UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 41

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.

Roleplaying ideas page

I would like to bring up the issue of PsijicOrder's roleplaying ideas page. Specifically, I would like to address its continued relevance. For one thing, the page is getting ridiculously long. For another, some of the ideas listed are just downright asinine. I know that this is a user subpage, but the way it's edited is almost like a mainspace article, and edits to the page are never patrolled or reviewed, leaving them to accumulate. Obviously, it says that people are free to add ideas, but this just leads to a bunch of unchecked growth that, in my opinion, is of little value to either the wiki or its readers.

PsijicOrder himself is another thing that bothers me about all this. He has been inactive since last June, and has made a grand total of 3 content edits since he's been here. I bring this up not to devalue him or his activity in any way, but to emphasize that his primary contribution to the wiki (his "legacy", if you will), is a user subpage which he himself started but has since spiraled out of control due to numerous unchecked edits.

To put it simply, I feel that the page is an eyesore that is severely lacking in meaningful content for its size. Obviously, there are several factors in play which prevent us from deleting the page outright, and taking any sort of action towards a user page would require either consent from PsijicOrder or a strong consensus. It's a tricky issue, but is there anything we can do to curb further edits or trim the page down? Do we need to do anything? I would be interested to hear the community's thoughts. ThuumofReason (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2014 (GMT)

I feel like we shouldn't go touching or regulating this userpage, because that could create a bad precedent of being able to edit at will other userpages, if the wrone person wanted to abuse it. We have a series of pages at OB:Roleplaying Ideas that are strictly regulated, but none at SR:Roleplaying Ideas, which as you see redlinks.
When Nephele deleted it in December 2011, her deletion log entry was speedy delete: even leaving this page in place for a proposed deletion is going to cause horrendous headaches. Needs to be set up properly, with community discussion, before being created.
Why don't we use this as the community discussion to set up a "serious" Roleplaying Ideas page within the gamespace? Then we would be able to point users towards something of reasonable quality, and we can let asinine ideas for roleplaying be left in the userspace of whoever wants to post asinine ideas. Also, by something "of quality', I mean we put the broadest sense of what a common roleplaying archetype is, and we don't let 20 different (and fairly redundant) ones onto a page making it overly long... That is, if nobody minds continually monitoring the page for quality control.
I see that the Oblivion page points to a load of userpages upon closer examination... Perhaps I should read or open the pages I am linking to as I think about them, and/or not edit 4 hours before I am typically awake. This obviously changes things as there is no precedent page to point to, seeing how it was cleared. It might be an unpopular idea since the OB section was userfied, but we could always, like I said, post in the broadest sense of what a specific archetype is within the gamespace (though I admit that would be hard, since everything about roleplaying is subjective), then we can prompt users to make their own user subpages if they want to make derivatives of the broad examples we host. -damon  xoxo 14:53, 10 January 2014 (GMT)
If a user wishes to post his or her own roleplay character on his or her own userpage, that makes sense (in fact, a lot of us do that). But having a single editable page for roleplay ideas seems like it spawns posts better reserved for the fora, honestly. I'd rather see the pages done away with. --Nocte|Chat|Look 14:58, 10 January 2014 (GMT)
Didn't we just have this conversation? Also, a SR:Roleplaying article does exist, as it was the catalyst for the whole roleplaying debate.
Personally, I'm not much of a help because I don't really have an opinion at all on the subject. The only thing I can think of would be to allow Psjiic's page to remain and have a semi-protection on it to limit the traffic and make sure a userspace patroller actually patrols the page(s). Although now that I see Nocte's input, that makes a lot of sense too because roleplaying does seem like a more forum-based topic. •WoahBro►talk 15:02, 10 January 2014 (GMT)
Oh, under my idea, there wouldn't be discussion. It would be "This is the broadest sense of the term, for those unable to think of a roleplaying idea. Like it or lump it. Or, create a sub page giving your own interpretation".
WoahBro, there is a roleplaying page for Skyrim. We are talking about the User "Ideas" pages, and how there used to be one for Oblivion. Hope that clears it up :) -damon  xoxo 15:05, 10 January 2014 (GMT)
It's really only an eyesore for those that know it's there, which is probably a very small percentage of users of the site. In the interest of maintaining our hands-off policy for user pages, I would like to see it left alone. It's on my watchlist, so I check edits to it for inappropriate content. I understand that feeling when something sticks in your craw like this, when its mere existence offends you in some way, but I think the best advice would be, in the immortal words of Paul Anka, "Just don't look, just don't look." Absolutely no offense intended BTW; just some light-hearted advice. --Xyzzy Talk 16:37, 10 January 2014 (GMT)
My preference is to have as few content-related guidelines on the userspace as possible to preserve freedom of expression. Not a fan of roleplaying pages generally, but it's doing no harm in the userspace. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:48, 10 January 2014 (GMT)

() There are few enough edits on the page, and people appear to like it. We don't need to pick at which ideas we like or which we don't--that would require opinions, and it would be edited endlessly for quality. It's doing no harm where it is. Just leave it be. Vely►t►e 18:04, 10 January 2014 (GMT)

Userpages should be left alone unless they break rules. My preference is for a General:Roleplaying page (as the concept is always the same no matter the game), with possibly a specified one in each namespace that deals with various things unique to that game (like horse travel). As for Psijic's type of pages, no, there are an infinite number of ways to roleplay, and we can't document them all. I see an argument for including a few examples, such as how to be a guard or a farmer, but they will bring people trying to add more unless we basically forbid any more examples being added. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:42, 10 January 2014 (GMT)
All good points. I kind of knew when I brought this up that we couldn't really do anything to what was already on the page, since it was a userspace page and all. What I was really after was ideas of how we might address the issue of continued edits, if indeed it needed to be addressed (so no offense was taken and no apology necessary, Xyzzy ^_^). Silencer's idea of a General roleplaying article is one that I find might be good, especially considering that a few of us seem to be leaning in that direction anyway. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a protected archive in mainspace.
Now that I think about it, that vote Xyzzy put for allowing roleplaying articles in gamespaces was universally opposed, so should we get rid of the Skyrim roleplaying article? ThuumofReason (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2014 (GMT)
I'd forgotten about that discussion. It seems like it was archived before consensus was reached about allowing the mainspace article. I personally would prefer a decision on a mainspace article before deleting the gamespace articles. I'll move the discussion out of archive so we can finish obtaining consensus. --Xyzzy Talk 05:06, 11 January 2014 (GMT)
It's been over two months since anyone has voiced an opinion (except for me changing my vote). At the moment there's a 4 to 1 vote in favor of the mainspace article, so unless anybody else has a stance on the issue, I think we should consider the issue closed. If someone objects later down the line, we can always hold another vote. ThuumofReason (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2014 (GMT)

Roleplaying article - moved from archives

Skyrim:Roleplaying has been created (again, I think?). I seem to recall that having this page was discussed before and voted down, but I couldn't find it in the archives. I personally dislike allowing this to be an "official" UESP article, but will defer to consensus. Do we keep it? --Xyzzy Talk 02:20, 3 October 2013 (GMT)

It is a page with an endless amount of possibilities. The nice thing about keeping it in userspace is that, if anyone disagrees, the content is left there because someone else liked it, and people can make their own pages. It would be nigh impossible to police as an actual article. The article is also based around imagination and not documentation. Sure you can pick your character's birthday, but what can you actually do about that in game? It has no practical application. It's imaginative. I completely oppose allowing it to be a real Skyrim article.
The Oblivion version can probably be let alone because it's been there for so long, but an almost copy-paste is unnecessary. We could, perhaps, move the Oblivion article to mainspace to serve as a basic set of ideas with no planned expansion or elaboration, and link to this in a "see also". Vely►t►e 02:29, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
You addressed my concerns exactly, Vely. I also thought of moving the Oblivion article to mainspace, since these "ideas" are general enough to apply to, at the very least, TESIII, IV, and V. However, my dislike of these articles makes me want to oppose even this. I agree that the length of time that the OB article has stood makes it too controversial to remove, but I can't support any expansion of this type of article on UESP in any form, except in userspace. --Xyzzy Talk 02:49, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
I'm of a mind that roleplaying shouldn't be allowed in any "official" namespaces. It's one thing to have it in userspace, but anywhere else is inappropriate. If its deletion would be controversial, we'll hold a deletion review. I say we prod the Oblivion article unless there's someone willing to take it into their own userspace. If there's enough debate as to whether it should stay, we'll keep it, but otherwise, we can delete it. ThuumofReason (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
I'd support moving it to main namespace and keeping it generalised, the tips are the same, and for specific details it can link to game articles. Roleplaying is a massive part of the ES fanbase, and we'll always have people wanting to add their ideas somewhere, like PsijicOrder's subpages for Skyrim. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 03:21, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
I don't see much utility in any roleplaying pages. Just a lot of arguments waiting to happen and editorializing. They present extremely little helpful information, if any at all, and that would remain the case even if various editors devoted ungodly amounts of time to a hopeless effort at making such an article comprehensive and standardized. Bloated, subjective, unnecessary, biased rants are best left to the forums. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:56, 3 October 2013 (GMT)

() If we moved the existing OB (or altered SR) page to general namespace, we could mark it as an archive--content not to be added to, due to potential issues and lack of necessity, but locked or archived so that it should only be edited for grammar and tweaks like that. Vely►t►e 04:16, 3 October 2013 (GMT)

I roleplay all my characters, and frankly, the existing page is ... not something I would ever pay any attention to. Roleplaying is by its nature subjective and personal, and you're not ever going to see two people do it the same way. So I can't see it having any place here, because the objective here is objective documentation. --Morrolan (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
If we let it stand and don't limit edits to it, it's just going to end up like PsijicOrder's subpage, everybody and their hamster adding their ideas for roleplaying. How does somebody patrol this? Kill it before it breeds! --Xyzzy Talk 04:47, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
"Kill it before it breeds!" Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Vely's idea of moving a generalized version to the general namespace as a locked page or archive, without allowing content to be added, is ideal, I think. Users can still view the ideas, but it can't explode into an endless nightmare of subjective content, and then editors can add whatever to separate userspace versions. — ABCface 04:55, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
I agree as well. This kind of article doesn't belong in any gamespaces at all, but I would like to see it posted to the mainspace. As The Silencer said, roleplaying is a very significant part of the Elder Scrolls series, and reading articles on different character builds can be very helpful for coming up with new characters, as well as giving you ideas about the types of attributes these characters have so you can design your own. I'm indifferent on whether or not it's archived or protected. • JAT 05:06, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
Moving it to mainspace as a protected archive works for me. Morrolan made a good point: I try and come up with backstories for all my Skyrim characters, but it's not the kind of thing I'd consider useful to the wiki. In my opinion, the important thing is to curb further edits on the subject; deleting it or moving it to userspace would be my preferred solution, but I'm fine with anything that stops future edits from being made en masse. ThuumofReason (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2013 (GMT)
Move it or delete it, but get it out of gamespace. The past deletion reviews regarding the old Oblivion roleplaying pages bring up some good points as to why these kind of articles are unwanted. —Legoless (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2013 (GMT)

() So, it seems we have two main topics to decide here:

  • Do we allow roleplaying articles in gamespace - consensus appear to be against, but we should make it official
  • Do we allow roleplaying article in mainspace as a protected archive - undecided

We should probably decide what to do with Oblivion:Roleplaying after deciding these issues.

I've setup two subsections below for voting (feel free to alter, or even revert my entire edit, if this is not the preferred way to handle this):

Allowing roleplaying articles in gamespace

Allowing a roleplaying article as a protected archive in mainspace

  • Support: Since there is interest in this aspect of the game, we should probably link it from the main page, and I would hate to see a link to a user subpage. --Xyzzy Talk 02:19, 14 October 2013 (GMT)
    • I'm not sure what form this would take, but I definitely wouldn't support a list of roleplaying "ideas" like the Oblivion article or PsijicOrder's user subpage. Without this, I really don't know if there is any point to a roleplaying article at all, since a list of guidelines or principles seems ludicrous in this context, but that could just be due to my lack of imagination. --Xyzzy Talk 23:59, 29 October 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: The more I think about this idea, the more it appeals to me. ThuumofReason (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: As long as it is protected in some manner. Vely►t►e 21:21, 17 October 2013 (GMT)
  • Oppose: So, it seems like this solution is designed to stick this in a corner as far as possible and forget about it. But the fundamental question remains, should we publish it at all? I still say no. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 19:04, 29 October 2013 (GMT)
  • Support: I have been watching this topic, among other things, and I feel quite sure in my support of this. A lot of viewers come here for roleplaying (that's why this 'problem' has come up), so I don't think we should just sweep it under the carpet, nor should we simply outlaw it because that's 'easier'. I fully agree with creating a page (linked from the main page and fully protected, with an explanation on the top of course) that has guidelines to making your own--there's a button somewhere in the roleplaying-pages-mess that when clicked automatically makes a page in your userspace: replicate that for simplicity?--and includes some of the more generic examples for casual browsers. --¿Vulpa? 00:28, 30 October 2013 (GMT)
  • Support:It would be a interesting and I am curious of what it would be like.––Sheeprin 01:56, 2 March 2014‎

Skyrim Factions

Hey everyone! Due to a request Alfwyn made on my talk page, I've decided to bulk update our Faction pages, making all of them look like he was starting to, with rank and member information. (Compare Factions B with Factions D, for instance.) Since I'm doing that anyway, is there anything else people would like me to do at the same time? Do we like the colours? Should the tables be templates? What about the table layout and column widths? (It still needs a couple of minor tweaks, but see my sandbox for what the bot's spitting out currently for Factions G. Unfortunately, that one doesn't show a rank table, but very few pages actually do, and the ones I can think of aren't small enough for an example.)

Personally, I'm inclined to leave them pretty much as they are, with the exception of the relationship change (per my talk page) and adding the ranks/members, but then again, I usually use the CK when I want faction info, so I'm putting this out there for any additional comments from people who do use those pages regularly. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2014 (GMT)

A template would be useful, it would decrease the byte size of the pages dramatically. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 10:45, 18 January 2014 (GMT)
A template could make those pages indeed more manageable - it doesn't have to be something complicated, just to reduce the bulk of table code . Another thing, at least for those cases where it says "too many members to list", a link to the category would be useful, we have the information there. And a minor thing, at "Giant Faction" Karstaag isn't linked, I guess this is because of the Dragonborn namespace? --Alfwyn (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2014 (GMT)
I tried to come up with a template. It isn't very sophisticated, but that means it is easy to use some text instead of a table too, if need be. Here's how it would look like, and how the source would look like. Not too attached to names or anything, feel free to edit my sandbox or sandboxed templates if you can think of improvements. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (GMT)
For Karstaag, it never occurred to me that I might need to link from a Skyrim list to a Dragonborn page, but of course, it can happen. I've got the code to go the other way around, so it'll only take a sec to tweak it to handle going both directions. For the members list, I was thinking of making it a text-only list instead of a table and just putting everyone, regardless of how many there are. Apart from the College of Winterhold, very few factions have meaningful ranks, so I think it's a waste of space to have one person per line. And for those that do have ranks, we can list them just like similar to how the {{Faction}} template does, perhaps with a new template, or, given the small number, perhaps just as a raw link and text. Heck, we might even be able to use the template...I'd have to look. If we don't want to do that, however, you're right, a category link would make a lot of sense.
I'll have a look at the templates a bit later. I'm busy dealing with a "somewhat concerned" dog right now who keeps piping up every five minutes for reassurance that all is well in the world. Ugh! Robin Hood  (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2014 (GMT), Updated 21:52, 18 January 2014 (GMT)
Okay, I've taken your code (pretty much verbatim other than moving the members up and adding the possibility of a rank list) and moved it into Template space. It's easiest to program the bot with the right names right from the start so I don't make any mistakes later on. There's a few things I'm thinking I might like to try, but I think it's best to get the info up first, then worry about playing around with the templates once we have something to look at. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2014 (GMT)

() This is definitely starting to take shape, but as you can see from the numerous edits to the templates, every time I made one formatting change, another issue would pop up. I finally gave up, after using far too many words we tend to discourage excessive use of, and removed all the various width information. If someone wants to take a crack at it, or just revert to using fixed widths, go nuts.

I've updated the examples in my sandbox, and added the College, just as a point of reference for what something with faction ranks looks like. You'll notice that there are a bunch of "(Maybe)" ranks in some of the other factions, which indicate those who might join the faction later on. I'm wondering if we should split those out into their own section, or how we want to handle those.

Apart from those minor issues, the only other thing I need to do is scan the pages for existing text and figure out how best to preserve it, because right now, the code is written to completely clobber the existing faction pages. Once that's handled, we're ready to go. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2014 (GMT)

Okay, after a couple of false starts, the bot's busy updating Skyrim now, then Dragonborn will be a separate run. You'll no doubt notice that a lot of the pages are acquiring new factions that weren't there before. I believe what was there before was limited to what's used directly on actors. Given that there are at least two other ways of adding factions to actors that I can think of (aliases and scripting/properties), I opted to include all of the existing factions, rather than limiting them in any way. From what I saw in the CK in random selections, most are used in one way or another, so it makes more sense to me to be on the safe side and include everything. (Edit: Bah! Sorry about the sorting issues...I honestly did test all that out beforehand, but a last-minute change completely messed it up.) Robin Hood  (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2014 (GMT)
Jeancey and Alfwyn pointed out a couple of minor issues with disambiguation pages incorrectly taking priority over their more specific pages, and some pages not being linked properly when the text case didn't match exactly. Those have now been addressed and I'll do a re-run right now, then re-insert the clobbered text on the three pages that need it once that's done. There may be a few links we have to fix by hand still, since the bot can only guess what the correct page to link to is, but I think this should get most of them. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

Making collapsible sidebar into gadget

Hello everyone! I'm slowly getting back into the wiki in preparation for ESO, and after dusting off my list of things to do, I noticed this needed to be done. I've looked into it and the change would be very easy, and more importantly would allow users to disable it at will without having to mess with their Javascript pages (which no longer seems to work). The reason I'm bringing this up is that I can have the gadget enabled by default for anonymous users, or have it only available to registered users. It's been a long while since the last sidebar discussion took place, and by now most of the editors have had a good amount of time to use (or not use) the sidebar. I assume no one will have any problems with me changing the sidebar into a gadget, so I want to know - should this continue to be enabled for anonymous users, or should the simpler yet longer version be used instead? Having been detached from the community for quite some time I have no strong feelings one way or the other. • JAT 09:49, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

If there's one thing that a lot of wikis are doing lately that I absolutely despise, it's assuming that I want their latest custom apps and settings as my default. Most of the time, I really really don't. So, as much as I love the collapsible sidebar personally, and it'll be re-enabled the minute it gets converted, I'm going to have to go with the idea that we should keep our default customizations to a minimum and let users enable what they want whenever they discover the Gadgets tab. Robin Hood  (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
I say that it should be opt-in from the Gadget tab, not standard. Whilst I do use it, I don't see that the majority of people will.
On another note: What do you mean by not working in Javascript? Mine works... --Kiz(email - talk) 10:27, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
Damon mentioned having troubles with his Javascript, but the issue may just be with him. • JAT 08:34, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
I'd like a bit more input on this. Are we in favor of having anonymous users view the default sidebar instead of the collapsible one? • JAT 22:47, 6 February 2014 (GMT)
I'd prefer to see it expanded by default. I used the collapsible sidebar for awhile, but decided the expanded sidebar wasn't too long to be inconvenient, whereas expanding it each time I wanted to navigate straight to an add-on was an extra inconvenient step. --Xyzzy Talk 23:53, 6 February 2014 (GMT)
Well, what exactly are the options we are talking about? One thing I don't like that much in the current standard sidebar is, that after a page load it will be un-collapsed for a short time, then collapse. I had a similar issue with the g+1 box making the sidebar jumping around shortly after page load, but fixed that privately by giving the box a fixed width height. --Alfwyn (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2014 (GMT)

() I am, and have been, in favour of the sidebar being defaulted to uncollapsed. As for the Javascript problem, maybe it is just on my end, if nobody else is having troubles. I'll just harass someone off-site next time I am interested again in trying to fix it to work as I want it to. -damon  talkcontribs 22:42, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Okay, this has now been turned into a gadget, since that requires no .js knowledge whatsoever. It should be off by default. Once you turn it on, you'll need to do a hard refresh.
Jak: One thing to look at: when loaded with OnLoadHook, it works fine with ModifySidebar, but OnLoadHook is deprecated. When loaded with jQuery, the ModifySidebar changes seem to be ignored. This may well have to do with how I'm loading ModifySidebar as well, but it's something we should look at before OnLoadHook moves from "deprecated" to "removed". Robin Hood  (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (GMT)

Information request and discussion about the Skyrim Prima Official Game Guide (Legendary Edition)

Not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I have noticed on a couple of lore page (notably on Lore:Dragon Language) we have the Official Prima Guide listed as an OOG source. I have two questions.

  1. I don't own the Legendary Edition of the guide, but from what I have heard, there is some lore in this guide surrounding Miraak and his cult that isn't found in any of the in-game sources. Specifically, the term "Acolyte" and "Acolyte Priest" is used several times and - from what I understand - it states that the 3 masked priests on Solstheim were members of the Dragon Cult who joined him in his rebellion. The game data seems to back up the term "Acolyte" - as we have fields like "DLC2AcolyteAhzidal" in there. My request is to anyone who owns the Legendary Edition could perhaps post or explain the parts in the guide that mention "Acolyte" and how it relates to Miraak?
  2. My second question is how does the community feel about using such material in the lore or game namespace? I know we have a policy on OOG sources, but would this be treated differently as the Prima Guide is officially endorsed by Bethesda? For example, I found this piece on info about Geldis Sadri from the online demo version of the guide that isn't found an any in-game sources:

"Geldis is one of the longest inhabitants of Raven Rock, arriving at the small town just after the mass exodus from Vvardenfell. Originally a miner in the ebony mines, Geldis earned a respectable amount of money and was able to amass a small fortune for himself. When the East Empire Company abandoned the town and as the population slowly changed from Imperial to Dunmer, he purchased the town’s only inn. Lleril Morvayn provided some of his own funds to augment the inn to their liking.
"

How does the community feel about this? Thanks. --Jimeee (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

There's precedent for treating official materials as in-game sources. We should probably treat the prima guide as an in-game source. More on this when I have the time. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:21, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
On the other hand such material probably has no place on game space articles. It's not part of the game in question and we don't reference things there - and we can't just copy their stuff. So I think this is more a lore page question. Sometimes the material may be important enough to be mentioned as a note, but I think this shouldn't be done for the bulk of pages in game space. --Alfwyn (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
I would support treating it the same way we do The Daggerfall Chronicles, taking its lore as canon unless otherwise contradicted, since it is a publication produced in close cooperation with and approved by Bethesda. -- Hargrimm(T) 16:51, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
I don't know about the Legendary Edition, but I own the original guide (before those pesky DLC :P) and it was full of mistakes. I'm not opposed to including info from the Legendary Edition because a) as you said it is the only source for some info, and b) who knows, they could've corrected the errors between editions, but I am squeamish about using it willy-nilly. In this regard I agree with Alfwyn. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 16:57, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
I agree with Alfwyn that anything that doesn't appear in the game shouldn't be listed as an in-game source for gamespace. I'm not really involved in lorespace, but I would have reservations about including any information that doesn't appear in any first-party sources (that is, anything that wasn't written by Bethesda), as it would raise questions about original research and verifiability. Likelol raises another interesting point: If the original guide has a lot of mistakes in it, it doesn't exactly speak to the writer's credibility as a source. Prima guides are usually pretty good about getting details right, but even then there tend to be a few mistakes which can range in seriousness from minor typos to flat out misinformation. Also, what counts as an "official" source? If the guide is endorsed by Bethesda but not written by them, does it still count? I'm a little unclear on how that works. ThuumofReason (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
Basically, our dichotomy between in-game and out-of-gane sources has been morphing into official and unofficial. Game manuals, the Pocket Guides, the Daggerfall Chronicles, and the Greg Keyes novels are all treated as in-game sources in the lore section. We could add a caveat for prima guides (as I, too, have noticed that they tend to make many mistakes), but nevertheless, we might want to discuss the feasibility and merit of altering the OOG disclaimer so that it is instead an "unofficial" disclaimer. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:21, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
Currently the Prima Guide is classed as OOG on the Lore:Dragon Language page, but I'm interested in exactly what mistakes there are in the original guide (and if they exist in later editions) Are we talking about item values, walkthroughs, lore errors? While it's not written by Bethesda, its certainly endorsed by them (unlike most OOG texts, like MK), so that must count for something. --Jimeee (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

() I'd be opposed to treating the Prima Guide as in-game. Yes, the books are officially endorsed, and they'd be on a par with the novels, but the sheer number of errors, small and large, mostly due to being written before the games are finalized makes them hard to take as a proper source. Many of the extra details would have come from the developers mouths and help give extra background, but that only gives them the same status as Kirkbrides works. The difference with the novels is that they don't "intrude" on anything else, i.e. they are set apart from the games, whereas the guides are supplements to the games. While that may make them appear the same as the Daggerfall Chronicles or the Pocket Guides, it doesn't; those sources are supplied with the game giving them a huge boost in credibility over the the Prima Guide. That being said, the Pocket Guide even had notes within attacking their own credibility due to bias of the writer, but again done with the perspective of an in-game book. "Official" still doesn't make it an in-game source. Tweets, support answers to questions on ESO on the official site, etc, are taken to develop and fix lore questions, but they are OOG sources. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:07, 21 January 2014 (GMT)

As Bethesda-approved publications, the Prima guides should be treated as official. They can't be compared to Kirkbride's forum posts. The Daggerfall Chronicles was not packaged with the game, and treating the Skyrim guide any different is a clear double standard. I say treat them as official sources, as we've been doing all along for the most part. —Legoless (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
Only one page uses a Prima Guide as a reference, the Dragon Language page, and its used as an OOG. On the comparison to Kirkbride, that was in reference to any opinions attributed to developer, which have no more official backing than Kirkbride's. Only if they come with Bethesda's explicit approval as lore-fact do they carry any weight. The Prima Guides are endorsed by Bethesda, but as guides, not as a source of lore. Treating the guides as an in-game source would be a double-standard, not the other way around. We know the guides are erroneous as a result of being written before the game was complete. The guides are published by Zenimax and have the liability warning that "...the publisher makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, effectiveness, or completeness of the material in this book..." hardly a ringing endorsement of their use as official lore sources. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:52, 21 January 2014 (GMT)
Oh, come on Silencer; that boilerplate CYA bit of legalese has absolutely nothing to do with the guide's accuracy with regards to lore, and it's disingenuous to suggest that it does. Anyways, there are a few posts on Bethesda's blog about the writing of the guide, and it's made clear that the background information (i.e. the lore content) was provided directly from Bethesda Game Studios, and indeed the co-author was a designer on Skyrim. At the very least, if you decide this is OOG/unofficial material, then you must apply the same judgement to the Daggerfall Chronicles, but somehow that has been accepted as an official source for years. -- Hargrimm(T) 01:46, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
Didn't the daggerfall chronicles come packaged with the game though? Jeancey (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
Silencer is technically correct - the best kind of correct. To my knowledge, no other official out of game material has such a disclaimer, so it could form a rational basis for distinguishing it. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:06, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Where are the concise arguments for treating it as such, all I'm seeing are people saying 'its just like the Chronicles/novels/Pocket Guide'. I've shown my reasoning for why it isn't anything like those sources, and unless someone has an actual evidence-based reason for treating it otherwise I'm not changing my stance. The guides are based off pre-finalised games, and just like cut-content, they fail our parameters for use in the main part of lore articles; they do, however, perfectly fit the part of OOG where they can be used to flesh out articles providing background information on an otherwise lacking page. The D/C did not come with a game, but a CD inlay advertising them was included. The Chronicles have long since been proven to be a Bethesda backed lore source. No matter what way you try to present it, the Prima Guides are not suitable as direct lore sources, as they are written by a third party not for the benefit of Bethesda but their own, they are not similar to any other non-game source accepted as official. (edit conflict) The novels don't contain the same disclaimer. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:07, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

() I kind of have to go with Silencer on this one, everything he says mirrors my own opinions on the matter. ThuumofReason (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

Silencer makes an excellent, well thought out argument, and I fully understand and see his concerns. However, I am siding with its inclusion, based on Hargrimm's statements noting how the publication was made in close coordination with Bethesda. And, Legoless makes a good point: we've treated game guides related to the games as an official source for years, and given that this and Daggerfall Chronicles were made by or directly with Bethesda or agents operating on their behalf, then they are fundamentally the same, and to exclude or include one means we ought to do the same, or else we'd endorse a double standard.
All that said, we ought to be careful and use the Prima Guide's content sparingly, because it does contain errors. Those errors and any other information that conflicts with the most up-to-date information should ether be excluded or clearly noted as outdated information. Those errors don't mean we discard the entire work, because it does have useful information. We just discard where it conflicts, the same with any document (such as a game manual's errors compared to the "readme.txt" that always says This information is the most up-to-date information for the manual, which wasn't available or has been changed since publication), if I am making sense? -damon  xoxo 07:38, 23 January 2014 (GMT)
I suppose that would be agreeable. As long as we're not taking the guide's word for everything without examining it first, I guess I would be okay with occasionally using it as a source for lorespace, although I still don't think it should be used in gamespace. ThuumofReason (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2014 (GMT)

Bug template

Per the talk page for the Bug template, the vn=1 is no longer required. Confirmed works as normal. I see no particular benefit to running the bot to remove them all, since they're not harming anything by being there, but feel free to remove them if you think of it while editing a page. (And for those who are paying attenion, this change was actually made nearly two weeks ago, and I forgot to mention it.) Robin Hood  (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

To be honest, I see a benefit of keeping them (which is why I didn't go crazy two weeks ago. I did notice :P). It lets people who aren't normal editors easily tell where to put the confirmed param in the template, which I think it a benefit. That's my opinion anyway. Jeancey (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
I suppose that was the side-effect. My intention was to have it appear the same, but still to add |vn=1 to bugs to make it clear they need confirmation rather than just lacking the correct parameter. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:51, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

Newleft

Since it was brought up on IRC, i'll post about it here too. This edit in particular brought it up, for those of us with smaller (or what I think is normal) that edit makes no visible difference with thumbs set at 300px anyways. Dwarfmp on 1920x1080 can see the difference, I on a 1360x768 cannot. I haven't uploaded the images but I will link to them:

Dwarfmp Kiz
Before Before
After After

The difference is there, is this something we should take into consideration as screen sizes increase yet more? Thoughts? --Kiz(email - talk) 18:20, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

I'm not sure that it is better to continue after the image than just let the text inclusive headings flow naturally around the image. But if we want that, it might be better to just change the general css to include the NewLeft, than to litter countless pages with manual NewLefts. There seems to be no special class assigned for headings in page text, so it would affect all headings - but so far I couldn't come up with a negative effect. Changing it in the style would have the additional charm, that one could it turn off privately if not wanted, instead of forced via page markup. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
If it could be done via the site css then I would support that. Most sections don't flow in gamespace, the first header is usually quests or people. In lore the section mostly flows with a history section on places, but a lot still are notes. Then again in lore not many pages have an image on the left outside of place pages. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:57, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
I've always preferred moving all but the intro after the text image. Otherwise, you get some really odd-looking sections sometimes. One of the worst-case scenarios being something like this (faked for the sake of example, obviously):
Example.jpg
Intro text, bla, whatever.
Section Header
  • Some
  • bulleted
  • list
This, to me, has always looked really ugly and makes the bulleted list hard to read. I know in some cases in Oblivion space, we'd wrap for reasons like this, while others just flowed however they happened to flow. When Skyrim came out, {{NewLeft}} became all the rage, probably because Rpeh had RoBoT put them in by default, which I thought was ideal. I'm not sure what Alfwyn has in mind with the CSS option, exactly, but I've really turned onto the idea of using CSS to customize things recently for exactly the reasons stated above: anyone who doesn't like the choices can customize them, given only a little knowledge of how CSS works (or a post to CP or IRC to find someone with said knowledge <g>). So, that would definitely be my preferred method. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (GMT)
Testing out the CSS solution a bit, it is easy to implement, but not wholly without problems. Pages that use images on the left would need looking at and tweaking. There aren't many around, but Lore:Morrowind is an example, images would probably need moving after the heading instead of before to avoid large gaps. Pages with a large TOC on the left would probably be better served with a TOC on the right for the same reason. So it would need tweaking of a couple of pages.
An alternative is to manually add a {{NewLeft}} before any heading after an image to the left. Or we just have text with headings flow around the image to the left (as long as it doesn't contain bullet lists or such), like we do with the TOC at Oblivion:Inns. --Alfwyn (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (GMT)

City gladiator teams in lore articles

Hello! I'm an infrequent contributor around here and not entirely certain this page is the proper venue for my question/proposal, so apologies in advance if I'm being presumptuous or posting in the wrong place. To the point: why exactly are the gladiator teams mentioned (and, I feel, shoehorned) in the lore articles for cities (Helstrom, Alinor, and so on)? According to the out-of-game source, the gladiator teams are a remnant from Arena's original design as a fighting game. I quote, "Due to a change in vision, this kind of game was never coded. Only some artifacts from that stage of development remained." I take this to mean that the gladiator teams were completely cut from the game, and therefore do not exist in official Elder Scrolls lore. Despite this, the teams hold a somewhat prominent place in each of the lore articles for their home cities.
In short, I don't like this situation and want to make some changes. If we cannot remove this info entirely (given its highly questionable nature), I at least want to move it all to the "Notes" sections of the articles, and make it amply clear that it's cut content from a game that wasn't made so its status as relevant, official lore should be considered with skepticism.
But again, I'm an infrequent user, and maybe there's a good reason this info is included as it is (I know Bethesda staff have access to Elder Scrolls lore materials that the average joe doesn't, and it's possible they vetted the gladiator teams in a forum post or tweet at some point). I'd appreciate community input on what course to take. What's the word? Croaker (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

I think you bring up a good point. Although this information can still be found in the game files, it was not added to the final game, so is not directly relevant to the mentioned cities. Unless I'm mistaken, outside of this text file and other indications, these are not officially canon or considered part of the series, since they were removed. Of course, they are still important, so it'd be worthwhile in my opinion to move them to a "Notes" section. • JAT 08:24, 24 January 2014 (GMT)
Go for it. Jeancey (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2014 (GMT)
OOG info is used to provide a rounder background for articles. For most of those cities we have next to no information about them, so talking about removed gladiator teams is really all we can do. I don't see any reason to move the info out of the main text, the OOG tag should be enough. Shoehorning is an issue, but I feel the current phrasing is as good as it gets. —Legoless (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (GMT)
They were added to the articles in 2011. It wasn't until a year later that the lore guidelines called for OOG to appear "low" on a page. So the pages with gladiator team information have pretty much just been waiting since then for someone to take an interest in bringing them in line with that practice. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:36, 24 January 2014 (GMT)
Moving them lower down the page might help on larger pages like Lore:Winterhold (city). —Legoless (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (GMT)
So it appears consensus is leaning toward moving the teams into Notes sections in the articles. If there are no objections, I'll take care of the necessary edits within the week. Croaker (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
I'm still opposed to that. Keep them in the main text, there's no reason to turn it into a note. —Legoless (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2014 (GMT)

() I agree with Lego on this one. --Nocte|Chat|Look 23:37, 25 January 2014 (GMT)

Whether or not to make something a note often depends on the juxtaposition between the info and the rest of the article. Besides fourth wall concerns, that's basically the only reason anything becomes a note. It's necessarily a case-by-case decision. If there's no good place low on the page to put it without a neck-breaking contrast between it and the info around it, then yeah, it should be put in a note. Anyways, no OOG should be transcluded to multi-topic articles, so it shouldn't be in the intro at all. Thus, in cases like Lore:Northpoint, the info should either be moved to a note or else noincluded out. And frankly, it would be better if we moved these to notes so we can break the fourth wall and condition the language. These shouldn't be stated as facts; "The city was once home to..." is a little misleading in this case, since we have reason to believe that a development-stage course correction resulted in these teams being wiped from the records altogether. So it would be more accurate in the form of "According to [Bob Loblaw]..., the city was supposed to be home to the [Bob Loblaw Law Blog], but [blah blah blah]." Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 23:38, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
I agree with ME here. The teams should be moved to a note and explicitly stated as part of an abandoned development concept for arena, like on our Blades page. The current phrasing would lead a reasonable reader to assume that it is a statement of canon fact, rather than something that never made it into any game or official material at all. -- Hargrimm(T) 00:33, 26 January 2014 (GMT)
Having never played Arena, I had always assumed that the gladiator teams had been implemented in the game, and never bothered to look through the Arena articles to find out. In my mind, this is a good reason to move them out of the article body and into the notes section. --Xyzzy Talk 05:56, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
Any further comments? I'd like to move on this later today, otherwise I'll have to wait until next week to scrounge up some free time. That is, unless a formal vote is necessary to settle the issue first. I've got no qualms with starting one and waiting until the voting period concludes if such is required. Croaker (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
I don't think a vote is necessary, for the simple reason that the statements as they currently exist are making a statement of fact that cannot be said to be true according to any in-game canon sources. They are nothing more than trivia regarding a game concept that was abandoned, and should be noted as such. -- Hargrimm(T) 20:03, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
Righto. I'll get started shortly. Croaker (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2014 (GMT)

Drugs

The lore section needs drugs!

As I've previously discussed here, drugs are criminally ignored in the lore section. Lore:Skooma is one of the only uncategorized lore pages left, and this orphan needs a home. Also, Legoless already has a sandbox listing various alcoholic beverages which, with a little spit and polish, would make for a lore-worthy page, in my opinion. I've been trying to help push the wiki over the 20,000-article mark (before April, when we'll have bigger news items), so now seems as good a time as any to tackle this.

I want to create an umbrella appendix. The page would transclude the intros from sub-appendices for Skooma, Moon Sugar, and Alcoholic Beverages, as well as elaborate on other known hallucinogenic or mood-altering substances, such as Hist Sap, Peryite's psychedelic fumes from Skyrim, etc.

The big issue I wanted to crowd-source is the name. I've been thinking about Lore:Intoxicants, but Lore:Drugs may be a little less pretentious. Lore:Boredom Enhancers also has a nice ring to it.

Should Lore:Moon Sugar be moved out of the alchemy section? I mean, it would still appear on Lore:Alchemy M regardless; I'm just wondering if the trail on the single-topic page should treat it as part of Lore:Alchemy or if it should go under the umbrella of a drugs appendix.

Also, does anyone know of some obscure TES party favors which are in danger of getting overlooked?

My apologies if someone already has something in the works. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:17, 25 January 2014 (GMT)

Don't forget Felldew. The Lore page for it is only a redirect to a list, but the Shivering page and related quests go into more detail. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
A lore page for Felldew has been in my bucket list for a while. That alcohol sandbox is far from complete I'm afraid, so I've just left it to sit for now. I think Lore:Drugs is fine, and having an appendix for it sounds like a good idea. —Legoless (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
Would the appendix be able to handle all those drugs? I do think Moon Sugar sits more comfortably as a drug first, then an ingredient. Sleeping Tree Sap, Greenmote, and possibly Sujamma are other drugs. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:34, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
I think so, especially if we're cropping out much of the longer articles, and if we let another page handle all the alcoholic beverages (edit: I have no excuse for taking that seriously. I feel great shame). Anyways, I want to constrict the definition here a bit so that we're not incorporating every alchemical ingredient with a "Frenzy" affect. So here's what I got for an opening line:
"Drugs are addictive and often illegal substances with hallucinogenic or mood-altering affects which are ingested for recreational or ritualistic purposes."
Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:44, 25 January 2014 (GMT)

() I have a rough draft ready. Obviously, the transclusions need work, and some pages have yet to be made (I assume Legoless is handling Felldew). So I'll just leave it sandboxed for the time being. Any critiques, shout 'em out. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:36, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

Excellent article! I noted a few minor grammatical issues, but the wording and structure is perfect, IMO. I smell an FA nom coming. --Xyzzy Talk 06:13, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
I assume you're joking, but thanks anyways. I went ahead and posted it. Legoless, I didn't want to step on your toes, so I left out Alcoholic Beverages and Felldew. But if you want me to help, let me know. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 22:54, 1 February 2014 (GMT)
I'll make a concerted effort on getting those two articles up. Nice work. —Legoless (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2014 (GMT)

Please stop electro-panicking at the mere word "s-x"

Discussion moved from Category:Proposed Policies and Guidelines

Is it possible to have a slightly more subtle means of dealing with possibly questionable content than an insulting automessage?

I tried to add a couple of sentences to the Lore article on Argonians concerning their apparent role in the fantasies of other races. The proposed addition is as follows:

Slavery commonly involves s-x-al exploitation, and slave-owners frequently construct a myth that the enslaved population is hypers-x-al as a justification for forcing s-x-al services from them. The fact that two of the very limited number of fictional accounts involving Argonians, The Lusty Argonian Maid and The Sultry Argonian Bard, are soft-core prnography seems to reflect this process of myth-making.

"The Lusty Argonian Maid" (written by a member of the slave-holding race, it should be noted) might be chance, but when Dawnguard added "The Sultry Argonian Bard," it seemed to indicate a pattern that has been seen in many other societies. However, when I tried to save this, I got the auto-answer:

Please do not add nonsense or obscenities to UESPWiki, as it is considered to be vandalism. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be blocked from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it.

To which I respond: Thank you for being so damned snotty. Mind you, I can understand part of your motivation. A wiki is an open invitation for jerks to come in and write "FFFFFFFF...........k" all over the pages, and it must be very frustrating to have to clean up that poop all the time. Worse than scrubbing netch spew off the Bulwark.... BUT when you start auto-censoring pages that include NO obscenity but only the dreaded word "s-x," you have definitely gone too far.

It was quite interesting to see Bethesda go to the trouble of making their back story sociologically valid by indicating that the "master" races were exploiting the Argonians in this way while patting themselves on the back and saying "Well, they really like it anyway!" Even if it were an accident, it should be commended as adding a subtle touch of realism.

So could you rewrite that filter to exclude words in common usage in polite company? After all, anyone who for some strange reason wanted to be filthy could do it in perfectly ordinary language without much effort. If you want to be ultra cautious, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, then instead of sticking an electronic elbow into the eye of the contributor, why not just cache the changes until an admin can give them a glance?

Anyway, you can put back that note on the way Argonians are mythologized by other races if you wish. There may well be a better place for it than where I put it.

PS: When I tried to post this, I got the same auto-insult...hence the dashes and so on. Sigh. — Unsigned comment by 174.6.51.17 (talk) at 19:40 on 25 January 2014‎

Your edit was blocked for using the word pornography, not sex. We are well aware that such filters may result in occasional false positives, however this has so far been so rare that this is the first to complain about an actual word that belongs in the filter, not a false postive on a 'safe' word that includes a banned word, such as mishit (shit). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:48, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
Just FYI, your proposed addition constitutes original research. You'd have to seek approval on the talk page before adding it, and I don't think approval would be forthcoming for this. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:34, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, this kind of thing seems a little...out of place for a lorespace article. Also, to the original poster: Could you please try and moderate your tone a bit? I understand you must be upset, but calling people "snotty" and suggesting that we're "panicking" isn't the best way to make sure your concerns are heard. ThuumofReason (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
There were two reasons for moving this here; 1, it was posted on a category page, 2, there was nowhere else. I've now written a policy based on usage at Edit Filter and need people to post their thoughts, tweak the page, and vote. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:17, 25 January 2014 (GMT)

Quick Community Template Question

I just created a new version of {{Discussion moved}} which, for now, I've put at {{Discussion moved 2}}. The basic format is much simpler and more flexible:

{{Discussion moved 2|UESPWiki:Community Portal}}
Discussion moved to UESPWiki:Community Portal
{{Discussion moved 2|from|:Category:Skyrim-Places}}
Discussion moved from Category:Skyrim-Places
{{Discussion moved 2|from|somewhere around [[:Category:Skyrim-Places|here]]}}
Discussion moved from somewhere around here

My question is: do we want to just move this to {{Discussion moved}} and have the bot go through and fix existing links, or are people used to the original version and we want to keep both? Robin Hood  (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2014 (GMT)

I'd appreciate the change, I always found the old template a bit complicated. -- SarthesArai Talk 21:24, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
Okay, I've got the bot ready to make the switch. I'll give it another 24 hours in case people have any other opinions; otherwise I'll make the change. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2014 (GMT)
I'd support replacing the old template entirely. • JAT 07:23, 26 January 2014 (GMT)
All done. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2014 (GMT)

Archive Search Update

Rather than unarchive the old topic, which was getting largish, I'll just create a new one. With Silencer's prompting, I've moved the search feature back up into the archive header. I've also switched to the scrolling version on CP and AN. It's its own template because I think there are probably some things that we'll want to look at about it later that don't apply to the regular one, like the fact that for now, it needs to be manually sized, and we may later decide formatting should be slightly different as well. If there are any technical issues or anything people don't like about it, let me know. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2014 (GMT)

Whilst I prefer it at the bottom, I would like to raise another similar question, does the new scroll-y archive table *need* hiding, it's not really long, is it? If this isn't possible would it be possible to have (it would, I presume, be possible from some .css wizadry but would end up being site-wide) a show all show/hide by default... setting? --Kiz(email - talk) 08:30, 26 January 2014 (GMT)
That's as simple as removing the "class=collapsible collapsed" from the template call; the template itself isn't collapsed by default. The layout looks more than a bit messy if we just do that as it is now, though. It gives three boxes at the top of CP (the info box, archives, and TOC) that look like someone just kind of threw them at the screen randomly, so we might want to put some thought into a better arrangement. Robin Hood  (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2014 (GMT)
Two hours to notice a post on my watchlist when i'm editing the wiki...
I agree, it does, but it's always looked like that, this is how I could get it to look "best" in my mind on my monitor. --Kiz(email - talk) 11:05, 26 January 2014 (GMT)
Some sort of feedback on the current design, my idea, or some others put forward, because something needs changing and I don't particularly want to edit the top of the CP on the grounds "I don't like it" without some public opinion. --Kiz(email - talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
While it looks better than it does now that way, I still didn't like it. I played around for a bit, came up with a whole bunch of messy-looking solutions, but eventually settled on this. How does that work for everyone? Robin Hood  (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
I think it looks slightly squished (at 1366), I plugged the 1024 monitor in and it looked really, really squished. I think two side by side is pushing it, ideally i'd like the boxes one after another, but that would make it too long. I tried to compromise with mine but couldn't get it right. --Kiz(email - talk) 21:32, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

() I like Kiz's example. If the table is maxed out there then that's fine. The TOC has to go from its previous position because of the archive being always there, and its better having it under the other table. The one alteration would be if the archive list was hidden, then the TOC can remain where it is. I really don't like Robin's example, TOCs just seem to work better on the right when they are long. Although the TOC moves into the first discussion and changes its appearance, they won't be like that when posted either through being posted lower on the page or the TOC not being long enough if it is the first section. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:37, 6 February 2014 (GMT)

Anthology Daggerfall

Many people playing TES games know that the so called "Anthology" was released last year. I just acknowledged this announcement, but didn't concern myself much with it, because I didn't plan to purchase it, plainly because I've no need for it. But recently I've started to wonder about the Daggerfall version that comes with this bundle and have a question/request I want to ask:
Can someone who owns it verify which version of Daggerfall is included on the respective CD or DVD ?
I don't know which medium is used to distribute the older games, so I don't know whether it is on a CD or a DVD they come with. Judging from what I've read on the various fora (forum = latin by the way) over the past months, it seem that BS free distribution, which certainly was taken from an original Daggerfall CD, is again used on the Anthology medium. This means it would be the un-pachted version. I didn't think the people at BS would be that foolish to place the original game on the medium without any warning, but this seems to be the case. So people play an un-patches and unstable version of the game, assuming everything was all right since the game has been released just recently and in addition as a convenient 1-click and go version too, so everything must be alright. I've never played anything below v2.13, but judging from the various posts and the Readme that comes with the last patch, the original games is unplayable because of its many bugs. If it is indeed true, that the un-patched original game is distributed, then a warning or something similar should be posted here on an appropriated page, so people who play Anthology Daggerfall will update to the latest version of the game, to prevent themselves a lot of frustration. Regarding at least Daggerfall, the UESP is the most exhaustive source of information available, so most people seeking advice might come here.--PLRDLF (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2014 (GMT)

I've had it confirmed to me by someone who has it that it is version 1.00. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:39, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
If that is true, it is definitely main page material. With a link to the latest patch. --Krusty (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
Yes Thanks, this is pretty much the answer I had suspected. I just want to point out again why some kind of warning should be imperative for Anthology Daggerfall. Arena-CD is up to the latest patch which is available, in fact CD-Arena has a higher version number than the patch available for the Arena floppy version, so no need to worry about it. And in the newer games there are no serious issues, aside from the FormID bug in the Shivering Isles expansion if I recall correctly, but at least these had no serious game or quest breaking bugs. And I assume people are clever enough to search for patches for the newer games if they are needed. Daggerfall is another matter though, the way the game comes implies, everything was alright, just like CD-Arena. Everyone who is interested can read here what issues are fixed up to patch 213 and than decide for himself whether such a game is playable or not. And most important, as it is the case with DOS based games like Daggerfall, problems with the game can not or not easily be fixed aside from using official patches. These classic games have no console or Construction Set or whatsoever. And in addition patches weren't an universal remedy in most cases too, especially when you had already started a new game with a lower version. So using the latest version right from the beginning was your best chance to actually finish a game successfully.--PLRDLF (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

ESO vs. Elder Scrolls Online

Quick question in regard to preference: is "ESO" an acceptable abbreviation for the wiki? It's already become dominant and incredibly widespread among gaming communities, and an abbreviation is a lot less cumbersome both for the reader and for editors. I think it should be fine to use. —Legoless (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

It's fine. It's their fault for choosing an adverb as the subtitle instead of a noun anyway. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:35, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
Why not TESO? I never understood that. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:37, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
Why would we use the longer abbreviation when we have a shorter one that works just as well? --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:41, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
ESO is used in some official places too, I don't remember seeing any other abbreviation. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:42, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
I actually preferred TESO, but ESO is far more common. —Legoless (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
My view was that ESO is fine for some things, but we usually spell out the first instance of an acronym (and by we I mean standard grammatical conventions of the English language), and then abbreviate it after that. I think that we should continue to follow this. Plus it looks much more professional to spell out the entire name than to use the acronym. We don't use & instead of and after all, even though it is shorter. Jeancey (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

() I would limit the abbreviation to articles where the name is used very frequently, like the ESO main page or some news articles (which I assume is assumed anyway). But yeah, while TESO might be "more correct", I see ESO used much more often officially and never see TESO. Sort of similar to LoZ for The Legend of Zelda or LotR for The Lord of the Rings (most of which drop the "the" when being talked about most of the time anyway). Vely►t►e 21:10, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) And yet we consistently use the shortened 'Oblivion', 'Skyrim', etc. instead of the full game titles, first instance or not. I don't think this abbreviation is unprofessional at all, given its widespread use. —Legoless (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
Using the same abbreviation "scheme" we've used means it wouldn't be ESO or TESO but 'Online', which I like more but isn't used by anybody at all. --Kiz(email - talk) 21:15, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Shortened is very, very different from an acronym. The use of an acronym is extremely unprofessional in prose writing. You see it more now in the age of twitter, but as an english major I can tell you that the use is considered extremely unprofessional. Jeancey (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
... Okay, let me make sure I've got this straight. We use four different labels for games on the wiki, depending on context. If we're going to continue past practices, here's what I think those labels will be for ESO:
1. The Elder Scrolls: Online
2. TES: Online
3. Online
4. ON
If we're talking about changing #3 to "ESO", I wouldn't be opposed to that. We've never run into the problem of having a generic, pervasive adjective as a TES game's unique title, and since I think "ESO" would be marginally better for reader comprehension, departing from past practice is justifiable. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:47, 29 January 2014 (GMT)
I look at it this way. ZeniMax uses two different ways to refer to the game. ESO and Elder Scrolls Online. We use two ways to refer to the namespace of the game, Online and ON. I think we should use those. Elder Scrolls Online for prose, ESO in cases when we would normally use TESV, and the others as we normally use them. Jeancey (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

() We need a final decision on the namespace, since the beta wiki has been using ESO, not Online. I'm fine with ESO. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 19:05, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Naw, I think online is the final one. It's already created, and it fits with the one word namespaces we have for all the other games. Online and ON. I don't see a reason to change it. Jeancey (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2014 (GMT)
Fine. Just noting the discrepancy. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 19:13, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Capitalization of various things

I'm going to post a completely new CP discussion, different from most other CP discussions here. There is no incident that caused this, no one did anything wrong, there isn't an argument here. I'm not trying to convince you all that my position is correct and we should all start doing it. In fact, I have absolutely no idea what to do, so I'm taking it here. Across all the games capitalization of certain words is not consistent. These are words that appear in multiple games, with different capitalization within those games themselves. Sometimes they are capitalized in the middle of sentences and sometimes they are not. I am seeking a broad consensus for how we should capitalize these on the wiki. I will outline the words, and the very few thoughts I have on the situation, and see what everyone else thinks.

The words are Dwemer, Daedra/Daedric and Falmer. Across the wiki we are extremely inconsistent about how to capitalize these, and I'm even inconsistent when writing the words. My only real thoughts are about Dwemer and Falmer, which are the names of races, so I am leaning towards saying capitalize, like we do with Altmer, Bosmer, etc. Other than that, I have no real ideas. Daedra/Daedric is especially a 50/50 split (as far as I can tell), so let's hear your thoughts!! Jeancey (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2014 (GMT)

As Alfwyn has informed me, in Skyrim there are 153 instances where daedr is uncapitalized (which covers both daedra and daedric). While there are significantly more capitalized instances (764), these instances include names of creatures, which are always capitalized in the game data and instances where the word appears at the beginning of sentences, where it would also be capitalized no matter what. There isn't an easy way of filtering out these occurrences, but just some more information for you guys. For other reference, MW has 1496 capitalized, 726 uncapitalized, OB has 1563 capitalized, 266 uncapitalized. Jeancey (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
Agreed on Dwemer and Falmer. I think Daedra should also be capitalized, as it is also the name of a race of sorts and I believe we already capitalize Aedra. But the problem I see here is when we have to refer to objects that are Dwemer or Falmer or Daedric, like Falmer Armor. Currently we don't capitalize the name of an object even if it's the name of a race (like orcish or elven). So if we choose to capitalize Dwemer or Falmer, either we have to be somewhat inconsistent or we have to capitalize some proper names but not others. Daedric is a particular problem, because something like daedric armor seems like it shouldn't be capitalized ( to be consistent with other armor types), but Dadric artifact should (as it's an artifact belonging to or created by a Daedra). --AN|L (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
To further complicate that, we capitalize Nordic and Imperial when they appear as the name of items. Orcish should probably be capitalized too, elven maybe not since it isn't, by itself, the name of a race. Jeancey (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
Do we have anything from in the games? I have a feeling that somewhere in Morrowind someone said "Go get me a ____ Sword/Helm/whatever". •WoahBro►talk 16:50, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
I did outline the number of occurrences in the games above. There are more capitalized versions, but there are also many, many more instances where words are always capitalized, no matter what. Jeancey (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
Personally I prefer to capitalize all of them: Dwemer, Falmer, Daedra/Daedric. I wasn't sure about Orcish before, but yeah, I think it should be capped too. Now, as for elven... I'm still on the fence. "Elven" isn't describing a race per se (though I'm pretty sure it refers to Altmeri design in item names), rather, a group of races. Dunno if that makes a difference to y'all but it does in this groggy, early-morning mind. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 17:45, 30 January 2014 (GMT)

() Our current policy is that "All versions of items that include these racial descriptors should be capitalized, such as Dwarven armor, Orcish sword, and Falmer shield, but not elven dagger." That seems reasonable to me; a specific race's name is always capitalized, while a generic category of races is not. I consider 'Daedra' and 'Aedra' the names of a specific 'race' of beings, so they would be always capitalized. The above policy was added at the beginning of this month following this brief discussion on the Spelling talk page, for reference. -- Hargrimm(T) 17:47, 30 January 2014 (GMT)

Edit- Nevermind, I was confused. No objection to capitalizing Daedra. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:35, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
The current policy also notes the deliberate inconsistency in older gamespaces in reference to Orcs. They were only creatures then, much like goblins, so they should be decapped. I'd support an always of Dwemer. The main reason for inconsistency in relation to Falmer is that they were and are a creature, but one that devolved from a race that was on a par with the other humanoid races (Dwemer, Nord, etc). I think that it should be decapped when referring to an individual falmer, but capped when speaking directly of the race. We have already established that they are distinct from the Snow Elves, enough to have a separate lore page. They should be treated much like goblins, in the opposite movement of Orcs. Daedra is a hard one; I'd like to see a comparison of capped and non-capped in books only. Regardless of that, they are on a level with the Aedra, and if we always cap Aedra we should probably treat the Daedra the same. Elven is never a race so should only ever be capped when its a direct copy from the game.
I think the main thing we need to establish is how we treat the falmer, either as a creature or a proper 'intelligent' race (or whatever we use to establish a difference between the two for non-playable races). The falmer are not the Snow Elves anymore. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:10, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
I would also like to get a consensus for capitalization of 'Riekling' while we're at it. There's a lot of inconsistency on the wiki right now in that regard. Personally, I support capping them and Falmer, since they are intelligent enough beings to create habitations and weapons, and the Rieklings even have their own language. When I get home where I have all the raw data in a couple hours, I'll comb through the corpus of in-game books to see how all these topic are treated currently. -- Hargrimm(T) 19:25, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
Make sure you differentiate between cases where it is the first word of a sentence, since that doesn't really prove the capitalization either way. Jeancey (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
My understanding of the current policy (quoted above) is that mentions of individual races should be capitalized, but categories of races should not. In other words, terms like Orcish, Dwemer, and Aldmeri would always be capitalized regardless of usage, Daedra would be capitalized if referring to a specific race within that category, and daedra would be uncapitalized if referring to the collection of all races of daedric origin. Personally I'd prefer to just capitalize it all, since I don't feel the distinction is worth making. Regardless, I'd support Falmer always being capitalized. • JAT 19:42, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
A lot of creatures have their own language, giants, goblins, nymphs, centaurs, dragons and dragonlings (see User:Legoless/Sandbox/16 for even more). Goblins can use magic, giants have their own weapons. In short I believe that rieklings are creatures and should not be capped. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:46, 30 January 2014 (GMT)
Rieklings are mentioned in 27 dialogue lines between Bloodmoon and Dragonborn, and only one book, capitalized every time except two instances in Dragonborn. It is also capitalized every time it appears in the player's quest journal. I can't find a single non-capitalized use of 'Falmer' anywhere in books, dialogue, or journal entries throughout all the games.
Spelling MW Dialogue SR Dialogue Books
Daedra 89 40 104
Daedric 68 5 23
daedra 16 5 53
daedric 8 0 13
So there's my data for Daedra. This is all from NPC dialogue and in-game texts, not counting any item names or things like that. I have discounted occurrences at the beginnings of sentences, or compound phrases like "Daedric Prince/Lord" (this is why the Daedric counts are so much lower than Daedra). It's certainly not a perfect count, but it should give an idea of usage. The main issue is that the same term is used to refer to everything between Azura and a scamp. -- Hargrimm(T) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (GMT)

() "Daedra" and "Daedric" have been in the Spelling guide as always capitalized since 2009, so that's what I've been following. I think that if we try to determine which Daedric races warrant capitalization, it would be too open to personal preference. For simplicity's sake, I think we should just stick with the current policy and always capitalize Daedra and Daedric. I'm also tending towards simplifying the rule and always capitalizing Falmer. They are a race; a degenerate race, but still a race with a society, language, and military technology on par with the playable races. Rieklings are a little less certain, but since the overwhelming number of in-game instances have it capitalized, I feel we should do the same. --Xyzzy Talk 06:02, 31 January 2014 (GMT)

I would also support capitalizing Falmer and Daedra in all instances except direct quotes. My personal opinion about the capitalization of creature races is basically that decaps should only be used for generic fantasy creatures; giants, goblins, and dragons can be found in any number of Tolkien- or folklore-inspired works of fiction with little to distinguish them from one another in each work they're used in (and as Silencer pointed out, even orcs didn't have any kind of significance beyond "generic class of ugly creature for players to kill" until Morrowind). However, you won't find "Rieklings" in any other work of fiction; they're something that Bethesda created, not just an interchangable fantasy race. The deciding factor for me is whether a species is unique to the Elder Scrolls universe; we capitalize "Orcs" in all games after Daggerfall because they have their own unique identity within the Elder Scrolls series (they're "Orsimer", an elven race). Similarly, I feel like we should capitalize "Riekling". Does that make sense? ThuumofReason (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2014 (GMT)
Just as a note, we already don't capitalize specific daedric species, like scamp, hunger, winged twilight, etc. That's not really what this is about, rather the word daedra. So if that changes your thinking at all Thuum, since those species are unique to the elder scrolls series, but we won't capitalize them. Jeancey (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2014 (GMT)
Not really. That just affirms my belief that our rules are way too intricate. >_< ThuumofReason (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2014 (GMT)

ESO?

Hey everyone! I am preordering a copy of ESO (the really expensive version with all the features) for myself. I was thinking about a few editors here who are friends of mine and whom I know cannot afford to maintain their own subscription, so I was curious to see how many people would be interested in a joint UESP account that any regular trusted editor would have access too. I would manage and pay for the account and share credentials with others as necessary. Would anyone be interested? --Nocte|Chat|Look 07:45, 10 February 2014 (GMT)

Don't most MMOs have prohibitions on account sharing in the terms of use? -- Hargrimm(T) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (GMT)
Most MMOs I have played allow account sharing but only one computer can be logged on at a time. --Nocte|Chat|Look 20:20, 10 February 2014 (GMT)
From the Terms of Service:
  • Accounts are non-transferable under any circumstances.
  • ZeniMax grants to You, for Your personal and private use only, a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable license to use Services
  • You may not (a) distribute, publicly perform or display, sell, transmit, publish, edit, reproduce, sublicense, rent, lease, loan or otherwise transfer any Game, Software, and/or Content, [Emphasis mine]
I'd try asking Bethesda for a free joint account for the wiki, you're gaming press, after all. --◄mendel► (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2014 (GMT)

Suggestion: install the Semantic Mediawiki Extension

I believe it would be a good idea to add the Semantic Mediawiki Extension to the wiki and use it in the upcoming ESO content. It provides the functionality of "saving" attributes of items much like our MetaTemplate extension does, but it does so in a more transparent manner (there are all sorts of reporting tools, including an optional infobox at the bottom of pages to show to editors who have it enabled what values a specific page saves). Another big advantage is that other people [1] will be responsible for keeping it compatible with upcoming MediaWiki versions.

Since most of the MetaTemplate use is done via templates, the scope of an eventual project to convert the uses of Metatemplate #load and #save to SMW seems manageable. Another gaming wiki which has integrated SMW successfully is the official GuildWars 2 wiki. --◄mendel► (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2014 (GMT)

I've come across Semantic before and at the time, I didn't think it was quite ready to take over for what we were using MetaTemplate for. That was some time ago, though, and I'd like to have another look at it. You have a point that ESO might make an ideal conversion ground, since so much of it seems likely to be different that new templates may be needed for a lot of things anyway. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2014 (GMT)
Could you give some examples for features that we'd need that you didn't find in SMW? --◄mendel► (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2014 (GMT)
Switching would be a major change, it will not be as simple as spotting single features missing. Currently we rely really a lot on MetaTemplate, so minor differences in behavior will affect us. But in principle switching might be a good idea. Currently we still have caching problems with MetaTemplate - after editing a page saved values might not show up on pages loading them. We may end up just trimming down MetaTemplate and still use some of its features (for example, what about #inherit, looking at variables defined further down the parse stack?). I think, if an initial look at it is promising, we could install it on dev once the test for the upgrade is over, to gain some experience with it. --Alfwyn (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm working off these assumptions:
  1. The Metatemplate functions #load and #save are used to store and load object attributes. (I assume this because I have read the extension docs and seen some templates using this.)
  2. SMW can replace this functionality. (I assume this because SMW was designed to do just that, and because it works for GW2W.)
  3. If SMW can replace MetaTemplate, this might be beneficial (for the reasons stated).
You and RH70 have expressed some support for assumption 3. Before we can evaluate this, however, we must first examine the other two assumptions in detail. You both seem to tentatively challenge them, but you don't go beyond voicing general doubts. I have these doubts myself, because I don't know the wiki very well, and I'm self-critical enough to admit that I may be completely off-base with these assumptions.
I want to know where your doubts are coming from. I am asking for examples to figure out where you're coming from, and to go there myself. I want to understand what you're telling me, and I want to become able to assess my assumptions myself. I do work toward this goal on my own as well, but it would really help if you just mentioned some issues that you'd want to investigate. Add some specifics (not expected to be complete or final) to your general doubts, please.
And yes, this is about the Data Sharing features only (for now?). --◄mendel► (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2014 (GMT)
One example would be to conditionally load data {{#load:....|if=...}}. Details like this will need looking at, and later testing. We probably don't need a perfect feature match, as we can just change how we use them a bit. But the general doubts from me are just, that I think that switching is a bigger undertaking than it may look. I think SMW will be worthwhile, if we eventually can replace all data sharing of MetaTemplate and retire those bits of code.
And there will be a lot of decisions to be made. For example we could change MetaTemplate to internally use SMW. That may or may not be better than changing all our templates. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (GMT)

() As an average site-user, I have no idea what any of this tech-talk means. However, as a member of the community, if this change will ultimately be beneficial for the site (especially with ESO coming out), then I think we should seriously consider this change. However, if there are things that will need to be sorted out and tweaked, I would say we should do this fairly soon in order to be prepared for the ESO release. •WoahBro►talk 15:17, 12 February 2014 (GMT)

I don't remember specific features that were missing or problematic at this point, as it was at least a year ago, maybe closer to two, when I looked at it. It works on a slightly different paradigm by default, but the #set and #ask/#show would seem to be similar enough at a glance that I would expect adapting existing code to be straight-forward in many cases.
In addition to Alfwyn's point above about the if= (which is evaluated before any other parsing takes place), a couple of things that spring to mind off-hand that I didn't see covered on the website are: how well it supports namespaces and whether you can use variables within names themselves (e.g., {{#show: {{{ns}}}:{{{faction}}} | ?Rank{{{rank}}} }}). You'll see this sort of usage in template calls like {{Faction|Mages Guild|rank=Evoker}}. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (GMT)
Rudimentary testing on their sandbox wiki showed that property names can be indeed constructed. But thinking more about it, if we go SMW, we probably want to keep MetaTemplate syntax at least for some time and just let it store/load its data into properties. That will ensure that things like if= will work. And we can switch stuff over at a convenient pace then. MetaTemplate would need to auto-create properties (probably constant prefix + saved name), if not already present, of type text. That will not be as useful as typed properties, but will work even if the same name is used in wildly different context on different pages. Of course if we switch over to typed properties, we can ask more useful questions then (like give me all NPCs level greater 20), but cases of n/a may be a problem. --Alfwyn (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2014 (GMT)
As far as I can tell, we don't really need the if= syntax any more, because the rules about expansion of conditionals have changed years ago.
Are you proposing to rewrite the Metatemplate extension to use SMW? I believe it is easier (and more transparent) to just rewrite the templates (27 use #save, 40 use #load *) for SMW, setting up a consistent naming scheme across the wiki in the process.
My next job is going to be documenting the uses of #save, which is useful even if we don't go SMW. --◄mendel► (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2014 (GMT)
Yes, if it can be done without too much trouble, I think keeping the MetaTemplate syntax will be worthwhile. It keeps templates more readable. We have quite a bit knowledge about it, both encoded in the templates and in the minds of long time editors. Just switching to something else will change problems we know about (like a minor cleantable issues) to problems we don't know about.
Now retiring the internal load/save code of MetaTemplate will be worth it in my opinion. We currently have caching problems with it. I tried a bit to get to the root of it about a year ago, but ultimately found out I would need to know way more about how exactly the job queue works (that is, what is done in which order), and how exactly all caching works. Another thing that might get better is an optimizing issue. It looks like if I currently edit a page that saves data, all pages loading it get re-done, even if the saved data didn't change at all. This seems to escalate a bit. If I edit the "Book Summary" template for example, the job queue peaks at 5k. This may be in part to recursively changing stuff (all book pages, lore article referencing them after that, game space articles transcluding the lore pages, ...). I haven't really tested it, but it might be that editing an innocent page suddenly results in half of the wiki pages re-rendering.
The "syntactic sugar" part of MetaTemplate on the other hand is way less complex and currently doesn't cause any real problems. --Alfwyn (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2014 (GMT)

() My various thoughts on it for what its worth.

  • Minimalism -- I generally try to install only the minimum of what is actually necessary/wanted. In general it is easy to add something but difficult to remove it later on. This is especially important for such a large extension as SMW...a lot of the smaller extensions can be easily added/removed with almost no effect to the wiki.
  • Comparable Usage -- Looking at the sites that use SMW there doesn't seem to be anything close to the traffic the UESP gets (the closest was probably 1/10th of us at the moment). With ESO coming out and our traffic likely to see a peak x10 growth I'd be concerned about how SMW performs under such loads and usage. I would really prefer to see a site similar to us use it successfully and not be the proverbial guinea pig.
  • Performance -- Trying to get the UESP as fast as possible has been a large part of my work over the years and I'm proud to see that we're usually faster than most wikis and other sites out there (currently around the 80-90% percentile). Looking at some of the other sites that use SMW I'm not impressed by their performance...all were slower and most were much slower, some as much as x27 (2.7s render time compared to our typical 0.1s). I might be willing to part with a small performance loss but not much if I can help it.
  • Effort Involved -- For such a large and significant extension there would have to be a lot of testing work to see if it is compatible with the UESP. Performance would have to be tested exhaustively as well as its effect on caching performance and server load. Then there's all the work of actually modifying 20,000 wiki pages to take advantage of SMW. There's also the current backlog of important things which, given the release of ESO shortly, means I wouldn't have time to even begin looking at SMW before the fall (granted, some of the other admins could take a lot of the work).
  • Actual Need -- Given we already have a extension (MetaTemplate) that has been created specifically for the needs of UESP I'm not sure I see any need to move to SMW, especially considering all the above challenges.

Now, the above list may seem entirely pessimistic but I'm always open things. If the other admins/editors see a benefit and can convince me I have no problem with it. Personally I think the effort would be better spent taking some time to look at and improve MetaTemplate from some of the issues its shown. -- Daveh (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

Thank you for taking the time to write such an in-depth reply. I can definitely see where you're coming from.
I agree that SMW is not the kind of expansion that you'd just install "to see if it works out". However, it works well for The Official Guild Wars 2 Wiki, which is has content that is very similar to ours (lots of pages about items and NPCs with stats, and lots of lists and other references to them), and GuildWars being a popular MMORPG, should have a lot of traffic. It is kind of hard to tell using MediaWiki stats, because page accesses often get to the cache only and not the server itself, so the statistics Mediawiki itself keeps are unreliable. I have looked for GW2W traffic stats, but couldn't find any. Anyway, page generation depends on edits, and looking at their RC, it seems as busy as ours.
Going by the last HTML line of each page, "Served in 0.110 secs" is a stat that GW2W can't even approach, being closer to 0.5s most of the time. It'd be interesting to find out how much SMW contributes to that. The actual time for a browser to request a page is actually slightly better, from where I am, but that's cache performance and not backend.
Effort - yes, it is, and since much of it rests on your shoulders, the decision must be yours. However, because SMW is not a homegrown extension, I'd expect few problems. To convert existing content, we ought to get by with updating the 60 Templates or so that are using #load or #save, and I volunteer to help with that. I was hoping SMW could already be used for the new ESO content, but given the testing requirements, I realize that it may be too late for that.
Ultimately, is it more effort to track down and fix the Metatemplate issues, or to go with SMW (assuming it doesn't have major issues)? --◄mendel► (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2014 (GMT)
Thanks for point out the GW2 wiki. They look roughly the same size as the UESP in terms of traffic and site size. For now I have other priorities to work on but when I eventually get to MetaTemplate/SMW I may try and contact the GW2 admins/devs and get their opinion on SMW. The performance difference may not indeed be due to SMW as it is impossible to tell by just looking at page loads externally. -- Daveh (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2014 (GMT)
Updating "60 Templates or so" is a not a thing easily done, unless we risk a more or less broken site. Those are all the central templates, small changes in their specification will cause unexpected results. And I see no point in obfuscating our templates, just so we don't use MetaTemplate anymore. Sure, we could just replace each "{{#load:page|data1|data2|...}}" by "{{#define:data1|{{#show:page|?data1#}}}} {{#define:data2|{{#show:page|?data2#}}}} ...", but that's not going to increase the readability.
Most questions about SMW would need actually testing, without that we can just take guesses. I wouldn't expect the render time to increase at all, since in effect both extensions will just add a few lookups in the DB to get the saved values. What might cause performance issues is querying complicated concepts, but #listsaved has basically the same performance risk issues. A thing that might actually change is the load induced by editing a page. MetaTemplate works by emulating transclusions, so changing a page #saving values will at least recursively invalidate the cached version of pages #loading those values (it looks like they are actually forced to re-render, I'm not sure why this is done). What would be useful to know is, what concept SMW uses to update and find pages needing update when a property changes - haven't found anything on that so far (but a page showing a property doesn't show up as transcluding the page the property is defined). If they do updates only if the value of a property changes (in contrast to every time something on the page is edited) it could actually increase overall performance.
Looking a bit at the SMW source, it is way more complex than MetaTemplate. Then again the hope is that most of the testing/fixing is done by other people (MW itself is quite a complex piece of code too).
My personal guess is, that it will be way easier to use the data storage of SMW in MetaTemplate than to fix its caching issues. I don't think we will have much initial use of inline defining of properties in links, but that may change once the possibility exists. Likewise I think #load/#save is superior to using #show/#set and just fundamentally changing the style of all our templates is infeasible in my opinion. We don't use #listsaved that much, and could probably just change over to SMW equivalents where we do. The ability to easily arrange saved data, and to easily find out where data is saved and loaded will be a bonus.
In summary I think SMW will be worth testing and several important questions about it can't be answered without. After that it will be easier to decide whether to use it or not. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2014 (GMT)
I agree that it would be worth testing at some point, but given how close we are to ESO's release, I think now is probably not the time. One thing I do remember noting on SMW's FAQ was this: Why doesn't data I have just added show up in queries? Sounds like they have similar caching issues to MetaTemplate. Perhaps it's a limitation of the MediaWiki software? Robin Hood  (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2014 (GMT)
I guess I should define what I call the "MetaTemplate caching problem". It's actually not that it doesn't update the data fast enough. It's that when an old value already exists and I edit that value (or any other part of the page), pages loading that value get (randomly) broken by displaying no value at all. If it just would display an outdated value that wouldn't be nice, but somehow acceptable. --Alfwyn (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2014 (GMT)
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure which caching problem you were referring to, specifically. That bug is something I'd like to take a crack at at some point, but I'm not sure I'll get any farther than you have.
Another potential concern of SMW is the database bloat. I just tried installing it on my test wiki, and SMW on its own created almost as many tables (38) as there are in the base MediaWiki software itself (50 for 1.21+). It's possible that they're all really necessary and useful, but that does seem a bit excessive to me, and even if it's keeping redundant data to a minimum, I have to think that that's going to be a much larger footprint (which often, but certainly not always, means less performance) than MetaTemplate's two tables.
Also, on the issue of examining the data, I'm thinking it wouldn't be too difficult to use the new (1.21+) Special:PagesWithProp as a model for a MetaTemplate equivalent. A companion Special page that would also be useful would be one that'll show all MetaTemplate properties currently defined for a page. Just a thought for possible future development. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (GMT)

Use of TESMods in Random Page browsing

Could the TESMods be removed from being used on the Random Page search? It's not that I don't appreciate the hard work the contributers make towards those projects, I just like to click around on the random page to learn new things about the games/lore when I'm bored. Also, some of those projects are no longer active or their pages haven't been updated in years. I would like the unofficial patch projects left though as it's useful to install those for anybody. The things like the Mainland Morrowind project, Stirk, DFremake, and any of the various file type explanations would be what I am talking about. --66.211.250.122 16:29, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

While Stirk is dead, Tamriel Rebuilt (which is the Mainland Morrowind thing you are talking about) is still extremely active and creating new material. There just hasn't been anyone to come along at add it to the wiki. I've added some things, but there is so much still to add. In any case, you can random through specific namespaces, but I don't believe there is a way to specifically exclude namespaces just for your randomization. I for one still edit and cleanup those namespaces, so I would like them to stay. If you want to learn about just lore, you can just randomly search lore. Here is a link to that search. Jeancey (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
I appologize, I had forgotten the official title of the project.--66.211.250.122 16:42, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
I kind of agree with this sentiment. Pages like Tes3Mod:StopCellTest for example are of little interest to anyone. —Legoless (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
Yes, but the Tamriel Rebuilt pages are still of interest to many people, and you can't really exclude the console pages without also excluding the TR pages. Jeancey (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
I agree that the Mod namespaces are of little use in random searches, because someone would presumably directly look, rather than opting to stumble upon it, if they really wanted to know what was on one of those articles. Can if be set to exclude namespaces from the random page searching at all? I love and consult the TES3Mod namespace often myself, but I also am irritated when Mod NS results are returned when I am "Random Page" mashing to find official content that could interest me. -damon  talkcontribs 17:17, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
At the moment it looks like the Special:Random function uses the $wgContentNamespaces setting to choose which namespaces to get pages from. Since this variable controls a bunch of other important things we wouldn't want to change it. It should be possible to create an extension to add the ability to choose which namespaces to use for Special:Random but given all the other things that need to be done at the moment it would be low on my priority list (someone else is welcome to look into it however). -- Daveh (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
Given that we agreed to host these mods on the site, and that they should "eventually" all be completed one day, I don't see why we should not have them pop up on the random page. In effect we are saying we don't want anyone to randomly discover them, and that also leads to a perpetual circle of incompleteness; if no-one new discovers them how will they get completed, seeing as no-one who does know about them has an 'apparent' interest in the short-term of completing what pages we do have on the mods. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:43, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
OK, Silencer's way of looking at it makes a lot of sense to me, and I am changing my stance. What's it hurt that they are there, except for minor inconvenience to a select handful of users, and what's it going to hurt the day we decide to let TR3 and those other mods fall into obscurity, since they are rather confusing to find in the Mod NS (You have to navigate there from the MW main page, click other buttons once on the TES3Mod NS, and so forth)? I am now tipping back towards leaving them within the random search. And, that aside, Dave says it's gonna be tricky and take a lot of work for what is petty nit-picking on my part and the others who wanted them originally removed. A lot of work for minimal gain if we wanted to censor three namespaces out of the many we have (3 being TES3Mod -4Mod-, and -5Mod) -damon  talkcontribs 18:59, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

() I didn't mean to stir up such trouble, I wasn't sure as to point of the Random Page beyond official lore, game info, and game play. To me the MOD NS is like the talk pages of the articles or a sandbox, that aren't included in the results anyway, specifically in cases as Legoless suggested above.--66.211.250.122 19:16, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

It's no trouble at all! You gave a suggestion and we explained why we prefer to keep things the way they were. Personally, I like the idea of the extension to filter results, but like Dave said, it probably won't happen very soon, if at all. •WoahBro►talk 20:53, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

Poisoning Weapons

From Skyrim_talk:Alchemy#Poisoning_Weapons

I've been looking and looking, but I cannot find any information regarding poisoning weapons. I've looked under multiple sections (Poison Damage, Weapons, Alchemy) and I cannot find any info. I do see in the Archives where it was brought up, but it doesn't appear any info was ever added. Is it possible that something could be added? Doesn't seem to me that this would be complete without at least a brief description of the game mechanic, or an in-depth one if warranted. --Draagyn (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2014 (GMT)

I had forgotten that I had asked the same question over a year ago with no response. This definitely needs to be added to an article or articles somewhere; this one, Skyrim:Potions, Skyrim:Damage, and/or Skyrim:Combat. If we can't get consensus here, it should be brought up on the Community Portal. --Xyzzy Talk 05:35, 1 February 2014 (GMT)
So, it appears that this is going to need to be solved by the route of using the Community Portal. Forgive me, as I am new here, but I'm utterly confused as to how to take that next step. --Draagyn (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

This is a duscussion pulled from the aforementioned talk page, which has gone unanswered, but is deemed rather important and it's been suggested that a CP discussion be initiated to force attention to this matter, which is admittedly rather straightforward, it seems.

The above comments are what was on that talk page, to ensure a fluid discussion here, so let's discuss, since it's been fairly ignored and a consensus is desired.

I believe the topic of poisoning weapons is fundamental to alchemy and combat, and am personally of the opinion that it deserves mention first (and mainly) on the alchemy page, and then a mention with what's battle-related on Combat, though Combat falls as less necessary than under "Alchemy", in my opinion, to give my two cents.

Are there any other opinions and/or anyone capable of consulting the CK, doing fact finding, article writing, etc, which is somethign that I, at least, can't accomplish, not having the game anymore. -damon  talkcontribs 22:29, 17 February 2014 (GMT)

I personally don't know how it will make up an entire page, but knowing the editors on this site, someone can do it. With that being said, I do think that this should be on the site, whether as a blurb somewhere on an already-existing page or as its own page entirely. •WoahBro►talk 14:23, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
I think it would go naturally on Alchemy#Skill_Usage, then linking to that from the other relevant pages if it is more than one sentence. Otherwise just copy it. --Alfwyn (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
Apart from the fact that poisons can be applied to weapons, and which ones, what other information is needed that's not already available in the list of Poisons? Robin Hood  (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
It shouldn't be that difficult to just add that poisons are applied to weapons on that page, and link back to the related perk/describe the perk on the page itself. I don't think a whole page is necessary, but I'm surprised that this wasn't already covered? I can't think of any poisons off the top of my head that can't be applied to weapons, so I don't think we'll need to repeat the list already on the page. I'll poke around in the CK though. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 21:39, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
Duration the poison stays around is needed. --Alfwyn (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
Speaking from the point of view of someone who has never used poisoned weapons, some of the questions I have are:
- Is poisoning indefinite, or does it wear off?
- What weapons can be poisoned?
- Do some weapons benefit more or less from poisoning?
- Can player-made potions be used, and if so, are they more potent/versatile?
- Is poisoning a weapon even worth it?
These were some of the questions I was looking for answers on, but I've found little to no information. I'm aware that some of these questions might not even be valid, I'm just offering some of the questions I had. --Draagyn (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
Okay, thanks. Now I know what to look for. CK and CSlist aren't telling me much, so I'll pop into the game and do some tests. BRB. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 22:03, 18 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm back! Here's what I found out with testing (no mods, only High Res packs).
Duration: Indefinite. Poison lasts until you hit something with the weapon. Poison on bows will be used up whether you hit a valid target with your arrow or not, while on other weapons last until you hit a valid target (not tested if this is still true if the target is immune to poison).
What weapons: I tested poisons on an unenchanted Orcish Bow (Superior) and an Orcish Mace of Absorption, so it appears weapons from leveled lists, unenchanted or tempered or neither, work. There is a message for weapons that can't be enchanted in CSlist, but I don't know if it's even implemented.
Different weapons, any change: I haven't found any indication of this.
Player-made poisons: Yes, they can be used. Player-made potions have the potential of being much more powerful than base poisons (i.e. Weak Frenzy Poison, Frostbite Venom), but it depends on whether your Alchemy skill is high enough to make potions more powerful than the ones you can find in loot at your level.
Worth it: Depends on weapons skills, I think. I'm a stealth-based player. I'm always getting my Sneak bonus with my bow, so I only use poison when I want to do something different – usually to apply a frenzy effect in large groups or to make absolutely sure the target dies in one shot. If someone is focusing on Alchemy and making lots of poisons anyway, using them is a good idea, I think.
That's what I've found so far. I'm going to try out some unique items next, and poison-immune targets. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 01:30, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

() One quick question since you are play-testing: if you poison a weapon, then switch weapons before hitting an opponent or firing a missile, does the poisoning stay with the weapon you originally poisoned, transfer to the new weapon, disappear, or something else I can't think of? --Xyzzy Talk 04:58, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

I did test that as well, actually. It stays on the weapon originally poisoned and as far as I can tell will be there til the cows come home unless you use the weapon. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 23:21, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

() So, should this information be added and if so, where?--draagyn (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

Categorization of ESO books.

Based on the beta info, it seems all the ESO books are split up into Collections, such as "Alik'r Desert Lore", "Lore and Culture" etc. Does the community think there is any benefit if we take a similar stance for the books in the Online namespace and categorize them similarly? I imagine this would be of use to people when the game is out. Also the Online:Books page could be split up in a similar fashion. One downside is it's nice to have all the books in one large alphabetical table, so splitting them into Collections would detract from that, but perhaps we can set up something like we have for Lore:Books by Subject, or rather "Online:Books by Collection"? Thoughts? --Jimeee (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2014 (GMT)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would imagine we could use something similar to the Type parameter we had for the Skyrim books. This I believe categorised books by type, and was displayed on the main Books table as a sortable column. --Enodoc (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
Ideally, we would set up a table at Online-Books to show either a full alphabetical list or the collections. If not, I wouldn't be opposed to a Books by Collection Online page.Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:06, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
Skill books seem to be in their own collection. However we organize the books on overview pages, collection info should be shown in the infobox and probably used for categorization. We could re-use the "type" parameter, but I guess a "collection" parameter would be better (|collection=Skill Books or |collection=Lore and Culture). --Alfwyn (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm in favor of adding a 'collection' field to the Book Summary infobox. The categorization would even be useful for the Lore space as well as Online, since it provides a little additional context of where the book would be found. There are several works which just reference 'the city,' or something similar, with no way of knowing where that is without first knowing where in the game the book would be found. -- Hargrimm(T) 17:39, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
This should stay out of the lore section, for the time being. No problems with it in the Online namespace, but it's a game-specific categorization scheme that doesn't cover all TES books, we essentially have our own categorization scheme in Lore:Books by Subject which does cover all the books, and an appropriate description should provide adequate context on a book in the lore section without an additional infobox parameter being necessary. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:21, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
Yes, the current Lore categories are fine and shouldn't include some of the more obscure or very specific Collections categories in ESO. This idea is for the ESO namespace. While an extra column works, Personally, I find it a pain to sort the Type column then scroll down down down to find the section that I'm looking for (such as "Destruction skill book" in SR) - it can be a nightmare with long lists and looking at all the books for ESO, it may be a large table. I'm doing a little inventory on my sandbox[2], and split sections seem to work well. --Jimeee (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
Also, keep in mind that not all books are categorized like this, and I'm not sure that the categorization ESOHead is using for their non-lore library books is from ZOS, or something they created themselves. Jeancey (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2014 (GMT)
Supporting both a category through the infobox and a page for collections, probably with redirects for each 'type', unless each collection is of enough scale to warrant its own page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:41, 20 February 2014 (GMT)

Aspect ratio for ESO images

Based on the increasing number of computers which have a native "widescreen" resolution near the 16:9 ratio (such as 1366x768), and the fact that most of the Prerelease Images and loading screens for ESO are near to 16:9, I would like to open a discussion about the policy which says most images should be in the 4:3 ratio, a standard which is becoming dated (the ratio, that is, not necessarily the policy). To ensure consistency within existing namespaces I do not think we should change the policy established for previous releases, but I would like to suggest that 16:9 be considered as an acceptable ratio for certain ESO images, such as for place and quest pages.

For reference, I believe this was last discussed in 2012, where it was opposed, and a number of those opposing factors will still exist. However, in this instance I am opening the discussion before a precedent can be set for user-made screenshots from ESO, and directly following on from the standard already set by its prerelease images. --Enodoc (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (GMT)

I believe, from my point of view, that 4:3 images display better on wiki that 16:9 images due to 16:9 appearing like letter boxes rather than images, the only solution that would make me support a change for ESO would be a change of available thumb-sizes (and the default setting being bumped up a bit). Since the images shown (for me) are 300px wide, not 300px tall, the 16:9 images appear smaller than there 4:3 counterparts. --Kiz(email - talk) 16:14, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
I agree with Kiz. The 16:9 thumbnails look bad. —Legoless (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

ESO Templates

So I have been creating the new templates needed for ESO (feel free to contact me on IRC if you need an explanation as to why we need new ones). I have finished the three main templates (well, two main ones, and a possibly needed third). I was just looking for feedback on them, if there are things in the templates that aren't actually needed, or things that aren't in the templates that are needed. Here are the templates

Anyway, if you have thoughts, feel free to comment here. Jeancey (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2014 (GMT)

I confess to being somewhat ignorant about ESO, but wouldn't it be good to have a section for the related morph abilities as well in the ability summary? --AN|L (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, I was thinking about that. The real question though, is do they have their own pages? Or will those morph abilities just be on the same exact page as the main ability? Jeancey (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (GMT)
I see that the place template has a lorepage parameter; will it auto-detect lore pages, as well? And would it be worth adding this to the NPC summary, as well? Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 23:36, 25 February 2014 (GMT)
Maybe. I just used the exact same code as RH did, so whatever the lore page param for the main place summary template does, the ESO one does that. Jeancey (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2014 (GMT)
I would say that morphed abilities should have their own page only if we can think of enough to put on them. If we're going to do a table of how the stats of an ability scale by rank (I-IV), level (1-50), stamina/magicka, and damage, then I would say that's enough on one page for the morphs to be somewhere else.
Regarding the Place Summary, I see you have an option for Minimum Level for an instance; would it also be a good idea to have a "Recommended Level" parameter that you can stick on any place page? This would be separate from "Minimum" as that implies a definitive requirement. This would then give people a general idea of what to expect for each place. For example, places out in the countryside would get a level based on the level of quests you get there and enemies you find there (eg Daelyn Mill would get 6-7), and settlements would get a level based on that of quests you can get there, and the items you can buy there (eg Daggerfall would get 5~12). Zones would also get the level that they are appropriate for (Glenumbra would get 5~17). --Enodoc (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
Well the minimum level is more about the level required to enter a group dungeon. The parameter wouldn't be used for general locations, just for the 16 or so instanced group dungeons scattered around Tamriel. Jeancey (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
Indeed. That was my point; I think there should be another parameter for level that can be included on all locations to give an indication of the level of the content in that location. The group dungeons would use the current "Minimum Level" parameter for entry requirement (a definitive value), while every location would use the "Recommended Level" parameter (an informative guideline). For example, the first round of group dungeons have a minimum entry requirement of Level 10 (I think), while the recommended level for those would be 12-15. If you're a Level 3 character wandering around Glenumbra, the article for the Baelborne Rock area would give you an idea that you are likely to be killed, since the "recommended level" for that area would be 7. If you're a Level 15 wandering around Bal Foyen, the page stating that the recommended level for that area is 4 may convince you to move to another area for a greater challenge. --Enodoc (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

() While I agree in principle, I think that the basic UI info in ESO makes this easier for the average person to determine for themselves than in Skyrim. In ESO the level of a monster is clearly stated next to the name and health, and this was not the case for Skyrim. I can add it to the template if everyone thinks it is needed, but I'm just not sure it is (which is why I didn't include it before). Jeancey (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

I do not think it is necessary, mostly because I agree with Jeancey's comment about the UI in ESO. It is pretty easy to see the level of a given target and know whether it will be an apt foe or not. --Nocte|Chat|Look 14:49, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
Fair enough, I was just thinking in terms of reference. Say I was considering walking all the way across Rivenspire to a place I knew was there; I'm Level 5. I wouldn't have started my epic journey across the whole of High Rock if I knew in advance that where I was going was better suited to Level 20. I agree the UI has the information, but it may be nice to know before you get there. --Enodoc (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
I agree with Enodoc that having recommended levels for regions would be helpful. I tried hiking to Red Mountain at level 5 and quickly found myself running for my life from high level creatures. Had I known I would run into enemies much stronger than I, I wouldn't have adventured so far and damaged my equipment when I died. • JAT 20:52, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

() A template for quest stages would be nice. We have the data, and it would be a good idea to get it up as soon as possible. —Legoless (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

I can set the bot up to upload that info easily enough, but I don't know what all of it means, and what's important and what's not in that list. If someone can either design the template or at least a mockup of one, and then tell me what needs to go where, exactly, I'll get to work on it. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
Would the existing Journal Entries and Quest Objectives ones not suffice? The only tangible differences I see are that the first line in the journal entry for any one quest is always the same, and that old journal entries don't remain once new ones are added. Also that doc only seems to have the objectives, and not the journal entries (not a criticism, just a comment).
On the note of quests, ESO's quests don't have icons, but are still divided by type (eg zone quests, main quest, guild quests); should we also not use icons at all, or come up with icons that are representative of the type? I have some ideas if we want to pick representative icons. --Enodoc (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
I don't have ESO, nor do I plan to, so I'm looking at a bunch of data with no context for what it is or how it's used. That's why I'm looking for a mockup or something along those lines, so I can know with certainty what should go where. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Okay, I've done the preliminary work using best guesses, and the bot's sandboxes contain two examples of quest pages created from the spreadsheet: 1, 2. This will give you some idea of what the oddities are:
  • As mentioned above, there are no actual journal entries in the data, only objectives. I don't know how this compares to the in-game experience, but if there should be some, either someone will have to re-export the spreadsheet to include them, or we'll just have to do without for now.
  • The objectives have no numbers. (Should only be a minor tweak to the existing template to fix the spacing.)
  • Indexes seem relatively meaningless, which makes sorting them in any kind of order impossible. Not all of them are the same for the entire quest, like those in the examples, but there are certainly large numbers of entries with the same index in most quests.
  • Complete/fail status also seems rather questionable or meaningless, but someone would have to verify that in-game. There's one quest where some are marked as both complete and failed, which is even more confusing. There's also the "IsCondComplete" column that I have no idea what it means, so I'm completely ignoring that for now.
  • Because of the various uncertainties, I'm currently not searching for or combining any identical entries as was done with the recent Skyrim run. For a number of quests, this means there are large numbers of repeated entries, or quite frequently repeating pairs of entries. Especially since they're often a few apart, I think combining any of these into one becomes a questionable practice without in-game verification of what's actually occurring, and I'd rather leave that up to humans to decide as they play.
  • There are up to four potential rewards (XP, Skill Points, an item, and an achievement) that could be listed. Do we want to put these in separate quest header parameters? Even if so, I think this is a relatively easy change to the existing template rather than requiring a whole new one.
  • Any suggestions for the Online Quest Stages Notes template? Using {{Skyrim Quest Stages Notes}} as a base, I think the middle three bullets are probably relevant to Online. Anything else?
  • The data in the "Override" column is ignored at the moment, but can easily be integrated if it's needed. I'm not sure how it plays into things, exactly, so again, someone with the game would have to give me some feedback. If nothing else, I can simply include it as a second objective within the same entry.
I'd like to get as much of the above sorted out before we put the bot to work, since creating new pages is obviously much easier and more reliable than figuring out what users may or may not have done and trying to adapt to it.
Finally, since we're looking at all this stuff anyway, are there any changes anyone would suggest to the quest pages I've generated in the examples that I haven't already covered above? Robin Hood  (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
I think this data was pulled from the game log, rather than the data files, so that may be why some things don't make much sense, and why the journal entries are missing. Journal entries are comprised of two parts; the first remains throughout the quest as the quest's overall description, while the second is updated as the quest progresses. With each update, the second part is overwritten; earlier entries are not retained. Once the quest is complete, the journal entry is removed. Looking at the data:
  • What appears as "JournalIdx" seems to be most comparable to the quest's Level, rather than an identifier index, although there's some discrepancy in that as well.
  • I agree that complete/fail makes no sense in this context; perhaps, if this is from the game log, this is a record of whether the objective itself was completed or failed during play, rather than an indicator of whether it completes/fails the whole quest.
  • The duplicates as they stand for the ones I have looked at seem to be correct, as the objective keeps reappearing when certain actions are taken.
  • I think there's a few instances of a radiant assignment of objectives, particularly for the Mages Guild/Fighters Guild quests, as the quests are the same across the alliances, but the people and places you have to talk to within may not all be the same. So maybe the first bullet from Skyrim Quest Stages Notes would be relevant as well.
  • I don't think the rewards need separate parameters, but it may display easier if we <br>'d them up into their own rows. Would that work?
  • Looking at what is within "Override", I think it determines what is displayed on the compass after an objective is assigned if it needs to be different from the objective itself. How this works is if you look towards a quest marker, it details what you need to do there.
  • The "Area" parameter seems to refer to the alliance the quest comes from, rather than the actual location it takes place in.
This is definitely not a definitive list of quests (see Esohead Database for an idea of just how many there actually are), so it may be worth seeing if we can come up with a good way of fully extracting the details out of the data files if it's there. If not, we may need to wait for the launch patch to update the files, or make further use of the game log. --Enodoc (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2014 (GMT)

() I'm just on my way to bed, but did a few quick edits based on the above. The second sandbox now uses <br>s so we can get an idea what that looks like, and I created a preliminary notes template. And yeah, I thought the list looked just a tiny bit sparse. Not surprised that there are a lot more quests than what's there. Robin Hood  (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (GMT)

I perceived tentative support for the new templates, and made them for use with any new data we get from this weekend. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:06, 1 March 2014 (GMT)


Prev: Archive 40 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 42