Skyrim talk:Creation Club

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

Question regarding this[edit]

Is each mod going to have its own page? If so - I would recommend someone out up for discussion a proposal to move it to a separate namespace. Timeoin (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There are three sensible choices:
  1. Each "creation" gets a page in Skyrim space. If extra pages are needed they are subpaged.
  2. Each creation gets a page in TES5Mod, allowing greater scope for documentation without conflicts.
  3. Creations are handled via subpages of this page. Things get complicated, but no-more-so our multi-level modspaces, if extra pages are needed.
As far as I am aware creations are not lore, which makes it easier to use the modspace to document them. However, if they are confirmed as lore, then they should be in Skyrim space. Personally I think #2 is the best choice if all are to be documented, as mods will be adding new quests, NPCs, spells, and using existing NPCs and items for their own purposes. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 11:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well. #2 is definitely the best option. Also - sorry if I have jumped the gun so to speak - I saw it potentially becoming quite messy as this expands over time (as it obviously will as more people develop mods). I leave it up to the admins and/or consensus which one gets implemented. Its easy enough to do now, whichever way it goes, before it takes off fully. When theres hundreds of fleshed-oumods, THEN it becomes difficult to fix. Timeoin (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
We received a confirmation from Cartogriffi on Discord that CC content is both "official", and "lore-checked" to some (uncertain) degree:
I am not an official arbiter of Bethesda lore, but I hope you don’t mind if I chime in.
Creations are official releases, but it’s also understandable that a site like UESP or the Imperial Library would take CC with a grain of salt. We do consider lore implications when reviewing proposals, particularly something trying to heavily enmesh itself into the world. Connections to the world are great, but we also want to avoid anything being too impactful. That is, we want things to fit into the game world, but we’re also not looking to greatly expand the lore of the game.
With historic items, like artifacts, simply existing can have implications for the lore. Although artifacts in Tamriel do have a habit of disappearing and re-materializing in other places. I believe this was even noted in the description of Chrysamere in Daggerfall.
To that end, I think #3 (or possibly #1) is the best course of action. Hopefully #1 wouldn't result in organizational issues or pagename conflicts. If conflicts are likely, then #3 is better, and we can then set "Skyrim:Creation Club" as a pseudo-namespace. An entirely separate namespace though is probably impractical, as it doesn't satisfy the standard criteria for a new namespace (that being, a large new worldspace and lots of disconnected new content). The only issue I can see across the board is "Dragonborn-based" Creations vs "Skyrim-based" Creations, as there could be an argument for separating those into their respective namespaces, which becomes a bigger issue if there is cross-world content. That alone would probably be a benefit to putting it in Tes5Mod, which doesn't have a DB/SR split, but as official content, I don't think we can really do that.
With regards to subpages, and subpages of subpages, I don't think that's really necessary. If we have properly constructed category trees, we don't need multiple levels of subpages. We just need to actually use the mod parameter that exists in all the primary header and infobox templates (e.g. Quest Header, Place Summary, NPC Summary). For example, under #3, you'd have the "mod" for the Staff of Sheogorath at Skyrim:Creation Club/(Mod Title), and you'd have the quest at Skyrim:Creation Club/(Quest Title). #1 would be exactly the same without "Creation Club/", namely Skyrim:(Mod Title) and Skyrim:(Quest Title), which is exactly how we do DLC quests. --Enodoc (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Dragonborn based creations don't need to be split whatever the eventuality. Creations are only available with the special edition, and they are each based on their own merits, whatever the "requirements to run" might be (ie they are a Skyrim "mod" even if they only use Dragonborn areas/NPCs/etc). I foresee most creations being contained within one page, but for those that aren't they must use subpages or sub-subpages. The risk of overlapping names is too high, seeing as each creation is self-contained, and the amount of disambiguation pages already in Skyrim doesn't suggest that it is a pressing-concern for Beth's coders. The only guarantee in that regard is the actual creation name, or the store would break. The status of official or unofficial directly impacts on the choice we make, because if it's fully official then they should be integrated like Dawnguard and not use subpages.
The lore situation needs to be a lot clearer, it either is or it isn't. We take every word spoken as evidence, every quest as complete, and there is going to be a lot of new dialogue, as well as quests impacting on everything from Princes to the Civil War to the Guilds. The current wording suggests that the only checking being done is to make sure it doesn't conflict with known lore. I don't think "a grain of salt" is a proper way of treating the content, for us, for the Imperial Library, or for anyone else interested. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there's no need to have Creation pages in DB namespace. Tes5Mod namespace is not appropriate as these are not mods.
As for "canonicity", this is official content and should therefore be treated no different than any other officially published TES content. If we include TES Travels info in our lore articles, we can certainly include CC info. Per Cartogriffi yesterday, Bethesda "consider lore implications when reviewing proposals" - what more can we ask for? —Legoless (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How should CC Content be included in related articles?[edit]

As an example of what I mean, Arcane Accessories adds several new spells. Should those spells therefore be added to the existing tables in Skyrim:Spells, or to a new table on the same page, and/or to a new page such as Skyrim:Arcane Accessories, perhaps linked on those other pages? Similarly, the Arcane Archer Pack and most of the other files add new weapons. Should they be added to Skyrim:Weapons and other relevant pages? 151.224.208.151 21:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oblivion's smaller add-ons are probably the closest thing to compare. Each of the smaller addons are self-contained, ie not added to generic pages, such as the spells added with the Spell Tomes being only on that page and omitted from the OB:Spells page. The larger addons tend to add more generic items (eg Dawnguard and Dragonborn adding multiple new materials for weapons and armor), and they spread out affecting a lot of pages, where the smaller ones will usually only be adding specific items in specific places. If there are a fair few then a page such as "Arcane Accessories Items" is usually made to keep the front page cleaner. Pages affected by creations should probably have a note about what is changed/added, eg Stendarr's Hammer in the Dwemer Museum, and we should probably code an icon for CC content so it can be marked more easily. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Trails and categories of CC pages[edit]

I think we need to find a way to make the trails and categories consistent with the rest of the Skyrim namespace and the subpage/category hierarchy. The quest pages have trails like "Skyrim: Chrysamere" (The Lost Paladin) or "Skyrim: Stendarr's Hammer" (If I had a Hammer). The trails and the resulting categories (Skyrim-Chrysamere, Skyrim-Stendarr's Hammer) are too short and confusing, and the pages aren't categorized as quests. --Holomay (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a discussion that needs to happen. Redirects like Skyrim:Ciirta's Eye have no Creation-specific categories, so those probably need to be set up sooner rather than later. —Legoless (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I fixed all the trails and categories related to Creation Club. I'm not sure how the category name Skyrim-Stendarr's Hammer is confusing, as it follows the same format as Skyrim-Dawnguard or Oblivion-Thieves Den. —Dillonn241 (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Category names aren't really consistent anyway, there are categories like Skyrim-Dawnguard-Items-Books which include almost the entire hierarchy above them, but there are also a lot of category names that are shorter and consist only of two elements. So I don't think we need to come up with overlong cat names like Skyrim-Official Add-Ons-Creation Club-Divine Crusader. It's no problem to use short cat names like Skyrim-Divine Crusader as long as the category descriptions provide the necessary information and links, and descriptions like "contains a list of all pages related to the Divine Crusader Creation for Skyrim" are totally fine.
However, I don't think it's enough to add CC quests like Relics of the Crusader only to the Category:Skyrim-Quests. In addition, we should create a subcat for CC quests and/or for individual creations' quests so that there is a more specific subcat for these quests like Category:Skyrim-Quests-Bards College or Category:Skyrim-Hearthfire-Quests.
What I found confusing were trails like Skyrim: Divine Crusader that didn't include Quests. Now it is included in all CC quest page trails, but I think to be consistent with trails on other Add-On quest pages like A New Order or Build Your Own Home, the name of the Add-On should be placed before the Quest link. --Holomay (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. We can create categories for Creation Club in general that list all books, items, quests, etc. I also need to change the mod headers to the specific Creation (to make the name display and allow possibility in the future of custom icons) so I'll do these simultaneously. This should make it easy to find all items added by Creation Club, and the individual Creation categories I made will make it easy to find the content each one adds. —Dillonn241 (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Author Column[edit]

Do we need a column for this when most of the authors are unknown? This seems like information that belongs on the individual articles rather than in the summary table. It's also already mentioned in the description text for the only relevant Creation, i.e. Divine Crusader. I don't see a need to duplicate that info on this page. —Legoless (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that right now it is not very useful, but it will probably become a very useful feature in future. As more creations are made, then mod authors may return to make multiple Creations—documentation of that on this page will allow users to see at a glance which sets of Creations were made by an individual, even if that individual is not known (e.g. QTY). As it is, even including Maty734 is useful, because it allows users to see what other contributions he has made at a glance on the mod menu. It will become more useful in the near future, with well-known community members such as Elianora and Trainwiz being set to make Creations, and seeing prominent mod authors' names in the column will easily allow users to assume a certain standard of quality to certain Creations. Fullertontalk﴿ 11:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with fullerton, while it is not very useful now, as we get more creation club mods in from popular authors, it will be a good thing to document in my opinion. Considering that creation club is supposed to be community driven, I believe it would make sense to mention who made what mod in the summary table for documentation purposes. Additionally, I think the current size of icons you have reverted back to is far too small. The pictures in the table are thumbnails, not icons, like the add-ons table. It's far too hard to discern the subject of the thumbnails at that size, I would like to propose size 125px as a compromise. T J (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason to have large thumbnails in what amounts to a summary table. If you check Skyrim:Official Add-Ons (where you've transcluded this table), you'll notice that the DLC icons are 45px. The current images are already larger than normal icons at 90px; expanding them any larger simply bloats the table and is not useful. Readers can click through to the article to see a bigger thumbnail.
Consistency really dictates that we create proper icons for each of the Creations. It should be easy to crop out the background on each of the currently-used promo images, but it seems like a lot of work to keep up-to-date when the current images are perfectly fine as-is. —Legoless (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Legoless that this kind of information is not useful on the Creations list. The definition of "author" also gets a bit fuzzy when you consider things like the new Shadowrend Creation, which credits unoctium for the quest but not necessarily the whole mod. It's also not really correct to list Bethesda for unknown authors and not have them on the other ones too. Bethesda works on all the Creations, which makes this pointless. The best solution is to add the known authors to the individual pages, either in a note or as part of the mod summary. Same with the shop categories (but these are also useful in the list). —Dillonn241 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both Dillon and Legoless on the points they have made in their responses. KriHavok (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

() Again, I would like to stress that while the immediate utility of the column is limited, as more mods proliferate then there will be far more reason to use them. This is, after all, a navigational aid and some readers will doubtless want to navigate their favourite mod author's works. Creation Club's whole purpose is to engage the community—mod authors, as a fixture of that community, are a vital part of Creation Club and should be documented as one of its main features. By continuing the use of the author column, then users will be able to see at a glance which mod authors made their favourite creations, which will allow users to quickly select which Creations they may purchase in future. This also promotes the hardest-working mod authors—there's no reason for UESP to act as if it doesn't recognize the virtue of having hard-working modders in the community, and this is a good way for some of their contributions to be exhibited. And to reiterate, while its utility is limited at the current moment, this will change in, for example, a year's time when returnee Creators arrive and the mod list is stacking up. At that point, sorting the mods by author will allow for an easier filtering of Creations of a certain type and calibre—after all, people like being able to associate a work with its creator. This is a useful heuristic tool now, and will become even more useful in the future. I believe that it's counterintuitive to remove it now. However, using "Bethesda" as the main author of some mods is questionable—we will never be able to fathom the degree of authorship that Bethesda holds over these Creations. These are just my thoughts on the matter. Fullertontalk﴿ 06:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely against removing the author column. My main concern now is listing Bethesda as the author when we have no idea to what extent they helped with the mod. The only situation that would call for listing them is if we had proof that they made the Creation without a mod author, and I don't think that's how Creation Club works. —Dillonn241 (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I can see the theoretical benefit of an author column, but it's only useful if it's accurate. If we don't actually know, 100%, who the author of the Creation is, then we can't fill it in, and a half-complete column is no better than no column. Take the QDR Creations, for example. There's nothing outside of the filename which suggests this wasn't created by Bethesda, as there's no indication in the description like there is for others. The Shadowrend Creation credits unoctium for the quest, but has a BGS filename; that suggests that any of the other BGS Creations could potentially have had additional input that they forgot to mention in the description. So if the author column can't be accurate, due to lack of information on the actual author, it can't be useful either. --Enodoc (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I was undecided as I wasn't sure just how committed Bethesda were to making more Creations available, but now that they have I agree that the author column is useful. Not because "hard-working" modders deserve recognition on this page, but because people do tend to follow individual modders and try other content they have created. I also agree that where we don't know or aren't sure, it should be left blank. Given the purpose of the Creations is to use outside mod authors to create new content I'm not sure any of the ones with Bethesda listed as the author are accurate. If we leave them like that, then the questionability of their accuracy extends to the others, making the whole thing a wasted exercise. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

() I'm resurrecting this discussion on foot of statements from Cartogriffi in Discord, which I am pasting here in full:

The three digit author code generally marks whoever started the piece the content. This is usually the artist. So with Shadowrend, we set up the art first, and Unoctium took this and made the quest. If Unoctium had made the quest with placeholder art, and that art came later, chances are it would have had his initials.
The initials are there for internal tracking rather than an attempt to assign credit. Credit is handled entirely in the description.
We are very careful with credit, in part because some creators choose to be anonymous and we put considerable effort into protecting their privacy.

Since we have direct confirmation that (1) the initials found in the game data are simply an internal measure recording who initially created the file, (2) they are explicitly not an indication of authorship, and (3) there are Creators who specifically wish to remain anonymous, I've removed the unidentifiable initials from the authorship column on this page.

In light of point #3, we now know that we will likely never get a full listing of authors for the majority of unattributed Creations. As Cartogriffi pointed out, credit is handled entirely in the description. This goes back to my very first point which triggered this discussion in the first place: the author column simply duplicates data already displayed in the table. I really don't see the point in having an entire column for accreditation/external links when the majority of Creations are purposefully left uncredited by the developers. —Legoless (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added the author information to the second paragraph of all the Creations. I think it would be more useful to show release date than author in this table. It was something I was looking for recently all together and I had to click on each page. —Dillonn241 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with replacing the author column with the release date. --Ilaro (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Because of this update from the actual devs, I don't expect anyone to oppose, so I've gone ahead and replaced author with release date. I've also added sorting for the Creation name (required data-sort-value to work correctly, which I've never seen used before). Previously it was not possible to return to the default sort without refreshing the page. —Dillonn241 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Beat me to the edit, but for the sake of establishing consensus I should state that this seems like a good change to me. —Legoless (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Patch Requirements[edit]

So our {{Content Summary}} template has a section for specifying the version requirements. I spoke to Cartogriffi in relation to Creation version compatibility, and he said the following:

"That's not something we really track, it's generally assumed people will be using the latest version of the game. Earlier creations probably work just fine on earlier versions, but that's not something we consider."

Since SSE generally auto-updates and the Creation Club storefront need to connect to Bethesda.net, version requirements obviously aren't particularly useful information. However, the two new releases we've seen since launch (i.e. 30th November 2017 and 5th April 2018) have both required a patch in order to support the new Creations. As such, I think it's safe to list the most up-to-date version as of release as a minimum requirement for each Creation. I've updated the affected articles accordingly, and going forward I think we should add the most recent SSE patch as a requirement for new Creations when they are released. —Legoless (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed Information[edit]

This means cost per credit is less when you buy more of them and more when you buy less (they are cheaper in bulk); because all of the prices are dropped by 1/100 of a unit, a more valuable currency will buy credits more efficiently than a less valuable currency, as a general rule. However, prices are pegged to a whole number before modification, and are left fixed over time, while real-world exchange rates vary heavily over time and are rarely whole numbers, which means the actual cost per credit by currency will vary both over time and by number of credits purchased (since the effect of the bulk discount will be modified by the effect of pegging the final cost to a whole number). Here is an example of the various costs of credits, for a specific date and time's exchange rates, using dollars as a reference point to show credits per unit value (more is better):

Costs Per Credit, 15:00 GMT, June 4, 2018
Number of Credits Cost, Bought in Dollars Cost, Bought in Euros Cost, Bought in Pounds
750 $7.99 / €6.83 / £5.99 $8.18 / €6.99 / £6.13 $7.99 / €6.83 / £5.99
93.87 Credits/$ 91.69 Credits/$ 93.87 Credits/$
1500 $14.99 / €12.82 / £11.24 $15.20 / €12.99 / £11.40 $14.66 / €12.53 / £10.99
100.07 Credits/$ 98.68 Credits/$ 102.32 Credits/$
3000 $24.99 / €21.36 / £18.74 $24.56 / €20.99 / £18.42 $25.31 / €21.64 / £18.99
120.05 Credits/$ 122.15 Credits/$ 118.53 Credits/$
5500 $39.99 / €34.18 / £30.01 $40.92 / €34.99 / £30.71 $39.96 / €34.18 / £29.99
137.53 Credits/$ 134.40 Credits/$ 137.64 Credits/$

I've removed the above information as it provides far too much detail to be notable. It should be obvious that purchasing in bulk is cheaper, and I don't see any need to document real world currency exchange rates on this page. —Legoless (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It is also pointless comparing the currencies, you can't choose to buy it with dollars if you live in the UK, or pounds if you live in the eurozone. It is also useless giving the exchanged values, because these fluctuate daily, and sometimes hourly, for exchange services. It is a basic principle of retail, buy more to get more per currency unit. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)