Lore talk:Factions/Sandbox

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

Factions[edit]

Now that the goal I set out to do for the bestiary is done, and that the bestiary has attracted at least one new competent editor since then I think it is time to move onto the next overview/overhaul.

Okay, at first glance my primary (And very easily fixed problem) is that all of the factions seem to be using four dash headers, by which I mean an equal sign I guess =. I believe that proper two dash headers would be nicer, which is easy enough to change.

My second (And slightly more annoying problem) are the sections that only link to other sections. Not really a huge issue issue in itself but it would leave the pages looker much cleaner without all of the dummy sections. Is it possible to simply create a redirect to the "Primary Section" instead of having a bunch of dummy editions cluttering up the pages? If there is we should do that.

My third problem (And much bigger problem) is defining what actually belongs there and what else to write for the overview page. I guess I could write about factions in general to give this page some actual content as well (Maybe about how the factions generally consist of either a political, military, religious, or job (Like a guild) organization? It might help to describe how the interact in general as well) Inspiration will strike me eventually trying to come up with guidelines to define what belongs on the faction pages eventually but any suggestions will be appreciated here. This project hasn't really started at all yet so it will be easy to change the direction it is going now instead of later. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have had more problems. My link to Lore:Rose Knights links to Lore:Knights of the Rose. More importantly instead of linking to the Lore:Factions K#Knights of the Rose it links to Lore:Knights of the Rose, which notably only has the same content as the faction page... This is pretty ridiculously redundant, and is now actually a pretty major problem. We don't need a page that consists of only two sentences, that are already on a different page mind you. So besides a removal of the dummy sections we will also need to remove the redundant pages. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Problem Pages[edit]

I'll go through the faction sub-pages and list all of the redundant or mostly redundant ones. As it turns out most of these just use the redundant pages as a template. This is pretty pointless when we can just move the text on to the factions pages properly. So these may have to be deleted. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


The pages aren't redundant - they're either redirects or transclusions. The Rose Knights page, for instance, is a redirect to Knights of the Rose, and then that's transcluded onto the Factions_K page.

I'm not convinced that some of the redirects are necessary. I can't find the phrase "Rose Knight" anywhere, for instance, as the proper title is definitely Knight of the Rose.

Transclusions... well that's the way the page has always been done, with a brief summary on the Factions_(X) page and a link to the larger page from which the text is transcluded. For instance, look at the Factions_K entry on the Knights of the Nine, then the full page. rpeh •TCE 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My point was that most of these pages are just a complete repeat of the content of those pages. Why do we need both a Lore:Knights of the Dragon and a Lore:Factions K#Knights of the Dragon as they both have the exact same content. I wouldn't care about some redundancy but going through these almost all of them are just a repeat of the content on another page in lore. Though a few of them like the linked to Knights of the Nine have actual content besides what is on the Lore:Factions version, most don't. I honestly don't see why we need both the actual article and the Lore:Factions edition. One or the other needs to be deleted as far as I can see. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of them are, yes, and while it might be a good idea to de-transclude in some cases, the hope has always been that while the Knights of the Dragon page would be expanded, we'd still keep a brief summary on Factions_K. We don't want the summaries to be too big. There are better examples on the Places pages, although some of those have already been de-transcluded because there definitely isn't anything more to write. I don't know enough about Daggerfall to say whether the Knights of the Dragon page can be expanded or not. rpeh •TCE 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Having given this some thought I've realized it would be to much trouble to de-transclude these, as it would likely cause more fights than it would stop. Though the redirects are as far as I am concerned either unnecessary, or should be redirected towards the Lore:Faction summary. Also all pages that transclude onto lore should be altered to be more like the Knights of the Nine summary, which includes a link to the full page which should hopefully lead to those pages seeing more attention (And also making it clear that they exist which isn't always obvious, which I wasn't really aware of until I followed a template link). This way Lore:Factions would serve as more of a hub for all of the historical factions, which it seems to me to had been the original intention. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to scare you out of making the changes. I wasn't around when the pages were set up this way so I can't be certain about the reasoning, but I think I've suggested the most likely reason. I don't dispute your point that having the summary say exactly the same as the main page is pretty pointless. What we need is a Daggerfall expert to help out! Where are Timmeh, PLRDLF and Uniblab when you need them? :) rpeh •TCE 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If there's nothing more to say about a faction, or alternatively, it's really unlikely that anything extra will be said, then de-transclusion is the way to go. If it's plausible that someone will come along and add to the main article, then it's a better idea to keep things the way they are. rpeh •TCE 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Though it seems highly unlikely there is anything else to say about, say the Daggerfall Knightly orders, judging from the Daggerfall space pages on them and my own experiences in the Lliac Bay. But I am putting it near the bottom of my mental list on what needs to be done here. Mainly because once this is mostly done this little project might had drawn enough attention that I don't have to worry about treading on a few toes later on. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Redirects[edit]

These are cluttering up the pages quite badly now, take Lore:Factions G for example where the majority of the content on the page are just redirects. Can we just turn all of these current redirects cluttering up Lore:Factions into proper redirects? For example, [Lore:Factions G#Great House Dagoth] would lead you to a link to Lore:House Dagoth. But if you type Great House Dagoth into our search engine you don't get sent to any page. Meaning these serve as little more than a little space waster right now. That way everyone is happy, the pages will be less cluttered up and people who might be confused about what something is called can have more guidance. Either this or we should just remove them altogether, but the other solution would probably be convenient for more people down the road.

Also there isn't even consistency here on what is a proper redirect and what isn't Lore:Rose Knights, which is one of the tiny sections cluttering up the factions pages, redirects to Lore:Knights of the Rose like the other ones should already. So either this is just one more inconstancy with these pages, or there is an inexplicable reason these aren't redirects already. This utterly Ruins the one useful thing they offer.

This project is going to give me a cerebral aneurism before it is over... --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, Rose Knights can probably go since the term doesn't seem to be used. I also agree with you that clogging up the G page with all the "Great House X" links is silly. In fact, I think we're doing the houses wrong at the moment - Redoran should be on the "R" page, for instance. rpeh •TCE 06:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to remove them all. Why? Well the majority of them are useless or clutter, and even if a few are useful I'd imaging they would be more useful as redirect than cluttering up those pages. It appears that it used to be that as long as someone might of called them that, it was added as a redirect. This became pretty ridiculous right about the time Hlaalu redirect to House Hlaalu, which notably is on the same page... I'll just make a note of them here if anyone wants to make a redirect with them. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A list of removed redirects[edit]

If anyone wants these, here they are. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Ancestor Moth Cult
  • Arkay Order
  • Great House Dagoth
  • Great House Dres
  • Great House Hlaalu
  • Great House Indoril
  • Great House Redoran
  • Great House Telvanni
  • Candle Order
  • Circle Knights
  • Flame Knights
  • Diagna Order
  • Dres
  • Dragon Knights
  • Dagoth
  • Hawk Knights
  • Hawk Order
  • Hour Order
  • Hlaalu
  • Iron Knights
  • Indoril
  • Julianos School
  • Knights of Stendarr
  • Knights of the Scarab
  • Kynareth Temple
  • Lamp Order
  • Lily Order
  • Mara Temple
  • Moon Knights
  • Order of the Hawk
  • Owl Knights
  • Raven Order
  • Redoran
  • Rose Knights
  • Scarab Knights
  • Sixth House
  • Stendarr Knights
  • Stendarr Temple
  • Telvanni
  • Temple of Mara
  • Temple of Zenithar
  • Wheel Knights
  • Zenithar Temple


Grammar[edit]

Would you mind if I went through the article to improve the grammar? Some lines in the begining are clunky and grammatically incorrect, but I don't want to edit your sandbox without permission. --Pwnageincarnate 01:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Pwnageincarnate

Well it isn't really my sandbox (It is in lore not my userspace). My intention was for it to be free to work on by all, but I didn't think it needed to be noted that it was okay to work on it as it is in Lore Space. Go ahead I guess though it is still in the early stages and I'm pretty much just putting what I want from this page down. I'm less concerned about grammar right now, and these sections are likely to be completely rewritten before it is done. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines[edit]

I've given the guidelines much thought recently as those seem to be the greatest challenge writing an overview. The problem with the factions so far is that we had some collective subconscious idea on what they are classified as, and this can cause some trouble person to person. The closest I got was

  • A group of people often united under a common goal too propagate or defend an idea, cause, or belief.
  • A group of people who can enforce there decisions or beliefs.

I don't see these being universally true though. For example The Sweepers are pretty much just janitors, who seem to only be connected by their occupation. Either a few of these will have to be removed, or someone smarter than I will have to think of a way to weasel them in (Maybe a third guideline for what qualifies as a faction that only goes into effect if they don't meet the second guidelines standards?). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got no idea where "The Sweepers" come from. I can't find a mention in any dialogue, nor in any in-game book. I can't even track down when that entry was edited - In this diff, they're there, but in the one before, they're not. But it certainly wasn't my change that added them! This is why I want us to get into the habit of using references! rpeh •TCE 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)