UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 16

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.

Oblivion Soldier Pages Merge

Lately I have created a page for each Soldier involved in the Allies for Bruma and Defense of Bruma quests. These pages basically have the same information and now that they're up, I don't see any point in keeping them separate. After merging them, the differring data would be the statistics, the images and the town-specific information (which Count/Countess sends them to Bruma). I'd place a tag onto these articles but the template doesn't allow multiple links. Would this be appropriate? --Matthewest TCE 06:42, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

After discussion with Game Lord on the IRC, he has edited the Merge template to allow up to 5 links in it. I will proceed with adding the template to each of these articles. --Matthewest TCE 06:50, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I'd agree to this merge. The information on each article is pretty much identical, so we might as well put them all together. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 15:39, 16 April 2009 (EDT)


Guild Halls

Going through the NPCs and detailing their homes' contents has raised a question... Where do we list the contents of Guild Halls? The contents of, for instance, the "Bravil Fighters Guild" should not be described on Oblivion:Vincent Galien, but where should they be described? Do we need pages for each Guild Hall? After all, unlike the shops pages (which have an argument for being described on the shop-owners' pages) there is no other reasonable article for the info, unless we want to add a lot of content to Oblivion:Fighters Guild, etc. --GuildKnightTalk2me 15:54, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Also, since I posted this question, a couple more things have come up... What about the Chapels in all the cities? The contents of the "Great Chapel of Mara" shouldn't be described on Oblivion:Uravasa Othrelas, but, again, where? There's also a couple of smaller things I've come across, like the "Office of Imperial Commerce" and the "Imperial City Lighthouse". While I'm bringing this up, we might as well decide what to do about the smaller locations, too. --GuildKnightTalk2me 01:05, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I guess we probably do need individual pages for such buildings: guildhalls, chapels, and other buildings that aren't clearly associated with a specific NPC. A handful of similar pages have been created already for Morrowind (e.g., Morrowind:Guild of Mages (Balmora)), and we do need somewhere to document such information (including somewhere to move edits such as this one).
My main concern would be ending up with a ton of meaningless articles overnight -- I'm not sure there's any point in creating an article if it all contains is "This is the Fighters Guild in Bravil". Of course, you're not planning to do anything like that, GuildKnight. Just for anyone else who's interested in helping out, I'd suggest that editors take time to create useful, well-formatted articles one at a time, instead of rushing to quickly create a ton of stubs. --NepheleTalk 16:14, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
Agreed. I remember suggesting the chapels would be better than the castles, but that suggestion fell on deaf ears... I think in general any building in which an NPC sleeps is worth a page. That means eventually doing a job on White Gold Tower too, for instance. –RpehTCE 01:25, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
One thing that could be is to decide what level of building gets its own page. Small houses and small offices most certainly do not need individual pages. These small structures can be placed in the city/district they preside, or you can make a Oblivion:Bruma Houses page, or something of the sort. --Mr. Oblivion 02:07, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
I'd rather not have a Bruma Houses page. With Morrowind, pages like this make sense because you can't buy houses yourself. What we're trying to do in Oblivion is document the contents of the places where people live. In most cases, the best place to do that is on the NPC page, since only one person lives in the house, or they share it with a family member. The place pages we're looking at creating are ones where a group of people live in one place and there's no way of assigning ownership to one of them. –RpehTCE 07:40, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

(stop outdent) Just a quick thought in regards to Guild Halls. Most of the items that are within them are property of the Guild Faction, not of a specific NPC. If you see the work I have been doing on Mages Guild NPCs, you'll notice that in the 'house contents', I only mentioned the items within the Guild building that they specifically own. Creating Guild Hall pages might be a good idea, but I personally see little collision between such pages and an NPC's 'house content'. --SerCenKing Talk 08:37, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

The point is to describe the locations of interesting items. For NPCs with houses, that can be done on the NPC page. For those without, or who sleep in communal areas, there is currently nowhere to document them. This will solve that. –RpehTCE 08:48, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
A good idea. This is the thing that annoys me most. What the? There isn't a Leyawiin Mage's Guild page? Well there's a Leyawiin branch of the Mage's Guild isn't there? theg721
I just added a VN tag to the pages I still need to check in-game - mostly to keep track myself, but also to invite other users to participate. Hope, it's okay! Krusty 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Records

I've noticed that many pages across the UESP have little notable statistics, such as the sword with the most health, or the merchant with the least amount of money. Why not collect all of these items into one page? It would surely be interesting, even after we find new categories to group things in and discover new things relating to the game.

I'm thinking of an Oblivion (and its plugins) page to start. Simply show the best and worst of everything on a page, with appropriate links. Anyone else think anything about this? Mutated 16:44, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I kind of find it interesting, however, unnecessary. I really can't comment on it further as I can't put my finger on it. You might get the merchant with the most gold; however, you would have to have a merchant for each type of good (since they all buy and sell different things). It would become chaotic and hard to manage. Not to mention, it would be a project that would have little reward for finishing. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 16:54, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
No reward for finishing is bad, yes. That's the biggest problem. But why wouldn't it create interest? If nothing else, we've already got some other pages that aren't exactly rewarding. And who says we need every single type of merchant? Start small. Unfortunately, a PS3 player like myself will have trouble double-checking statistics, but I can format a page with raw information. Mutated 13:50, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
Another person who plays TES4 on PS3!! theg721
You can go ahead and do it, I cannot stop you. However, I am just warning you that it will get crazy. There will be so many perameters to follow/include. Merchants: who sells what, who sells when, who gives most money for disposition (including factions), who is least skilled in Mercantile but pays out a lot of money.
I am just saying that most of this information can be easily obtained via search. And the end product wouldn't be a polished article. Maybe start something in a sandbox, but be careful that it doesn't get too out of hand. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 13:59, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
Easily obtained via search? Can you find the weapon with the highest damage stat, a simple number, using search? Now, having knowing this beforehand, I know it's a tie between Nerveshatter, the Perfect Amber Hammer, and the Bound Sword. But I couldn't find that through search without specifically searching Nerveshatter, the only page to actually set that record apart.
So, if you or anyone would like to point out how to easily search for these records, feel free. But I think this page is very much necessary, or at least interesting. Mutated 15:12, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
Like I said, I am not stopping you. But build it in a sandbox and then we can have a consensus of some sort. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 07:27, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
Here's the start. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Mutated/Records_sandbox I don't really know how to use tables, and a list seems more appropriate, but how does it look so far? Mutated 13:06, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) Looks like a good start. And don't worry about tables and so forth...once you've got the page created, and the community has decided if they want it, other editors can put it into table format if they feel it's better that way. Personally, I think that if there's only a few entries, a list is the way to go. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Awesome. I'll keep working then. Mutated 10:06, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Calender

I am proposing that the community portal creates an oblivion calender, e.g months, days, years, and so on, and will be easier to play that way — Unsigned comment by 87.114.128.12 (talk) on 6 June 2009

Err... what? If you're looking for information on the calendar used in the game, see this page, and if you're looking for history, see this page and the other history pages. If it's neither of those... can you rephrase your statement / question please? –RpehTCE 04:44, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
Ok, sorry, i spealt it wrong, thats what i wanted, thanks — Unsigned comment by Bensp12 (talkcontribs) on 6 June 2009

Userbox Template Change

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to customize the {{User IRC}} userbox to indicate how frequently you visit. I've played around and it seems to be working, but my familiarity with templates is extremely limited (this is my second ever). Would someone with more template experience please have a look at User:RobinHood70/Sandbox1 (the template itself) and User:Sandbox2 (examples) and see if everything looks okay before I replace the existing template with my changes?

While I was there, I also forced the image to 45px to ensure alignment with other Userboxes in the event of image changes...a problem I first learned of on the {{User Canadian}} template. ;)

In light of those changes, I also added usage instructions in the <noinclude> section. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:22, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

I just think you need to be on IRC more often, and not finding excuses. ;)
I wouldn't mind some customisation to the Userbox. It's backwards compatible so existing users of it are not affected. The problem I see, though, is that people who fill in "never", still appear in the Users Who Frequent the IRC chatroom category. --Timenn < talk > 16:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
You had to go and make my life hard, didn't you? Suggestions for overcoming this? I mean, I could just put a check in for "never", but then they might fill in someting like "doesn't even know what IRC is and never" or something dumb like that. Should I put in some kind of a switch statement to limit the responses to just a few, maybe? --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (EDT)


Quest Updates

Since Nephele, Rpeh, and myself (I contributed to a small extent) have finished the Journal Entries template, I want to know how the implementation of this should be executed. Should it be its very own project, such as the OBNPCRP (with tags and everything)? I am assuming so; however, I want input from other members. Thanks you! --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 01:29, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Here is something I whipped up that could be used on the pages if we do decide to make it an actual project:

☑Yes The Journal Entries section of this article is currently being rewritten as part of the [[UESPWiki:Oblivion/Morrowind Journal Entries Update|Oblivion/Morrowind Journal Entries Update Project]].

It would need some more info, but it's a start. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 02:24, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I don't see any reason why this needs to be a project, or why the number of edits needs to be tripled by adding (then deleting) a tag on every quest page. All of the existing journal entries were added to the quests without creating a project, and this basically just amounts to a minor formatting change for that content. It's nearly invisible to readers. It's pretty easy for editors to tell whether or not the change has been done to any given quest page. What would be added by creating a project? --NepheleTalk 02:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
I figured a bot could somehow throw the tags up; if not, then I don't want it as a project. As you mentioned, tripling the edits would be a waste. Thanks for the response! I'll start on it soon. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
The bots could add the template, but it's unnecessary. It's only necessary to create a full project when there are going to be debates about content, with guidelines, specific styles and so on. As Nephele points out, this change will be largely invisible to most people so there's no point in advertising it.
In any case, please can you hold off for now? As I mentioned before, the template needs to cater for other options besides the tick in the Finishes column. Take a look at this and this, for instance - they use the Restart icon. At the moment that options is only used on four mod quests but I'm sure some base game quests also use it if we check. The template needs to support that flag before it can be used. –RpehTCE 03:45, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
Ahh, I forgot about that. I went ahead and added it to the the template in a {{#switch parameter. Is it okay if I begin now? Thanks. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 03:54, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Templates documentation and noinclude

I would like to bring up the question on how to handle the Template documentation, and how we should use the <noinclude> tags. See here the discussion that fired this off. I feel that we should devise a consensus on how we wish the Template pages, Infobox Templates in special, to appear when visiting them.

What usually happens now is that part of the code of the template (e.g. Template:Artifact Summary) falls through the various if-statements. It does given an example how the template will appear when called, but I feel the example is insufficient. That's why I introduced the Appearance example at the bottom of the documentation, though Nephele pointed out that this example doesn't show where the various parameters go. Now I believe that the documentation page can be modified so it does show you, and in better detail (as it is now, it only shows a few parameters). My point is that I would like to see that the template code itself doesn't appear on its own page. Instead, there would be one documentation page that covers everything the editor needs to know.

That brings me to the use of <noinclude> tags. They prevent the editor from previewing when editing the template, by using the very helpful #preview tags. But on the other hand, those tags are removed when the edits are finished, to avoid uneccessary processing for every page that loads the template.

I think that an editor that knows how to work the #preview tags, probably knows of the effects of <noinclude>. The editor will know that while previewing, he/she should temporarily disable the tags. It's maybe a bit too hopeful on my end, so if someone has a nice road between let's hear it. --Timenn < talk > 17:42, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I basically agree with Timenn, but I can see that Nephele has a point too. I'd prefer to keep the pages looking clean, but if people find it useful to have parameters like PAGENAME showing, then we may as well leave it.
I think we're going to have to see how things pan out with the new functionality before making a final decision. I'm more disappointed to see that we have to remove preview tags when going live - I'd have thought they'd be useful to keep in - and then there are issues with noinclude/includeonly tags. I think it's only going to affect the infoboxes and we don't have too many of those. As long as we can keep the one-liners clean that should be the main thing. –RpehTCE 13:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

UESPWiki Upgrade

I'm preparing to upgrade the MediaWiki software that powers UESPWiki, from MediaWiki 1.10 to MediaWiki 1.14. Details of what types of new features and other changes can be expected are provided at MediaWiki 1.14 Upgrade.

The most immediate impact on the community is that UESPWiki will be unavailable for editing while the upgrade is being done. The upgrade is tentatively scheduled to happen early on Wednesday June 24th, starting at about 2 am EDT (6 am GMT) and lasting for three hours (hopefully). During that period, the wiki will be in read-only mode, meaning no edits or changes to the site will be possible. It should still be possible to view all of the site's articles, although the performance and reliability of UESP may be sub-standard. Site notices (messages displayed at the top of all wiki pages) will be used to let everyone know when the upgrade has started and when it is complete.

If you have any concerns or questions about the upgrade, please post them on the upgrade talk page. --NepheleTalk 22:02, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm hoping to start the upgrade in a few hours. The biggest issue right now is that the job queue has more than 7000 jobs to process. While most of that is left over from my edits last night, any new template edits just make things worse. So could I request that nobody modify any templates until after the upgrade is done? Also, I'm increasing the job queue rate for the next few hours to try to get the site caught up -- which means that the site is likely to be somewhat sluggish. Worst case, I can force the queue to catch up manually, but that will just make the upgrade take even longer, and I'd like to get some sleep tonight ;) --NepheleTalk 22:09, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Missing companions

Discussion moved to Oblivion talk:Followers.


Morrowind Place Pages

I know this is probably more suited to the MW pages but more people are likely to have CP on their watch lists and I wanted to try to get some opinions before we shunt it off to some unvisited MW page...

In the light of this discussion, and subsequent edits such as this, I'd like to start a discussion about what we want to have on our Morrowind place pages (and, perhaps, others).

Without even looking in the CS, it seems the content that was removed was inaccurate. Even if it was accurate, the fact that there is little or no treasure of note seems entirely relevant, so the general thrust of the note was still worth keeping.

There's a similar point to be made about Generic Magic Items. In the debate referenced above, it turns out that only 15 NPCs are guaranteed to hold a Glass Jinkblade. Does that make it notable enough to include on the place page as opposed to the NPC page? I think it comes down to a combination of rarity, value and danger. There are just 20 guaranteed Glass Jinkblades in MW - the 15 held by NPCs plus 5 in various locations. It has a nasty paralyze effect. I think that makes it notable.

The Steel Viperscythe mentioned in the same debate is rarer - it only appears in a leveled list (l_m_wpn_melee_long blade if you're still awake) but that means there's no point in ever mentioning it in a location page - it's never guaranteed.

For the few locations I described in Tamriel Rebuilt, I listed dungeon treasure on the dungeon page and NPC treasure on the NPC page. Having read this debate, I can see it would make sense to list uncommon items on the dungeon page too. At this point, it comes down to the question "What is uncommon?"

What do people think? –RpehTCE 17:55, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

In the end it would be nice to have the Morrowind Places similar to the Oblivion maps; with nice maps and walkthroughs. Admittedly, that is a long road, so we have to settle for something in the meanwhile.
Then, what is notable loot? For me it is loot that I collect, when exploring a dungeon, and only drop when I have to make choices on what to drop when my encumbrance nears the limit. I wouldn't collect a simple spoon, simply because it has no special function or monetary value. It wouldn't be worth the extra encumbrance from the start. Glass Jinkblades, in this case, have a significant base value, so I would always mention them, even when they're that abundant. --Timenn < talk > 18:15, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
Initially, I would want to say uncommon is anything that has only one copy of itself in the game, such as artifacts. However I want to elaborate on that colossal shortcoming. Uncommon would then include things that are [1] a massive danger to the player, [2] highly valuable, [3] are hard to come by, and [4] play significance in a quest. I guess that is my definition... --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
If the issue in discussion is whether or not loot is supposed to be on a dungeon page, then I must say "Yes". The example page right now doesn't really give any sort of help to me if I wanted to clean this place out, besides the information on where it is. I agree with Mr. Oblivion's assessment of "uncommon". --Tim Talk 00:24, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Template:Games

Recently a [[Template:Games|template]] was created and implemented on all of the major game pages. Since it's pretty redundant with the links on the site's navigation bar, I proposed it for deletion. However, the issue with mobile games was brought up: they're not linked to from the sidebar and apparently there has been a consensus that they should not be added. While adding each one might be too much, I think it might be worth adding one link to the navigation bar that would lead to all the mobile games.

In any case, I would rather add one link to the sidebar than have a template with redundant links on all of the game pages. Thoughts? –Eshetalk 11:40, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Please see the recent discussion at Shadowkey talk:Shadowkey for my thoughts. --NepheleTalk 12:19, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, I was thinking that would be an issue too. I don't really have a strong opinion about whether more links are included in the nav bar (though I think if they are added, either one link or a separate section farther down the page would be best). I just wanted to see how people feel about this template and whether any other changes should be made :). –Eshetalk 12:34, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Maybe a Mobile link should be added to the side at the bottom of the Sections box. However, I'm not entirely too sure whether it is imperative, as I don't use the mobile games. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 12:37, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

New Quote Template

I have pulled the Cquote template from Wikipedia and put it on the UESP. It can be found [[Template:Cquote|here]]. An example of an "in use" quote template can be found on my sandbox. Basically, Cquote stands for "centered pull-quote". I vision this being used on Lore pages, Place pages, and maybe NPC pages, either using a quote they say or a quote about them in a book or about them that someone else has said. I think it will give a more artistic/elegant feel to some of the pages that are just blocks of texts. Any input? Also, there is another type of quote template I can bring over here that makes it more versatile. It can be placed on the side of page instead of spanning across the entire page. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 12:42, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Just to cover our bases, are there any copyright restrictions on the original CQuote? --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
As far as I am aware, no, there is no copyright. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 17:41, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
No, I don't think there are copyright issues. The bottom of the Cquote page says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License." Their info for the license is here and the terms of use are here. I didn't read through everything, but I think it's okay for us to use it. To be safe, we could even throw a link back to the original page on the template documentation. –Eshetalk 17:43, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Should I go ahead and write it? Remember, there is another quote template that is used for smaller quotes that has text wrapping. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
I've always really, really disliked that template. It's more about trying to make sites look cool than adding anything useful. I'd rather not have it here. –RpehTCE 17:56, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Hrmmm. I think some of the lore pages look rather bland. Adding this would give it some artistic/aesthetic qualities which they seriously lack. Giving this too them will bring readers eyes to that section, which is two more eyes than the page likely had before. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 18:02, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
I think it would look nice on the Lore pages, but it probably shouldn't be used on quest pages, NPC pages, etc., since it might be a little distracting when users are just looking for quick information. –Eshetalk 18:22, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Lore pages should, generally, be more encyclopedic, which means quotes should be typically be rendered into third person language. For instance, if Tiber Septim were to say "I, and all my followers will shop at MagicCo!", the Lore page should render it more like "Tiber Septim promised that he and his followers would shop at MagicCo (reference would go here)". The number of pages where a direct quote is suitable can't be very large (could somebody provide examples?) and maybe the template could be used in such cases, but I don't see that it's necessary even there when <blockquote> does the job so well. –RpehTCE 18:48, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

(outdent)Yes, maybe they should be more encyclopedic, but I don't think that rules out a little visual interest. Actually I might argue that polished, more aesthetically pleasing articles might convince users to read more. Take Lore:Elsweyr for example. The quote "It may be fair to say Elsweyr is in crisis. And it may further be accurate to say that such chaos is home" would make a nice highlight for the page and could be featured easily with the quote template. It doesn't mean we have to put every bit of dialogue into a shiny template, but it could improve the appearance of some pages. –Eshetalk 19:08, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I have put out some examples of the two different templates. They can be found in my sandbox. They are based off of Lore:Azura. I don't see the harm in it. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Visual interest is fine, and I'll be the first to agree with you that the Lore articles could be kicked up a notch on that score. To my mind, though, the cquote template is style over substance rather than genuine aesthetic improvement. In the context of that article, you'd end up with the quote dangling off the bottom of the paragraph. That template is just bad. I'll bow to the community's will on the matter, but I'll argue against its use all the way. –RpehTCE 19:20, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
I would personally call this a case of style in addition to substance. If used sparingly, the template could be used to change up the flow of the page without compromising content in any way. Also, we'll have to be careful with formatting, but I rather like the more contained quote as shown in the first example on Mr. Oblivion's sandbox. –Eshetalk 19:25, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. Looking back at the history on WP, I found the edit summary "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia as opposed to a children's television program. See talk." (accompanied by an edit that basically changed it back to a blockquote) most amusing, and comments on the talk page like "Cartoon quotes [which incidentally seems to be the real expansion of the template's name] are beginning to infest the whole encyclopedia." and "I personally think this Cquote format is clunky and unattractive on the page." quite accurate. The more I look through WP at pages using this template, the more I dislike it. –RpehTCE 19:36, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Please note that there is a bounty of quote templates we can use. Not just the cquote. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Just say no! If a quote is a legitimate part of an article, it needs to be contained in the paragraph to which it relates. If it isn't (such as the quote on the examples in your sandbox) then it's just eyecandy and shouldn't be on the page at all. If an article is interesting enough, people will read it whether it's ugly or not, but most long Lore articles will be able to use at least one image rather than an unrelated lump of text. –RpehTCE 19:57, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

\=> I partially agree with Rpeh, I don't like quotes dominating the page. Seeing the collection of quote templates on Wikipedia, they all share in common they take the quote out of the text flow. Which might be fine for a news article, but has issues on an UESP article. On the other hand, looking at the various quotes popping up with the OBNPCRP, I believe that we may benefit from some sort of special quote formatting. Currently it may be a bit too hard to distinguish one quote from another at first sight. Perhaps we can find something new in between?

Something that would allows quotes to be placed in the paragraph itself: "This is just an example of quote formatting." Don't forget, alot is possible with CSS. --Timenn < talk > 07:24, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

That's a fair point, and that's a decent first stab at a template, although I'm not sure it would work with lots of quotes together. It's definitely better than cquote and its ilk though. –RpehTCE 10:41, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
I don't like it. Quotes within the paragraphs should have the same font settings has the rest of the paragraph but with italics. The point is to bring/pop a quote out and mention the author if it is a book (which could then provide a link to more information). --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 10:50, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
Hmm...it would definitely be better than nothing. I was thinking of the NPC pages as a separate issue because this kind of template wouldn't work at all there, but while we're at it we might as well come up with a fix for that too. Some NPCs have so much dialogue all squashed together that it just looks...meh...so that could do with some reformatting for sure. –Eshetalk 11:00, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Wanted categories - Tamriel Rebuilt

One of the Wanted Categories at the moment is Tamriel Rebuilt Pages Needing Images. This has highlighted an inconsistency in the way that Tamriel Rebuilt pages are listed in the 'needs action' categories:

  • Pages marked with {{Stub}} are shown in the categories :Category:Tamriel Rebuilt (Morrowind) Stubs|Tamriel Rebuilt (Morrowind) Stubs (which doesn't currently exist) and :Category:Tamriel Rebuilt (Oblivion) Stubs|Tamriel Rebuilt (Oblivion) Stubs.
  • Pages marked with {{NeedsMap}} are shown in the categories Category:Tes3Mod Pages Needing Maps and Tes4Mod Pages Needing Maps.
  • There are categories called Tes3Mod Pages Needing Images and Tes4Mod Pages Needing Images, both of which are currently empty and are unlikely to gain any members.

The reason for this difference is the way in which the templates determine the namespace for the category.

  • {{Stub}} uses "{{NS_NAME}}{{#ifeq:{{NS_NAME}}|Tamriel Rebuilt| ({{NS_PARENT}})}} ".
  • {{NeedsMap}} uses {{NAMESPACE}}.
  • {{NeedsImage}} uses {{NS_NAME}}.
  • {{Cleanup}} and {{Verification needed}} also use {{NS_NAME}} - and there are already Tamriel Rebuilt, Tes3Mod, and Tes4Mod categories set up for these templates, and in both cases the Tes3Mod and Tes4Mod categories are empty and are unlikely to gain any members.

I would like to propose that all of these 'needs action' templates are modified to work in the same way as the {{Stub}} template, so Tamriel Rebuilt pages that require action are placed in 'Tamriel Rebuilt (Morrowind)' and 'Tamriel Rebuilt (Oblivion)' categories, rather than Tes3Mod or Tes4Mod. Does anybody have any objections or other comments? --Gaebrial 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - and that has been on my "to do" list for a while. I set the stub one up and was going to start a debate on it but it completely slipped my mind. –rpehTCE 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is all done now, unless I've missed something. I've created categories where necessary, and prodded the ones that are no longer used. I've left the generic Tes3Mod and Tes4Mod categories, even the ones that don't have members, as they can still pick up non-TR pages. --Gaebrial 08:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Building Redesign Project

As the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project is moving along, it becomes more and more evident how lacking some of the building-specific pages are. While NPCs living in their own houses gets the full treatment (take a look at Wumeek, S'rathad or even Drarana Thelis for examples), people who are living in named houses (with their own pages) does NOT get the treatment, and the pages looks VERY lacking. Take for example Corrick Northwode who's living at Harm's Folly. In a case like this, it's almost as sad as Corrick himself.

What I'm suggesting is, that we discuss (like GuildKnight suggested a few topics above this one) how we deal with this. It's not only the houses, it's also the inns, taverns ect ect. . maybe even later guild halls and chapels. I would suggest a description of the exterior, ditto for the interior, a listing of ALL non-clutter items found in the house (right down to those two samples of Strawberry behind the bed). Ditto for inns. And when we list the regulars, why not make another box for "visiting hours", so we can see WHEN those regulars visits the inn? I'm all for it, and willing to write or check the in-game stuff. So: Lets hear your thoughts on this subject - because it hurts my heart every time I have to link to some half-empty page instead of being allowed to describe the NPCs house in detail. Krusty 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should probably add house contents 'for people who are living in named houses (with their own pages)', since as it's written now it implies that the relevant information can be found either on their house page, or there is no information at all, which is neither the case. Chapels, inns etc. be included.
As for adding 'visiting hours', it might be a bit overdone, because if you follow the link to each individual NPC you will get the relevant information (if their schedule is finished). But on the other hand, it is a lot quicker and clarifying. Wolok gro-Barok 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Visiting Hours", simply because we can - it might be a bit overdone, but it would look good - especially on those empty pages. Thanks for replying, Wolok - let's hear some more opinions! Krusty 22:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already stated my opinion on the guild halls and chapels above. For inns and taverns and other houses, you don't have to ask before adding useful information. The "visiting hours" idea is a good one, but will be complicated. S'rathad is one NPC who makes like difficult by visiting different inns at different times, and I'm sure there will be others. If you can make it work, there's no reason not to do it. –rpehTCE 06:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheer Brilliance

When UESPwiki was down for a couple days...I distinctly noticed that it was really hard to play Oblivion without checking about quests, NPC's and bugs in general. I physically couldn't play without UESPwiki, and for that... I salute you all who have contributed to this...which has basically let me play Oblivion to the fullest. -Theman100 08:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However, please read the notices on the tops of pages. I had to move this. –Elliot(T-C) 08:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Community Fangame

I was thinking of a Fangame made by the community. I'm great at making 2D games and can make a game that uses both first person and third person gameplay. theg721

OK, I've come up with this. theg721
Err.. Ideas? Suggestions? Anything? Anyone? — Unsigned comment by theg721 (talkcontribs) at 11:12 on 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't even understand the point... why would we need it? --Elliot(T-C) 11:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Eddie are you ok, eddie are you ok, You've been hit my *Bang Bang* A smooth theg" Oh, right. Err.. How am I supposed to know? Some othere site did it, why can't w-"Eddie are you ok.." theg721
Well... it's "Annie are you okay", not Eddie. The thing is, I don't think anybody (including me) understands what you mean by a Fangame, or what relevance the graphic you made has to it. Could you explain more clearly? –rpehTCE 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Fangame 1. a game made by fans of a particular thing, or, if that thing is a game or video game, a remake of that game. As this site is about the whole of TES, it might be remakes off all the Elder Scrolls Games in one. theg721


New Design for Shops

Just wanted to post this here, as I'd like some feedback on this new idea for a shop description page (a bit of a follow-up on both GuildKnight's brilliant Guild Hall-pages and my own complaints about building pages in general). HERE in my sandbox, I've tried to make a shop page more satisfying and informative. It's a scaled-down version of the Guildhall pages, and I think it's more than needed, especially if you compare it with the original. I would be happy if any of you would give some feedback on the two tags in the top as well. How many images needed? 1 or 3? Should we mention safe-containers? As an article, I think it's satisfying and informative - and I really don't want to change a whole lot, mostly to keep the consistency to the guild-pages. Anyway, I hope you guys and gals like the idea and that you will find the time to post your opinion. - Krusty 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the new layout. But as with the inns, I think I should add in the gold and mercantile skill in the actual summary box. It would be easy enough. I think this should be used! --Elliot(T-C) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already told you I like it on IRC so I'll say it again here. Just a few points. First, I agree with Elliot's point about the infobox. Second, although The Gilded Carafe is a fairly full store, some of the others aren't. If a section can only have one line of text describing it, I'd merge areas together: something like "Rest of the Store", perhaps? Third, I don't see why we can't have one image per zone as with the guilds, except where things get combined. Good stuff though! –rpehTCE 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I managed to tweak the Place Summary to include more information. You can see the changes in my sandbox. Just follow the instructions to see it otherwise it will look weird (due to namespace issues). --Elliot(T-C) 20:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies! I agree with all the statements, and that new Place Summary box looks good! I plan on doing the Market District first - just to see how it plays, and because most of these shops are big enough for this treatment. If not, I'll merge some of the sections as suggested. And I really hope, somebody will take on the important CS checking/writing (*nudges GuildKnight*), as it would be really cool to add the "safe containers" info - as well as finding out if I missed something. And Rpeh, I think you're very right. When a shop is as "full" as The Gilded Carafe, we might as well add an image to each section. I'll change the tag. Here we go! Krusty 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vivec's Power

Discussion moved to Lore:Dagoth Ur.

Stone well

Discussion moved to Oblivion talk:Skingrad.


Recovering Lost Information

As reported by Daveh, about 30 hours' worth of edits made to UESPWiki have been lost from the database. Directly recovering that lost data is unlikely. However, there are some possible indirect ways to recover some of the information -- which may be particularly important in the case of any substantial modifications:

  • Any images or files that were uploaded are still intact; the only problem is that the wiki no longer knows they exist. To recover any image/file, please provide me with the name of the file that was uploaded.
  • I have the most recent HTML version of most wiki pages. Since it's HTML, a bit of editing will be necessary to recreate the corresponding wikitext. If you're aware of pages with major edits that can't otherwise be restored, let me know the pagename. I can then email you the HTML; I'll leave it to you to recreate the wikitext. I'll keep these HTML pages around for a few weeks at least. However, there may be a few missing pages in my HTML copies; the sooner such missing files are identified, the better the chances are that we can come up with another way to find a copy of the information.

--NepheleTalk 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Any chance at recovering the tl/tlp/tlx templates I created last night, or should I re-import them? --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 01:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the best I can probably do for templates is to pull up the documentation.... --NepheleTalk 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm not too sure why (perhaps you were too eager to pull up the templates, and therefore their cached copies were erased before I thought to save the cache?) but I don't have the HTML for any of the Tl templates, nor for any of their /Doc pages. So this is a case where I seem to be completely useless :( --NepheleTalk 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well, I'll re-create them tomorrow night probably, then. Is the standard to use /Doc pages for the docs? As you've probably noticed, I don't do templates normally. In the ones I did last night, I just put noinclude tags around the docs, but I can transclude a /Doc page just as easily. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 04:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, /Doc is used for the documentation on many of the templates. Usually either using <pre> tags or using boxes. It just depends on personal preference. –Elliot talk 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do that when I re-create the templates then. At least this time, I'll have a better idea of what I'm doing. :) --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've discovered another source of missing info, namely cached copies of the diff pages used to view the edits. From that source, I can extract 273 of the 380 lost edits. The edits that are missing are: many edits made by patrollers (yes, rpeh you got your wish: most of your redone edits were not wasted!); and, new pages that were created (although I probably have the HTML of the new pages, if I can just figure out that the page was created).

I'm therefore going through the edits and trying to restore many of them. One limitation is that I have no idea who made the original edit (other than my faulty memory and guesswork), so attributions are frequently missing. I'm only re-adding the net result of any edits made, not the individual edits. Also, I'm skipping edits that I don't believe to be worth the trouble (nonsense/vandalism of course; unhelpful talk page comments; edits made to Roleplaying, Mod Ideas, and comparable pages). My apologies to any editors whose edits are being skipped: you're free to re-add the content yourself, but the restoration process is time-consuming. --NepheleTalk 06:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


New Template

While we are adding the tl templates, I think it would be good to add the documentation template used on Wikipedia, with obvious changes made appropriate for UESP. The only thing is that something needs to be added to the common.css. I think it would be extremely useful for separating the docs and creating consistency for all of the templates. I am willing to transition them, but I was just wondering what other people thought. –Elliot talk 05:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a standard, as used on several templates. –rpehTCE 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I am proposing a small change. I see no harm in separating it a little more to make it clearer and perhaps more legible (in terms of understanding) for editors who want to use templates. –Elliot talk 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess I will just start updating templates that still use the pre tags. No need to complicate things! –Elliot talk 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather wish the issues described here were resolved. They prevented me from further editing template documentations. What kind of boxes the older documentations have seem less important to me, I never quite liked Wikipedia's format for documentation. I feel it's better to have full articles (headers and such) about the more complex templates than just an infobox. --Timenn-<talk> 08:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My intent was just a separation one. We would keep everything like normal, just put it in another box to make it look cleaner. My thing is that we don't need to necessarily explain everything about the template. If it is wanted, then we could show an example(s) that shows how each parameter is portrayed when used. But again, I don't think it is necessary to be so blunt. They usually do make sense when you start previewing them. I do kind of wish the #preview could be retained, however, it isn't necessary. A simple sandbox is good enough (it has worked for me). But if we can keep the #preview, then we should. –Elliot talk 08:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Side-Effects of Database Loss

I just noticed one other odd side effect of the database problems: the servers are occasionally returning cached content, created during the missing 20 hours and containing now-non-existent data. For example, this diff on content2 is supposed to be of Template:Journal_Entries, but instead (for me at least) is showing a diff from Oblivion_talk:100% Completion of edits that no longer exist. content1, on the other hand, is showing the diff correctly. I'm fairly certain that the false information in content2's version is just coming from a cache -- I've checked the database to confirm that it does not contain any of the incorrect content.

I'm unlikely to put much time into fixing this problem (in part because understanding the caches can be nightmarish) however I thought others might want to be aware of it. --NepheleTalk 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot. I saw this earlier (for a character count difference of +1, according to Recent Changes) but that one occurs on both content1 and content2. I think the "deleted" text comes from a Dstebbins edit to Oblivion:First Time Players. I guess we'll just have to put up with them for a while. –rpehTCE 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, this might provide another way to recover some lost data (Template:Tl*, for example). The only catch is that I really need a version of recent changes from before the database loss (in order to extract the revision ID pairs that are likely to be hiding in the cache). If anyone happens to have saved any versions of recent changes, it would be really helpful if you could email me the HTML -- Special:EmailUser/Nephele, or nephele AT skyhighway DOT com. Thanks! --NepheleTalk 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability of wiki dump

Is there a feasability of making the wiki dump available for offline use? I know that Wikipedia does a brilliant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_database) community job at it. It would greatly help in offloading some of the load from the servers while making the wiki responsive for contributing users.

Of course, if someone ever wanted to contribute or join a discussion or get the latest updates one would refer the online version. But for most of the community folks who are in here for getting info on playing the game (access read only) and/or behind sub-standard internet connection it would be a great community service.

P.S. I guess this wiki has reached a level a maturity where updates to core/important content are minimal while vast majority of updates are on the discussion pages. Hence the thought. -- Mrinal 3:03, 5 August 2009

This is one of those things that is asked about from time to time but either I don't have time or forgot about. Right now my priority is other things but if someone reminds me in a few weeks when I'm not so busy....this sort of ties in with improving the backup and recovery of the site. Having an offsite site copy automatically created every day or week would be a good thing. -- Daveh 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Namespace Move Project - Final Phase

We're up to the last stages of this project now. The only question that remains is: do we delete the Tamold pages? The Last discussion said we'd start around now and this discussion suggested that was sttilll the plan.

There's obviously no hurry here. If there are no objections, I'll get RoBoT to mark all the orphaned Tamold pages for deletion then we can give them all to Timenn to delete a week later as his "intiation" to admin status :)

The ones that still have links (all from user pages, I believe) can be dealt with separately. –rpehTCE 13:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think NepheleBot should do it, as she isn't like RoBoT making tire tracks in the grass all the time. Another advantage is that rpeh can help with the deleting.
Other than that, I have no objections. It is according to the plan, and I can't remember seeing any tag being removed. Besides, the namespace aliases should cover this eventually. --Timenn-<talk> 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to NepheleBot doing it, and I know RoBoT loves to see her in action so there won't be an objection there. I'm more worried that NepheleBot's programmer has a hardware error at the moment. Plus, I think the Massive Breadcrumb Reorg is higher on the list. If NepheleBot wants the task, though, I have no problem. –rpehTCE 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't delete them. With the Tamriel alias, there's already no risk of breaking external or internal links. The only Tamold pages linked internally are two cases with explicit links to Tamold, on User talk:212.123.178.174 and UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard.
However, NepheleBot is not going to be active any time in the foreseeable future -- I've got way too many other tasks that only I can do, especially at my current rate of typing. --NepheleTalk 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

News about TES V

Seems like http://bethblog.com/index.php/2009/08/17/clarifying-about-next-elder-scrolls-game-mmo-etc/ contains further information about Todd's words and the next TES game. 77.38.140.17 10:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's in the latest news item. --Timenn-<talk> 11:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my bad =) seems like it was added ever before I wrote the message... browser cache doesn't always help :D 77.38.140.17 11:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Prev: Archive 15 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 17