Talk:All Content

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


I've just done a few bits of reorganization that may seem completely illogical, so I figured I'd explain what my motivations were.

Layout of Page: The order of the boxes does seem a bit haphazard, and probably could do with some more tweaking. My basic thought was to put the most used links near the top of the page. So Oblivion and Morrowind were the logical choices for the top two boxes. I then wanted to put Elder Scrolls Travels under Oblivion, since it includes the other most recently released titles. Admittedly, the pages (other than Shadowkey) contain no info right now, but I think that may just be because nobody knows they even exist. And given the apparent interest in Oblivion for PSP perhaps the Oblivion Mobile section will start to get some attention.

Move to Main Namespace: With the couple links added to the bottom (for Tamriel and General) this page is really an overall site index. So it seems that it belongs near the top of the hierarchy, not buried in the General namespace. I considered whether the name of the page should also be something like "Site Index" or "Directory". But the links to this page are most likely to call it "All Games", since I think that will be the most useful way to describe it to readers.

Moving Mobile Games to Main Namespace: OK, not directly related to this page, other than that the links were changed. But I thought I'd cover that here, too. As Wrye mentioned a few weeks back (as part of the Shadowkey namespace discussion), these pages probably are just stubs until someone gets interested, at which point they'll have their own namespace. Also, when creating General:Main Page I realized that they didn't really fit in there, given that General is a section about non-game info. So I thought I'd try moving them and see what people think.

--Nephele 17:32, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Release Dates: I would like to see the year each game was released on this page.-- 18:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

That information is already documented at other articles that focus more on the history of the Elder Scrolls games, such as General:Bethesda and General:Elder Scrolls. The purpose of this page is primarily to help readers navigate the site, rather than to provide details about the individual games. --NepheleTalk 21:17, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

All the expansions.[edit]

(moved to Oblivion_talk:Xbox/Archive_1#All_the_expansions)RpehTCE 03:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

table edit[edit]

Main Series
Portable Series
This looks like an improvement to me... --GKTalk2me 20:10, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Piracy Section[edit]

We should put a piracy section for people who want to discuss pirate games and state their dislike for them.ModderElGrande 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Forums exist for that and you can discuss it there. UESP will never authorise content or pages that deal with illegal activities. --SerCenKing Talk 16:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mobile Games[edit]

Where/how can you buy the mobile games? Specifically Stormhold and Dawnstar? -DevotedInsanity 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Try these links: Stormhold, Dawnstar
I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming the procedure to purchase and download the games would depend on the carrier. --GKtalk2me 03:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eldar Scrolls V: Skyrim[edit]

Eldar Scrolls V: Syrim... it's not out yet, but I think deserves the skeleton on a section which can be filled in as more information is released. 18:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Uhh guys? The section Skyrim is only appearing on certain pages. — Unsigned comment by (talk) on 14 January 2011

Where are they not appearing? Alpha Kenny Buddy 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The page is probably cached. Create an account and you'll see the link everywhere. rpeh •TCE 13:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where it isn't appearing. Just randomly on different pages (Like say, Oblivion:Oblivion) the section is unavailable. Also I don't think that's very nice to newcomers if they have to make an account just to access Skyrim. — Unsigned comment by (talk) on 14 January 2011
It's not our fault, that's how wikis work. You can try purging the page yourself. --Rigas Papadopoulos • TalkDeeds 18:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The caching is to reduce bandwidth. If you can't be bothered to create an account, I don't see why UESP should pay to serve you. Stop whining and either create an account or purge the page. rpeh •TCE 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet but maybe there should a videos section for gameplay showing like walkthroughs and stuff???? — Unsigned comment by Blunt axe (talkcontribs) at 05:24 on 21 October 2011 (GMT)


Should the "plug-ins" be changed to "add-ons" here too? like the General:Elder Scrolls page?--Honeystars (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2013 (GMT)

The related discussion regarding the change in wording was about the page name in particular, for the purpose of consistency in the sidebar. I've updated the links to reflect this, but only changed the link label and wording for Skyrim since there was no consensus in the related discussion to change all instances of the previous wording to the newer wording. — ABCface 13:35, 16 October 2013 (GMT)
Hey, sry to bother you again. you said the discussion was for the sidebar. then why are the links at General:Elder Scrolls also changed? should they be changed back? ~ Honeystars (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2013 (GMT)
Someone went through and changed dozens of pages and most had already been changed back. Apparently that one was missed. — ABCface 14:27, 17 October 2013 (GMT)


Why does ESO have it's own section of table and isn't under the "spin-offs" section? DontforgetThis (talk)

Because it is not a spinoff. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:30, 8 January 2014 (GMT)
It's just a game set in the same universe made by different developers that isn't a part of the main line? I'm not saying it isn't cannon or whatever, I'm just asking how it is any different from Redguard or Battlespire. DontforgetThis (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (GMT)
It's different because the developers said it's different. And, I think that the fact that it's an MMO, rather than a single-player game puts it on its own unique status away from those older games anyway. -damon  xoxo 04:05, 13 January 2014 (GMT)
Actually, Redguard and Battlespire were made by the exact same people as the rest of the games, developed and published by Bethesda Softworks. It's not a spinoff as much as a continuation. It has the same play style and mechanics as the other games, whereas Redguard and Battlespire were completely different styles of games from the main series. Jeancey (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (GMT)
I'm not so sure how accurate that is. Battlespire is very similar as far as gameplay goes. The best argument would be the different series names, "An Elder Scrolls Legend" and "The Elder Scrolls Adventures", but now we have Legends using the main series name and it is most definitely a spin-off. Where to the developers 'say' that ESO isn't a spin-off? An MMO spin-off, sure, but not really deserving of its own little redundant table here. In fact, if you consider Tamriel Unlimited, "The Elder Scrolls Online" sounds an awful lot like a series name to me. —Legoless (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Elder scrolls VI?[edit]

Does any one know if or when they will make elder scrolls IV? If they are gonna make one, where is it gonna be? — Unsigned comment by Ulfgar The Unending (talkcontribs) at 20:53 on 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not for many years. They aren't even working on it, according to Pete Hines. —Legoless (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
That's depressing thanks anyways though. — Unsigned comment by Ulfgar The Unending (talkcontribs) at 21:28 on 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Consistent Formatting[edit]

Example pages.
1: The formatting of game namespace pages is not consistent, I believe we ought to decide what format is best, design templates and apply them reasonably consistently across all titles.
I like the banner style of contents seen in morrowind settlement pages even though it's older so I don't just mean we should apply the most modern formats to everything.--Jinxmaster1 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe there is a need to make page layout consistent across gamespaces. There is always room for improvement, but the formatting in each gamespace is designed to suit our needs for documenting that game. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Taking the OP above into consideration as well as your recent posts in Morrowind_talk:Morrowind and Morrowind_talk:Heavy_Armor, I'm inferring the following key points (and please do correct me if I'm wrong):
  • you are dissatisfied with the quality of Morrowind articles, compared to their counterparts in Oblivion / Skyrim, and/or
  • you are calling for an audit, then a rewrite / restructure / relayout of either Morrowind or ALL namespaces for the sake of consistency.
I understand where you're coming from; I am no stranger to enforcing consistency, albeit usually within only one namespace at a time. However, I think it is also fair to be mindful of the following points:
  • It is unlikely that there will ever be a one-size-fits-all layout / structure. While most of these games share similarities, each of them also has its own unique elements and gameplay mechanics that cannot be accommodated by a single framework. Holding a single style as the "standard" to which all other namespaces "really ought to be brought up to" seems rather arbitrary and willfully ignores the unique aspects of other games. Should this "standard" apply to Daggerfall and Arena as well? How about spin-off games like Battlespire, Redguard and Legends? How will it adapt to future games? How will it adapt to future ESO chapters / patches / updates? These are questions that need to be addressed, beyond just the narrow scope of Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim.
  • If you're proposing an overhaul across multiple namespaces, it is not necessarily impossible. However, be aware that such an undertaking will take a lot of effort and an extraordinarily lengthy period, not to mention the consensus and/or cooperation of a lot of other contributors. Even an overhaul confined to a single namespace can take years to finish. Check out the list of ongoing projects to get a good idea with regards to the planning and effort involved.
Lastly, as a fellow contributor, you are free to make your own constructive edits. Only, please be reminded of the following recommendations from the style guide: prioritize content over style, and avoid redundancy. Happy editing! Salamangkero (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes I had considered some of those aspects, obviously one title may need a whole subheading where other games would not and even ignoring that I'm sure there are plenty of areas where specific games would have specific needs. However, I also think there are some areas where the needs are the same yet the format is not. The best example being that Oblivion and Skyrim locations don't have a hyperlink contents box while morrowind has a prominent banner for this purpose. All three games have formatting that would both benefit from and allow for a contents box/banner so this stands out quite strongly. In the case of skill pages morrowind uses a style where 2 small sections are placed side by side for a more condensed page with less need for scrolling than the oblivion pages even though quite a lot of the Oblivion (and Skyrim to a lesser extent) pages could have been similarly condensed.
I would be happy to go through one example at a time and suggest changes to each on an individual basis in the specific namespaces if that's the better approach to take.
What I said on the Heavy armor page is only tangentialy related and I've made a suggestion to the main Morrowind namespace for looking in to the lack of technical details.--Jinxmaster1 (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Charge / Cost = Uses[edit]

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for this; I'm not sure where else it would be appropriate to ask this question.

So far, I've seen Charge / Cost = Uses as a column on item lists as well as a field on infoboxes in Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim (plus their expansions).

I think the information should be presented the other way around, that is, as Uses = Charge / Cost for two reasons:

  • UESP readers would typically be more interested on how many consecutive uses a magic item is capable of, rather than how much charge it has and/or how much charge each use would cost.
  • Considering the aforementioned reason, when this info is displayed in a sortable column, I believe it makes more sense to sort by the number of uses, as opposed to the max charge.

Personally, I'd prefer to display it as Uses = Charge/Cost (maybe create a template for it) but I'd understand if this fraction format is too visually distracting. Nonetheless, the point still remains: show (and sort by) uses first, before charge and cost.

Thoughts? Salamangkero (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)