Online talk:Personalities

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

Sic[edit]

Sic tags are for the intentional reproduction of incorrect spelling, and are primarily useful for preventing users from attempting to correct them. Whether the spelling is originally intentional or not is irrelevant. This drunk talk is obviously for stylistic effect, but I don't see the harm in adding the sic tags like we usually do. —Legoless (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"This template can be used to indicate a misspelling in the game. Hover text will appear indicating that the word should not be edited and, optionally, what the correct spelling should have been."
The template itself tells you what it is used for, misspellings (and grammatical errors). These words are not misspelled, and there is no 'correct' text as the text is already correct. They are not misspelled as they are deliberate spellings, the very opposite of the meaning of the word misspelled. Sic tags are not placed in journals or notes where the text is clearly written deliberately badly so it should not be placed here, where the text is clearly written deliberately badly. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that this quote is without context, unlike a document which is fully misspelled (e.g. A Poorly Scrawled Note). I think the danger here is that it's presented as part of an otherwise-encyclopaedic article. I suppose the quotation marks should be enough to denote otherwise, but it's better to be prudent IMO. Also, the use of sic tags has a broader definition than our rather simplified template description, so I wouldn't be taking that as policy. As I said, the author's intent is irrelevant when the purpose is to clarify that the spelling is not ours. —Legoless (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a real pity you refuse to listen to reason because it is me that is saying it. Locking the page so only admins, ie you, can edit it is such a clear lack of editorial impartiality. There is no reason to continually revert my edits and then after lengthy needless discussions have them restored. There is no history of the sic template being used for deliberate misspellings, in fact the history is completely against it, so to have it here is simply out-of-place. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather actually conclude this discussion quickly since it's such a minor issue, but making this edit without any sort of further input is not in good faith. I'm really not attempting to grandstand here, and I'd like to note that I wasn't the one to initially revert either. —Legoless (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hiding another reversion (your third, and you are the only one to make three reversions of the sic removal) under the edit summary of " protecting while discussion is ongoing" but leaving out the part where you were making a controversial revision, and then blocking the page from editing by another other than yourself or a tiny handful of other admins, is hardly helping the situation. Nor is accusing me of potential edit warring, when I have never edit warred in my life. I'm not clear where you think that edit is bad faith, I made it after input here, after carefully explaining where you were wrong.
Looking through the history I fail to see who else made a revert to keep the sic tags. They were added by yourself, and they stayed until Tap3ah removed them today, then you restored them, the I removed them, then you restored them, then I removed them, and finally you restored them. Neither TRL or KINMUNE touched them, KINMUNE having edited the page only before they were added. Maybe you meant to say that TRL didn't see a problem, but he made no edits to revert their removal.
If you truly saw this as a minor problem you would not have taken such extraordinary measures to keep the sic tags on the page. Now forgive the length of this post, but clearly lengthy detailed explanations are needed as the shorter versions have only invited derision. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Look guys, I realize I'm only a minor editor but I'd like to add my two cents to keep this from becoming more personal than it already is. You two have a history, I've seen that. But two things: the sic tags should stay, to prevent other editors from trying to correct it. I've found its better to assume people will be... uh... well, that they'll try to change something even though its obvious. So Legoless is correct in that respect. However, it was sneaky in the least to change them back after it had been protected. And leaving it out of the summary, too. So Silencer is correct in that respect. But please, please stop it. You're giving me a headache. —likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

() (edit conflict) "I made it after input here, after carefully explaining where you were wrong." This is where I take issue. I'd like to actually discuss this change, since as you said Tap3ah was the one to originally remove them, so clearly I'm the one who needs to explain my reasoning here. Regardless of whether you think this discussion is "needless" or whether I'm "wrong", I'd like a chance at getting a little consensus first rather than continuing the cycle. I'll happily remove the protection if you aren't going to immediately revert. —Legoless (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm definitely with Silencer on this one. I understand the reasons brought up for having the sics, but for me readability takes precedence here. (Actually, it should always take precedence) For the same reason we never include one and same reference in the end of each sentence, we rather use one reference at the end of the paragraph. It's just not cool to read a paper full of ibids and the like.) Thus, if anything, I'd try to mark that the whole paragraph is slang. But unless you want to cover the whole paragraph under one sic tag, it's maybe easiest to not have any tag at all. Tib (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, we could just add a tag at the end and not include any hovertext corrections if readability is an issue. Personally I think it looks fine. —Legoless (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that it's clearly marked as drunk talk, I don't see the need to tag all the various misspellings/mispronunciations. A tag at the end seems like a happy medium to me. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with that as a compromise, so I've changed it over for now. —Legoless (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Discontinued personalities[edit]

Hi. Some of these are still available through crown crates. I was able to get the Zombie personality during the 2018 Witches Festival. Not sure if this needs to be noted somewhere on the page or not. Thanks. - 6thHouseBellHammer (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Headers[edit]

Piggybacking (or parasiting) off 6's (forgive the concise mode of reference) post above, I believe that the current headers are poorly-selected and arbitrary. I am thus suggesting that the page is reformatted such that the lead section is still entitled "Available Personalities", but will only encompass personalities obtainable through gameplay; a second section entitled "Crown Store Personalities", where personalities exclusively available through the Crown Store are listed; and a third section entitled "Unavailable Personalities" wherein the datamined personalities are listed. If no protest is raised to this within an arbitrary timeframe, I will enact this. — J. J. Fullerton talk﴿ 06:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems better than the current arrangement. Nowhere else (other than the store page) do we separate retired Crown Store items from those still available, and I don't think it makes sense to do so here. —Legoless (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and just merged them into a single list. "Discontinued" is not an accurate term and availability is constantly in flux, so the previous headers were not useful/accurate info. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Individual Pages' Names[edit]

I think the individual page names for these and similar collectibles should be changed from <Name> (appearance) to <Name> (personality) or (costume) or (skin), etc. It feels more intuitive and would resolve a couple cases of multiple collectibles sharing the same name, such as Online:Treasure Hunter (appearance) (a personality and a costume) or Online:Factotum (appearance) (a polymorph and an unavailable personality). I don't want to do a mass move unilaterally so I'm posting this here first. --Oriwa Talk 00:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The (appearance) tag is not appropriate when we already have terms for these collectibles. I've made the moves and I've removed Factotum from this page entirely as it's not a Personality collectible. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)