything

File:Temp-One-off.jpg

May be just in Firefox, but if you adjust the text zoom in your browser to what I feel is a comfortable reading size (possibly one notch smaller than default, I think), the Google +1 button moves all the way down to below the article, and takes all of the rest of the side-bar (except for the search box) with it. Anyone else seeing this? Can we fix it? --TheRealLurlock Talk 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 14.0.1, and I just tried shrinking my text about five times in a row (from the default), and this doesn't happen to me. ABCface 14:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Good find, although I can't replicate it on Firefox v12 either. What version/OS are you using? The fun of trying to be pixel perfect on the web.... -- Daveh 14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm - doesn't seem to be a problem on my laptop, which has the latest FF. The home machine is an earlier version, so that might be the issue. It's also running XP, rather than 7 like I have on the laptop, so that might have something to do with it. I'm not sure which FF version - I'll check when I get home. --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
My guess would be that it's the 'earlier version' part of it, since I'm running XP and don't have the issue. ABCface 20:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If you zoom in (see image), the Google box is one pixel wider than the others, so that might account for what TRL is seeing. Robin Hoodtalk 21:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

() That's interesting. On a somewhat-related note, I see that in the image you posted, the ellipsis box is to the right of the Search box, rather than underneath. Personally, I prefer the "More..." better than just the ellipsis anyway, but I don't think it would bother me as much if it was next to the search box rather than beneath it. No matter how many times I zoom in or out, though, it stays beneath the Go and Search boxes. Why is that? ABCface 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be a browser-specific problem. I saw it in Firefox, though it was awfully close to wanting to wrap in IE as well. If you look at the change I just made to my monobook.css file, you'll see one possible way to put all the buttons on a single line. It basically just gets rid of the extra spacing between the word inside each of the search buttons and the edge of the button itself. Robin Hoodtalk 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not that picky about it, I was just wondering. Thanks for the info! ABCface 00:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I've reduced the width by one pixel. I'm still not sure it will be there for long anyways depending on how quickly I find a better place for it. -- Daveh 00:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so my home computer is on FF 3.6.8. The pixel reduction doesn't seem to have helped - it's still slightly wider than the other boxes even after a hard-refresh. It does seem like the "Recommend this" text is a slightly larger font-size than the menu text at all zoom levels, and now the problem occurs even at default zoom, as you can see in this comparative screen-shot (which also reveals some other problems when you zoom in.) Incidentally, at default zoom and below, the "..." button appears below Go and Search but it's on the side on +1 and above. It never reads "More..." for me, always just "..." --TheRealLurlock Talk 11:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The "More..." was what it used to be, it was changed here. I just mentioned that because I liked it that way better, it wasn't really relevant to this conversation, sorry. ABCface 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

() It's not an ideal solution, since you're working across multiple computers and it would affect all of them, but you can alter your monobook.css file to include #p-googleplus {max-width:125px;} to forcibly limit its width (you'd have to play with the number a bit, that's just a test size to make it obvious it's working), or #p-googleplus {display:none;}, which would remove the box entirely. Robin Hoodtalk 19:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Or I could just update Firefox (and probably should anyhow), but that's not the point. It's a problem because I'm sure I'm not the only one using an outdated browser (and FF 3.6.8 is only slightly outdated). So if we can find a solution that works regardless, we probably should do that. I suspect the majority of our users won't feel comfortable editing their monobook.css settings, and they shouldn't have to do so to view the site properly. --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

General Reminder

This is just a note as I've noticed a few people have been making this mistake lately, when you mark a page for deletion you're supposed to put the template at the top of the page. This is especially necessary for some pages, like redirects. Putting the template below the redirect will cause the template to be hidden and won't break the redirect (as it would if you put it at the top of the page), making it much more confusing to determine what has been proposed for deletion, and why. Try not to do this in the future. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Daggerfall standards

The Daggerfall namespace has been written by only a few people, and it deviates somewhat from the current quest standards. Here is a conversation that brings up two good points--what point of view should be used and should third-party mods be mentioned? There were also a few things brought up here that seem to never have been resolved.

The issues that seem to have occurred are the following:

  • Point of view
  • Morrowind and later use third- or second-person
  • Daggerfall currently uses a much more informal second-person, so namespace consistency should be considered
  • Third-party mods
  • Morrowind and later have a list of mods that may be mentioned
  • Daggerfall lacks this list but DFQFix is a large mod that may be equivalent to these others
  • Should DFQFix be mentioned in the main article if it drastically alters a quest? (see here for an example)
  • Treasure and creatures
  • Skyrim seems to mention notable treasure and almost every creature, though not always in detail, especially if it's on the way
  • Should Daggerfall mention these things? I believe it currently does
  • Bugs mentioned in the main article
  • Skyrim has done (still does?) this with game-breaking or quest-breaking issues
  • Daggerfall mentions some bugs, what would be severe enough to include in the article?

I'd really like for some of these to be discussed so that we have definite guidelines. If they could even be placed somewhere, that would be rather convenient. It would make the pages easier to patrol and fix, and we wouldn't have a few editors with drastically different ideas trying to alter the pages. Input from those who read but don't edit the pages would be great as well. Vely►t►e 04:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't played DF yet (and as I just finally got Skyrim, it's unlikely I'll play it in the near future), but my understanding is that the vast majority of it is randomly generated content, which makes it considerably more difficult to document. Also the lack of an editor makes it harder to simply extract and reproduce data here. That coupled with the fact that the game is older than many of our editors now means it's unlikely to get all that much attention. I agree that it should ideally be brought up to the same standards as the rest of the site, I just don't see it happening any time soon. --TheRealLurlock Talk 11:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
After reading a related discussion here are my thoughts.
I think a bug list like MW etc is a very good idea. DFQFix isn't the only quest patch -- there are at least two 3rd party patches for quests. And numerous patches for non-quest bugs.
I don't think we can just _assume_ players will be playing Daggerfall with 3rd party patches and/or mods -- many people will not be. I think Nephele is way off on that point. Many people download the game from BethSoft's site, install it, then come here just to look at a couple of quest walkthroughs when they get stuck. They don't even know about 3rd party patches/mods, there are regularly posts on the forums here and on the BethSoft forums with people asking if any exist. If the 3rd party patches were included in the download from BethSoft it'd be a different situation.
People who have installed a patch should read the documentation of the patch which will (should) explain the changes made in the patch to a standard install of Daggerfall. It makes more sense to discuss only standard Daggerfall and exclude mention of 3rd party patches than vice versa. And given that it takes only a single sentence to say something like "if you've installed the xxx patch then..." there is no reason to exclude that information. Mentioning the 3rd party patch in the article is going to let more people find out about patches and get the game running smoother. -- DelphiSnakeT+C 12:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand most of the issues brought up. Apart from the occasional first person perspective, Daggerfall's slightly more relaxed walkthroughs seem like a non-issue. There are no special treasures or creatures in Daggerfall; most treasure piles are enemies are described in the walkthroughs for quest-specific dungeons. I don't see any sense with limiting the bugs section to game-breaking glitches; it is often used to describe odd, harmless bugs which wouldn't fit in the notes section. I haven't seen any bugs on a Daggerfall quest page which doesn't belong, even if they are slightly over-detailed because of the technical view presented. Finally, I agree with DelphiSnake in regards to third part patches. The area needs some work in deciding which patches to document (I can't offer any insight), but I don't think we should be as strict as we are with later games. Bug fixes should be noted, but not incorporated into the article as if assuming everyone will have the patch. I don't have much to say about Daggerfall:The Werebeast, but removing information always seems like a bad idea. —Legoless 12:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree re: treasure info, and most of the Daggerfall articles are already in second person POV.
I think we need to avoid deleting information that applies to the official game and patches in favor of information that applies to 3rd party patches and/or mods. The DFQFix page makes note of which quests it alters, and which quests Tipton's Fixquests alters, so it should be easy to tell which articles need bug fix notes. As for cosmetic 3rd party patches for bugs that aren't game breaking, some pages already make note of the fixes (eg Daggerfall:Helseth although it implies this was fixed in an official patch rather than by the 3rd party AndyFall). If there's a bug/mod template it would be easy to go through and note the changes on the relevant articles for changes made in the other 3rd party patches. -- DelphiSnakeT+C 14:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the alternate way wasn't originally intended to be part of the game, which is why I left it in during the first edit. Now that that's been cleared up, I have no issue with removing it; that's why I said it was a "work in progress" in my edit to the page. It's no big deal to remove those sections. I mostly agree with Delphi, but I'm open to compromise like Legoless said if it becomes a point of contention. As for the third party patches, I'm of the opinion that we should list anything that fixes bugs left in the final version of the game, a la UOP, but I agree that if it's not directly related to fixing the final version of the game, it shouldn't be listed. ThuumofReason 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

() To clarify, when I said bugs being mentioned in the article, I meant the walkthrough or elsewhere higher up in the page than the Bugs section. Vely►t►e 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dawnguard Factions

I have a (hopefully) quick question. What are we supposed to do with the various Dawnguard factions? Do we integrate them into the existing Skyrim:Factions page (and tag them with DG), or do we create a new page like Skyrim:Dawnguard Factions or Skyrim:Factions/Dawnguard? • JAT 19:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

For Oblivion, we integrated the plug-ins and distinguished them with the mod icon (see Deepscorn Hollow Prisoner faction). I don't think doing the same with Dawnguard will be much of an issue. —Legoless 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Elderscrolls.com Archive

I've assembled a small archive of the old TES official website in a sandbox. It contains information and images which have been removed from the site after its Skyrim overhaul, but which are valuable to lorespace and interesting to read. I think we should preserve and document this unique content.

I'm planning to publish it in the General namespace as a central index with three subpages. I'd appreciate some input, such as suggestions for the page name or objections to hosting the content. This isn't the first time we've taken things from the official website; wallpapers and pocket guide images are examples of this. The archived content would easily fall under Fair Use, and considering Bethesda both published it on the web and subsequently deleted it, I don't think copyright would be an issue anyway. Creating this page now would also lay foundations for any future archiving the wiki might want to do (such as hosting downloads with permission, etc).

If we do host the content, does anyone have an issue with using it as a source for lore articles? The information is official, but it doesn't appear in any of the games. An {{OOG}} tag could be used, but I think we should treat it as we do books instead of unofficial developer texts.

If no one objects or has any suggestions, I'll go ahead and publish it after some time has passed. —Legoless 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've launched the pages (again - edits were lost) at General:Elderscrolls.com Archive. —Legoless 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

help

can someone help me i cant comment on a page i made someone help soonest response greatly appreciated thanks--Bmt321 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you click on the disscussion tab and choose to start the page?--Skyrimplayer 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
ya — Unsigned comment by Bmt321 (talkcontribs) at 20:41 on 20 August 2012
oh wait nevermind i got it thanks — Unsigned comment by Bmt321 (talkcontribs) at 20:42 on 20 August 2012
Happy to help!^_^--Skyrimplayer 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Morrowind:Potion Combinations... Or Something? (Could apply to all gamespaces, actually)

Alright, Lurlock, I brushed you off with a neutral affirmative on my page to create a proposal on the CP where we can get more input than my talk page would provide.

Per a couple of conversations linked to me on my talk page after I made this edit, I was curious if we had a page dedicated to listing alchemical ingredients and their effects? Personally, I feel that it is a lot more work than we need to put into it if we were to go through each individual alchemist merchant and come up with the possible combination of potions that could be made and then left it on that NPC page. Would it be easier to create a page listing effects in a format like this, where each ingredient in the section is one that holds the trait required to create the potion under which it's listed?

==Invisibility==
*Ingredient 1
*Ingredient 2
*Ingredient 3
==Restore Health==
* 1
* 2
* 3

Or, perhaps we contain the information in a table? Create a header for each potion type and put something at the top of the page to the effect of "Here is a list of potion combinations and the ingredients needed to successfully brew it. Only single effect potions are listed, if you want to make multiple effect potions, just put the two potion ingredient pairs in at the same time to stack effects" or something.

Invisiblity
Ingredient Drops from Merchants
Ingred. 1 Entity Restocking Merchant A (Location), Restocking Merchant B (Location)
Ingred 2 Entity Restocking Merchant A (Location), Restocking Merchant B (location)
Restore Health
Ingredient Drops from Merchants
Ingred. 1 Entity Restocking Merchant A (Location)

With Entity in that table representing the plant or animal dropping the ingredient.

It won't look like this, but it won't be that much of an inconvenience to skim the Invisibility table to find where the aforementioned merchant is listed again. Opinions? ES(talkemail) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ingredients with shared effects are already listed on the effect articles (e.g., Morrowind:Restore Health). Possible ingredient combinations for each merchant seems like overkill, and not particularly useful. —Legoless 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty much neutral about it, to be honest. As far as amount of work, it seems our anonymous user has already done the hard part, figuring out all the potions for all restocking vendors. I didn't think it belonged on Restocking Alchemy Merchants just because it made the table huge and ugly, so I suggested the merchants' individual pages as an alternative. I'm open to suggestion for a better way of formatting the information, but I don't really care all that much. I wish we could convince the anon who did this to create an account so that they can take part in this discussion, but their IP keeps changing, so I don't know how to get a message to them that they'll see. We'll just have to wait until they try again, and hopefully somebody can catch them before their IP changes again. --TheRealLurlock Talk 05:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Morrowind Vampire pages

I was going through a bunch of Morrowind pages, when I ran across this, which reminded me of an issue I noticed almost a year ago. That issue is that the Morrowind vampiric quests have an issue in the breadcrumb trail, which makes it so that instead of going to the page detailing vampires and everything about them, it leads to an NPC, who is named "Vampire". I commented on this here, but it went unsolved. Since rpeh is no longer active, and he had obviously forgotten about it anyway, I am hoping to bring this to the attention of someone who knows how to deal with changing stuff like breadcrumb trails and the widespread effects of moving articles. --HalfStache 06:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blech! I more or less agree with rpeh's solution, except that I'm going to suggest that after moving the current Morrowind:Vampire page to an NPC page, we simply redirect Morrowind:Vampire to Morrowind:Vampires. Obviously, every link to Vampire will then need to be checked to figure out whether it should go to the NPC page or the Vampires page. I'm just on my way to bed now, so at the risk of repeating history, if nobody sees any issues with this plan, I'll do it tomorrow if nobody else has by then. Robin Hoodtalk 07:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sleep is for sucker, Rob :p On topic: I think that's a reasonable plan, and would back up you doing all that work. ES(talkemail) 07:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Gee thanks, Snowmane! ;) I've just moved the page, only I used "person" instead of "NPC", since that's what's in use elsewhere in Morrowind space (e.g., Morrowind:Umbra (person)). I've also updated all the links, and for bonus points, I linked past the redirect where possible. That's mostly because it makes it easier to check what's left, and partly in case we decide to move Vampires or change the linking scheme or Trail scheme in some way. In theory, the only things linking directly to the Vampire redirect now are the Trail entries themselves, one Lore Link, and the two discussions on this topic. Robin Hoodtalk 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift action! --HalfStache 21:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Prev: Archive 31 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 33