Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 17

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

{{tl}} Template

Do we already have a template similar to the {{tl}} template they have at Wikipedia? If not, would anybody mind if I created it (albeit with much simpler documentation)? It's quite useful and saves a lot of nowiki tags everywhere. :) --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm shocked I haven't seen that one. I think we should use it! –Elliot talk 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
We may also want {{tlx}} and {{tlp}}, which would be especially useful on the Help:Templates page, if nowhere else. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've re-created the {{tl}} template. Could one of you template-y types have a look at both it and the docs and see if I've done everything correctly? It probably needs categories, but I don't do much in the way of page/tempate creation, so I honestly haven't looked at how to do categories and I wouldn't know which one(s) to put it in anyway.
Next question: should I import tl2, tlp, and tlx, or should I try to combine tl/tl2 and tlp/tlx, or should I even try to combine all four? Tl and tl2 are probably good just for the fact that they're small, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to separate them and the tlp/tlx pair just for a font change. I don't know if the monospaced font can be put as a parameter, but I suspect that should be doable, if challenging for me, given my current knowledge of template creation. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, at long last, all four templates are now done. I didn't rip them straight from Wikipedia, instead opting to combine the styles from each of them on Wikipedia (they're drastically different, there) and harmonize them. I also opted to keep all four under the same names as Wikipedia uses, just to make the knowledge-transfer from one to the other a little easier. Can someone have a look over them when they have a chance, just to make sure I didn't do anything massively wrong? Thanks! —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 20:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate Mod Linking

Most mods are uploaded by their authors to large download sites, where users usually have to sign up in some way in order to download from them. Usually the signup is a pretty minor requirement (e.g. equivalent to signing up for a UESP wiki account), but sometimes the signup is rather more complicated (user has to signup for a specific forum and request download from there). The latter type of signup is a bit controversial -- many players avoid downloading mods with overly complicated requirements; however, even so, the right of the authors to impose such requirements is widely respected.

I've been on the wiki since the beginning and I've never seen this be an issue before. We're not primarily a mod listing site (though we do have a number of notable an important pages), and the sites that we link to (usually TesNexus, PES or Elric) have trivial signup requirements. Since it hasn't come up before, we've never had a formal policy stated.

Anyway, the issue came up on Morrowind Mod:Better Bodies today, and I have accordingly reverted the links. As it turns out, the editor adding the problem links was blocked for "language issues" anyway, so I doubt this will be an issue outside of this particular editor. Still, I wanted to drop a note regarding what has been an informal policy up to this point. --Wrye 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvement to User IRC userbox

Just to let everybody know, I've made some small improvements to the {{User IRC}} userbox. Namely, you can now specify something instead of "frequently" in the text (though it will keep "frequently" by default to ensure backwards compatibility with existing {{User IRC}} transclusions). I also added proper documentation to it. There's one minor concern, pointed out by Timenn a while back, in that people can do something like specify "never" and it will still include them in the "Users Who Frequent the IRC chatroom" category, but rather than try to account for all forms of silliness, I simply noted it in the docs. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Syntax tweak for preformatted text.

I'd like to propose to the MediaWiki syntax, if easily implemented. Basically it comes down to the removal of the parsing rule that converts a leading space to preformatted text. If I would type the following text with a leading space you would get:

preformatted text.

Now regular editors have no problem avoiding this, as they are aware a leading space results to this. A new user is not aware of this, as many will have seen, and may be confused what part of his/her text is causing the preformatted text to appear. A leading space is not so obvious as, for exampe, four dashes ('-') resulting in a horizontal line.

Preformatted text can still be created with the <pre> and </pre> tags, and since likely all instances of this are coded this way I don't think there is going to be any additional editing necessary. All it would do is making editing easier for new users. Thoughts? --Timenn-<talk> 12:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern with this is that those who are already familiar with Wiki syntax could have difficulty figuring out that we allow <pre>, but not a leading space. I know I figured out the leading space style long before I discovered a pre tag, and I wouldn't be surprised if others were in the same position. It might be especially confusing if we only change the parser, since people might look at the existing code and see that it was done using leading spaces and then wonder why theirs isn't working. Or on the flip side, if we eliminate the syntax altogether, then we have to change every last instance of it on the site. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Could someone make this page? I was thinking of a list of the really useful items in Oblivion, such as the Skeleton Key, Umbra/ Goldbrand, and others. — Unsigned comment by (talk)

The problem with pages like this is that they're largely (if not entirely) based on personal opinion, which is something we try to avoid as much as possible. There's no problem with creating such a list in user space, which I believe several other people have done, but I don't think it would be appropriate for an actual article. –Eshetalk 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New Template Category

I'm just noticing that we lump user warnings in with Category:Markup Templates. Would anybody object if I created Category:Warning Templates and moved our various warnings ({{Blocked}}, {{Caution}}, {{Warning}}) over there? Also, if I do, is that the best name for the category, or is there some other name you think would be better? —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reminding myself of how things work here as opposed to Wikipedia, can I suggest that we create several templates just as backups to the UESPWiki:Messages page? I know for myself, I'd find it much more intuitive to simply place templates on a user page than to jump to a totally different page only to click a button that puts a warning on the user page I most likely just left...or is this just me? —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of that too. When I'm spamming welcomes, for example, it would be a lot nicer to be able to paste {{Welcome|Username}} instead of having to open up a bunch of tabs to the Messages page ;). The Messages page is good for an overview if you're trying to decide what message to post, but a shortcut would be nice too, I think.
Oh, and as far as the category goes, could we use Category:Message Templates and throw all the notices and the welcome in there too? –Eshetalk 02:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most that has been said (figuring I brought it up not too long ago). I have already mapped out how all of this could be done, so there are multiple ways to go about it. With a warning template, we could have the parameters as Username|Page|Diff# etc. or whatever is decided on. Also, there is the base page name, etc. –Elliot talk 02:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the original discussion, but I see Templates as a "best of both worlds" scenario. We can set up the templates to transclude the existing messages (or if that poses difficulties, simply put a noincluded message that if you update one, you must update the other), but for those times when you want to customize, the Messages page is there and you can do it the good old-fashioned way. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, we would substitute the templates if we did. We would want the hard text on the page. –Elliot talk 02:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As Nephele pointed out in the other discussion, though, subst'd templates can get rather ugly with #if's and such. Of course, the other possibility here is that we don't subst them. I understand the reasoning why you want to or don't want to in some instances, but for the most part, I think for us, we're probably safe not subst'ing them. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Parser functions can be substituted as well, so that isn't an issue. We would want to be able to change the template without worrying how it affects the template calls elsewhere. If we decided to drastically alter something on the template, we would be bound by the parameters (which would be bad...). We would want the liberty to change it (plus, we would want the warnings to reflect how they looked at that given time, not in the future... if that makes sense). And, I don't think substituting welcome messages would be much different than clicking a link to do it. We don't fool any of the new users. This provides a nice guide to using substitution. I see no issue with starting to use templates for most automated messages. –Elliot talk 05:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I won't oppose a template for such things, but I know I'll continue to use the message page for warnings. I want to be able to say what I want to say, not what the template says. This is especially true for warnings and blocks, but the same is true in my opinion for welcome messages (if I ever stopped refusing to use them, like when hell freezes over). If you're sending one to an editor that's already started editing and has made some mistakes, I'd assume you'd like to point those out specifically. Also, I question the wisdom of using a template on new user talk pages. If they try to edit a reply, they could be confused by the template (especially if it was large and complex). Really, if we're just going to have a template for welcome messages, how 'bout we just set up a bot to deliver them. It would be about the same level of individualization.--Ratwar 05:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Then we can keep both, to satisfy the different wants of editors. And they won't be confused by the message because there would be no trace of the template left over after the substitution, since as I said, everything can be substituted. –Elliot talk 05:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
@Elliot: As I said, I understand the reasoning behind not subst'ing, but I don't think it's likely to be a major issue for us...we're not Wikipedia. If a template was going to change that drastically, I'd suggest creating a new one anyway. But that's a side-discussion, really. The major point is that, at least personally, I'd prefer it if the warnings were relatively standardized and available as templates for when you're already on the user's talk page. I think we're all agreed that there's no reason not to as long as the Messages page remains intact, but I'll give it a few days before we do anything drastic.
You said you had ideas on good ways to approach this. Would you care to elaborate? —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, on my wiki I use for simple template tests, I drew up this:
{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png|69px]]
| Please do not add nonsense to UESPWiki{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as your edit to [[{{{1|}}}]]}}, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~
...which was the easier one. We could also do this for welcome messages:
Hello {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}|. {{{1|}}}.|.}} If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

* '''[[UESPWiki:Policies and Guidelines|Policies and Guidelines]]''': UESPWiki standards and expectations
* '''[[Help:Quick Editing Guide|Quick Editing Guide]]''': a quick guide to wiki markup
* '''[[UESPWiki:Getting Started|Getting Started]]''': how you can help

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave [[Help:Edit Summary|edit summaries]] to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "[[Help:Show Preview|show preview]]" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our [[UESPWiki:Patrollers|Patrollers]] really appreciate it!).

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}.|{{{1|}}}.}}Feel free to practice editing in the [[UESPWiki:Sandbox|sandbox]] and don't hesitate to contact one of our [[UESPWiki:Mentor Program|mentors]] if you need any help. Have fun! --~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~
...among other things. But as you can tell, it can get complex but remain manageable. There are all sorts of things we could possibly do. –Elliot talk 06:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ratwar on this. Now I don't make a habit of regularly welcoming users, but if I do I want the full text present. I generally don't think it's a good idea to welcome a new user with a template. Welcoming a new user shouldn't be a chore you try to do as efficient as possible. It is a courtesy message of a more experienced user. The proposed setup reminds me too much of how I was welcomed on an obscure language Wikipedia; because I have a global account, and visited that particular language Wikipedia for the first time, a bot noticed my "user creation" and added a welcome message to my talk page, a minute after I visited. I feel that's no welcome, but some sort of general advice you would see in the account creation process. It's better if a new editor can see the effort another editor took to welcome him/her.
Then there is the objection I have to proposed setup of the template. We generally use templates to try to distinguish between formatting and content as much as possible. The various infoboxes and such are covered by templates, while the actual content (text) is on the article itself. That content can then call templates again for formatting (e.g. Sic), but the content remains on the article. The current proposal tries to mix pieces of text, and it remains ambigious what text should be default, and what should be custom. --Timenn-<talk> 09:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I hardly fail to see the difference between welcoming them with an automated welcome message that you get from an input box and welcoming them through a template. Like I said, both would be up there, but there is no reason to not do it just becayse two members said they wouldn't. That is the very purpose of the template, to allow people who want to use to use them. And no one said anything about a bot, so that is frankly irrelevant. New editors are not stupid, they usually call the welcome message a copy and paste message (which it frankly will always be. But my main point is, if we want both, why not just do it? –Elliot talk 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not the bot itself I was referring to, but rather the presentation you make to a new editor. I see the presentation the wiki makes as very relevant. Is that not what welcoming is all about? As I said in earlier discussions, I don't believe making guidelines about welcoming users is a good idea, so yea, you're free to use them. It's just that I am discussing the aesthetics here.
And there are my concerns over the design of the template. I still believe it mixes content and code in a way that is confusing enough. --Timenn-<talk> 10:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


I've written a draft for a proposed revision of UESPWiki:Etiquette, which can be found in my sandbox here.

This draft incorporates some content from the existing etiquette page as well as UESPWiki:You Are Valuable, which is an orphaned policy page that seems to fit with the general content of an article on etiquette.

Please keep in mind that this page is essentially just a list of things I could think of that seemed to be commonly accepted here, plus some advice that is often given to newer users. I would love to know what people think of this article (as a set of guidelines rather than cold hard policy, really), so please leave feedback if you get a chance to look at the page. Thanks! –Eshetalk 01:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Eshe. It's certainly a big improvement over the "soon to be replaced" current one that's getting close to 3 years old now. :) You may want to have a look at Wikipedia to see if there's anything there that jumps out at you (though they have so many guidelines it's not funny). Also, one small point that occurred to me in light of recent events is what to do if your conflict is with an Administrator. That would, I assume, be to contact a different Administrator, although even a Patroller or Mentor would probably be sufficient. Of course, in that event, we'd want to also make some allusion to the fact that admin-shopping is not generally a good idea, but maybe that's just getting too rule-heavy. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it is good as well; however, it could be expanded upon. Looking at WP's version, they seem to nip everything in the butt. And maybe we should look at common issues within the wiki here and try to incorporate them into the guideline. –Elliot talk 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
OT, Elliot: That's "nip it in the bud". ;) See Urban Dictionary, for instance. As I recall, it comes from pruning roses or some such thing. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I'll take a look at the Wikipedia page and see if there's anything there that would be helpful. However, I'd really like to avoid writing a book about etiquette, particularly since I don't think we need anything that extensive.

Regarding the "conflict with an administrator" bit, I did actually have that in mind when I said anyone having a conflict should ask anyone else for help. I don't have any interest in establishing some sort of hierarchy for who can help who. If two administrators are fighting and a patroller steps in, fine. If an admin and a patroller are fighting and a random user helps out, fine. If two IPs are fighting and...well, you see where I'm going with this. It's true that admins can kind of establish a "final say," if you will, if the argument gets to the point where blocks are needed, but I think anybody with a level head should be encouraged to help with conflicts. It's worked incredibly well before, after all ;). –Eshetalk 23:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

@RH Not when you live in the Midwest.
@Eshe We could always set up an Arbitration System with the administrators (and perhaps patrollers if needed), where three uninvolved admins assume the roles of arbitrators to discuss and make a final decision on a conflict. This would obviously be a last resort system, but it could help. –Elliot talk 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think we need to make it that official. Considering we've already seen pretty much the whole spectrum of the best and worst in people and handled it well enough, I think setting up something that formal would be overkill. In any case, like I said, I have no interest in forming a hierarchy. Users are users. All users should be awesome at all times. Yes, admins and patrollers tend to help mediate more than others, but it's not a rule and there's no reason for it to be. –Eshetalk 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If two people are fighting, I'd rather have that anyone feels comfortable jumping in to save the day.
As for the etiquette, nice work! I don't think we need to copy all of Wikipedia's items, as that list seems a bit too long. We prefer to allow readers to memorize the points, rather than having to look them up all the time (and make sense of them). --Timenn-<talk> 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more ;). Anyway, I made a couple of small revisions to the page (here) since it was originally posted. Much of it is simple rephrasing, but I also added a short bit on IRC and attempted to clarify what we consider to be a personal attack. Again, if there's anything people would like to see changed, just let me know. I'd like to get this up within the next week or so...y'know, before I see something shiny and forget about it ;). –Eshetalk 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I'm glad we're including ill intentioned sarcasm.--Ratwar 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Deletion

Alright, it has come to my attention that there is a disagreement about whether talk pages where questions are incorrectly posted should be deleted after the question is moved. An example of this situation is Morrowind Mod talk:EnableDisable. I will post my full opinions on it a bit later, but I know a few other people need a place to discuss this.--Ratwar 00:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'd say keep them for historical reasons. This isn't an obtuse wiki and those bits and pieces can't be too bad for it. I'd say they even add character.
There will probably be a page there eventually, so it's only taking up a stubs space. Even when a page is deleted, its revision history remains in the database, so there would only be a very trivial, almost cosmetic change.
Outdated searches and web caches will probably have the old page, so the redirect will help people find what they were initially looking for. A 404 is worse than a blank page with a redirect.
Someone might make the same mistake and find someone has already created the unrelated question or comment on the talk page, and follow the redirect instead of making a similar mistake as the first person.
We should remember that we're all here in Good Faith. We don't need to make a huge deal about deletions or contributions unless they are "blatant vandalism, lying, and unwillingness to collaborate." Whatever needs to be done to make a crisp, organized wiki will make us all happy in the end. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As the one who proposed the page for deletion, I want to assure everyone that I assumed good faith of the editor. I simply prodded the page because after the question was moved, there was no purpose for the page any longer. That being said, I can see Lukish's points, and I agree with them, I had no intention of creating a debate on the topic. As an aside, there was a small disscussion on Elliot's talk page ({{dm}}?) about this very incident. Dlarsh(Talk,Contribs,E-mail) 04:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the idea of deleting such redirects/move explanations and instead inform the editor who posted the question. The exception in this case is when discussion of a larger scale (when someone has already replied) is taking place. In that case leave the move notification in place.
The reason we prefer non-existant talk pages over (practically) empty ones is that you can immediately see when a discussion has been opened for a specific article or not (the red link). It's also in line with the guideline we have for normal articles. They shouldn't exist simply as placeholders.
The idea for a search engine is that users find the article they are looking for, not a seemingly related question on a talk page. --Timenn-<talk> 08:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hide / Minimize Function

There should be a function that hides everything shown until you click the SHOW button and the thing expands. In a Table of Contents, it says "Contents: Show", and when you click Show, it will say "Contents: Hide" and the contents are shown. This would be to make it so you would not have to scroll constantly through seemingly uninteresting information. A lot of information could on a page, and a lot of info would be interesting to a lot of people, but those people who are not interested by it could just click HIDE and a long list of every quest would minimize down to "Quests" without any info. Maybe add it right next to a section of a page.

If there was a "Bows" = section , and under it were two == sections, Light Bows and Heavy Bows, and you minimize the Bows = section, it would minimize both of the == sections. If you only minimize Light Bows, then only that would be minimized.--Minimang 22:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we have a template for that: Template:Showhide ;). –Eshetalk 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
That does not work. It simply is really freaking broken. I mean it DOES NOT WORK. *sorry, I'm really frustrated because Ive been trying to use that for 20 minutes now and it doesnt work. If I put the entire block of text (see the following) in, it makes the template / list of apparel i am trying to hide invisible even if I click show. Here see my example and please tell me what I am doing wrong :(

Store and Castle interior in-game verification

I didn't really know whether to place this here, but since we don't have a 'Stores' page like we have for Inns I thought I might as well. This is mainly to do with the rewriting Eshe, GK and Krusty have been doing on Store and Castle pages, so this is somewhat directed to them, although of course it is open to everyone.

First of all, I am in favour of the overall idea and offer my compliments to whoever took part in it. However, I did find a few points which I think should be reconsidered.

  • Firstly, I realise that most of this work is towards fulfilling the 'House Contents' section of NPCs who live in stores etc. and is therefore to be considered part of the NPC project. However, these pages are essentially Place pages. What I have noticed is the unnecessary and extreme precision with which the interiors have been treated. As a general rule in place pages, we tend not to list items that are worth less than 5 gold or that are extremely common. I have noticed clutter, common and cheap items being listed; when they shouldn't really be there. What we could do is simply give a generic overview such as: "a good amount of food can be found in the room" or "a variety of wares are on display, such as pelts or books", rather than listing each item separately.
  • Similarly to the first point I don't think every single chest, barrel, sack or cupboard should be mentioned unless they might contain interesting items (e.g. rare ingredients, weapons, armor etc.). As a general rule I think anything that has 'clutter' in its id shouldn't be mentioned. In the case of food containers we might just say: "a good amount of food can be found in the room; both in the open and stored in cupboards and barrels". Mentioning safe containers is also a good idea.
  • Just for consistency with the fact that the other zones are listed, I think we should keep basements. However, the same rules would be used as listed above - just because most basements hold clutter and food containers. As said before we could generalise and only mention in detail interesting chests or items.
  • My last concern are images. While most of the are good in the sense that they portray the zone well, their resolution is a bit... pixely. I see Eshe has uploaded most of them so a simple re-uploading of the images but with a higher resolution would solve any problem. I also think that most of the basement pictures should go, unless there is something of interest that is show. At the same time, if we want to keep them for page consistency I'm fine with that.

So, what do you think? --SerCenKing Talk 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that it might be overwhelming when you read through the new place pages (after being away for quite some time) - We set out to write complete and uncut descriptions for each house/building in the the game (not counting NPC houses, though) and the guild hall pages, Market District pages and castle pages deliver just that. If you read through a page like Leyawiin Mages Guild, you will notice that all the respawning containers have been mentioned as well. And the listing of respawning containers justifies the endless listings of clutter containers IMO. I know that GK stopped mentioning the containers a bit later on, but hopefully, she will get around to add this useful information, because without it, there is really no need for such detailed listings.
HERE is the very first discussion on the matter. A bit further down, HERE to be exact, another discussion. And my own entry in order to reach consensus on the Market District pages can be found HERE. And HERE is the newest, and most complicated, discussion and it's still going. As you can see, consensus have more or less been reached to make the pages like this, and even though I disagree strongly in the last discussion (mostly because of the size of such a project), the place pages are pretty much here to stay the way they are. But I can understand the edit you made to Shafaye's page. Such a detailed listing simply seems "wrong" when we are talking NPCs, so feel welcome to add your two cents to the discussion on NPC houses. And, of course, let us hear your opinion on the other subjects as well. Welcome back! Krusty 10:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls Novels

With the upcoming book The Infernal City (and it's as of yet unnamed sequel) by Greg Keyes, I was wondering what sort of changes the site will go through? I know UESP is based primarilly around the games, but if the stories are considered cannon, which I assume they are, will there be a new namespace created, or will we just update the Lore space? Just wanted to ask since the release date of the first book is coming up (late November last I checked). Dlarsh(Talk,Contribs,E-mail) 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really gonna be hard to make any decisions like that until the books come out. I've been wondering about that myself: new namespace, use General, use Lore? It'll be interesting to see what we get with the new books. --GKTalk2me 22:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We cover in-game books in Lore, we might as well do the novels there too. We can't simply copy the contents ofcourse, but a good summary is doable. Other Lore articles that are updated with the new content can then refer to the novel articles as sources. --Timenn-<talk> 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The only problem I foresee with using Lore is: what about other articles that will need to be created? Characters, Places, etc... Lore:Characters in The Infernal City? Lore:Annaig? Of course, I see other problems with the other options, too; namely, If we go with a new namespace, what do we name it? And are the novels worthy of an entire namespace? A lot of questions that we can speculate and talk about, but it really doesn't make any sense to decide beforehand. --GKTalk2me 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've posted the new article for the book, with the preliminary information, The Infernal City, in the mainspace for now. The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward a namespace, probably "Novels:". At least we have a few weeks to discuss it!  :) --GKTalk2me 00:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Why pages like "Characters in The Infernal City", don't we have categories for that? I think Lore serves its purpose perfectly for these novels. There is no reason why every notable character in it can't have its own article. It's not like a game where we need to provide NPC summaries based on certain game properties. The great advantage of using Lore is that we would actually be able to combine all possible Lore easily, we don't need to incorporate everything into another namespace, and then add it to Lore too. Lore should be the complete repository of all, well, Lore... --Timenn-<talk> 09:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should create a namespace for each individual book. If you look at what we already have set up, you will see a namespace for each game and each mobile game. The amount of information in the game is irrelevant to the need for namespace. Then, say, we have an article on the Annaig in the InC namespace (The Infernal City:Annaig), the second novel (Novel 2:Annaig), and those two can be joined in a "retrospect" or wide-view of the entire series in the Lore namespace (Lore:Annaig). Since you expect to have some OOG (or, OON) information, relying on the Lore namespace would get confusing. Also, having a Novels namespace would be a pure redundant move (why have Novels:Annaig when Lore:Annaig would be more appropriate. The different namespaces for the novels allows a singular look at the novel information, while keeping the Lore namespace allows for a synthesis of information while minimizing redundancy. –Elliot talk 10:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I favor the idea of a 'novels' namespace. Though I'd be willing just to stick it into lore as well. I think Timenn has made an excellent point about most of the novels articles ending up being redundant with the Lore ones, but I also see GK's point that there will be minor characters in the book that may not warrant a Lore page, but have enough information to have a small article, or even just a list of 'minor' characters. That being said, I am against putting it in its own namespace currently. We use namespace to keep the wiki organized, and so when you're search for Oblivion's Helm of Oreyn Bearclaw, you don't end up on a page for Morrowind. I don't believe that these will negatively impact the novels namespace, and I think that there is real potential for a ton of cross namespace links if we separate them. I'd rather avoid those.--Ratwar 18:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

\=> I am reading the book now and hope to have it finished pretty soon. But here is what I am thinking after reading some. We need to have a Novel Namespace. And for the this namespace, we look at the characters from a novel perspective: as characters (or relatively, as NPCs). Then, in Lore, we only use important facts and important info, such as the new emperor and other important happenings. I mean, we don't have Glarthir in the Lore namespace do we? I just see it in that manner. And I agree categories would most likely be best for a good chunk of it. But, I will know more when I am done with it. –Elliot talk 23:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just finished the book, and I am still leaning towards what I initially thought would work. We don't create namespaces based on content, we create them based on structure. And trying to fit the novel information (which is different from approaching it in a Lore-based way) in the Lore namespace will prove to be difficult. Maybe not now, but in the long run it will definitely be an issue. I plan on starting some things tonight, and I plan on using The Infernal City as a namespace. If there some sort of decision down the road, then I will happily comply and fix it. But, the "weeks of discussion" dropped the day after this was brought up, so I am not really sure how many people have thought about it or have even read the books. The new namespace would be approached in a manner that is slightly "story telling" or "recapping" while the Lore namespace has been used to expansively look at the series as a whole...
Blegh... now I am having second thoughts... I am thinking a Novel namespace would be equally sufficient. It will remove redundancies since the majority of characters will be in the next novel. So that seems like the appropriate action to seek out. But I will vehemently go against stuffing it in the Lore namespace. And, like we do for so many articles already, we can use transclusions for some of the articles if there happens to be little differences. But like I said, unless someone pops in here before tonight, I will go ahead and get started. –Elliot talk 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the approach of having a single Novel (or Novels, whichever) namespace. Much like any of the games, anything appropriate to Lore could be added or transcluded there, as required. From a conceptual standpoint, I could see a namespace for each novel, but in reality, I wouldn't see that as very efficient. The novels almost certainly won't contain enough information to justify a namespace in their own right and if there are characters that continue from one to the next, I think it would be more beneficial to consolidate detailed info from the entire series of novels into a single page than to have a separate page for each under each novel's namespace. As for the suggestion of putting them only in Lore, I could live with it, but I think that's going too far in the opposite direction of creating a namespace for each book. It's probably best to leave Lore for consolidated info that applies to the entire ES-verse and put info from/about the books in a separate namespace.
As Elliott said, I see character, place, and item pages in the Novel(s) namespace including much more detailed info that's specific to the novels. The Lore namespace would then be used as it always has (I think...I don't read them much): to record general information about the character, place, or item that doesn't go into nitty-gritty details that're only found in one specific game or the novels. —Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Glarthir is an NPC whose relevance can only be attributed to the gameplay of Oblivion, and not to the entire Elder Scrolls. Summarizing him without any gameplay relevant information would simply result in a phrase on how he was a paranoid citizen in the city of Skingrad who believed various other citizens were involved in a conspiracy against him.
Compare this to an NPC like Vilena Donton. She was the head of the Fighters Guild in Cyrodiil for many years. The loss of her son caused her to let the Fighters Guild to fall in disgrace when it started losing ground to the upstart Blackwood company. When she realised that the loss of both her sons had distracted her from leading the Fighters Guild she stepped down and turned the leadership over to a recent recruit.
The first NPC is not noteworthy for the Lore namespace, as has already been pointed out. Glarthir's only role was to provide some entertaining gameplay, and he has not contributed to the lore of the Elder Scrolls other that being an added flavour to one particular game. Vilena Donton on the other hand has had an impact on the history of the Fighters Guild, and its welfare. Her actions (or non-actions) steered the Fighters Guild in a direction that is noteworthy for Lore. The Fighters Guild has a bigger impact, and the roles of the more prominent members may be explained in more detail on separate articles.
My question is, do we see characters in book that fall into that first category (Glarthir's)? I believe that is not the case. It's unlikely that you will read a line like "Timm was a smith working in Leyawiin who greeted the the protagonist every morning, as he passed by." in a proper novel. Such figurants don't appear. In the rare case they do, they are not noteworthy. My point is, every character appearing in the novel that has an impact on the storyline, deserves its own article. Information about "the father of" and the likes can be included on that character's article instead. I believe the same reasoning can be applied for items and locations as well. Don't treat a novel like a game. There is a substantial different between them. Even a mobile phone game provides a broader variety of facts than a 1000-pages novel. The story in a book only moves in one direction. As reader you cannot elect which of the two bandits is killed first when the protagonist is ambushed. Furthermore, a game makes concessions a novel never has to make. Finding the total population of the Imperial City is not done by counting all the NPCs appearing there in Oblivion, but if a reliable source claims 100,000 people live in the city, we use that number instead.
As a fine example, I would like to name Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. You will see there that every subject appearing in a specific episode or movie has an article. If it appears in more episodes than it is still all included in one single article. In the case of Worf, you see a chronologically order biography. The section about "The Deep Space Nine years" appears after "The Next Generation" section, but only because it happened later in the timeline. Facts about his youth that were not revealed until the Deep Space Nine series are still covered earlier than events that happened throughout The Next Generation series. Games are mentioned off-hand on Memory Alpha, as they are not considered canon (they are covered on Memory Beta, though), but when they are mentioned it is outside of the main summary of a subject. Since we consider games canon (duh!) events of them are covered in Lore, but information only relevant to gameplay are covered on articles in a different namespace.
If we want attribute specific material concerning subjects to a specific novel, we can easily use the references to make it clear where the information comes from. And we can still retain the article about the book itself, in which we summarise the events in the book, the amount of pages, the chapter names etc. etc. --Timenn-<talk> 12:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
There are many characters that have no true effect on the Lore; I guess you could call them cosmetic. But they seem to be noteworthy because... unless you read the book you won't know, I guess. I still don't think shoving the information in the Lore namespace is viable. Approaching a book as a book and approaching a book as a "historical" reference are two entirely different things all in themselves. –Elliot talk 13:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That icon in the corner says "Elder Scrolls Pages" not Elder Scroll games. This site is about TES, so atleast a Novel section should be added. Perhaps each book (unless enough books are made) should be done in the way expansions are. There is the Morrowind section, then the Tribunal and Bloodmoon sub sections. Kiutu 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the regular editors of this site know full well what its purpose is. There probably will be some kind of Novel namespace at some point, but since all we have so far is half a book, it's impossible to tell what needs to be done. I don't think any definitive decision can be taken until the second half of the story comes out. –rpehTCE 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New info

I don't know if anybody wrote this but I have an awesome news! TES V will be embedded 200 years after Oblivion Crisis!!! TES V will come soon(relative in due time, of course:P)

Where will TESV have place? My types: Summerset Isle and Morrowind(mainland and Vvardenfell) What's your opinion? Morihaus 08:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article itself states, it's a very thin rumor. Until Bethesda or someone directly owned by the company gives an official statement on the matter, it'll remain just that. Dlarsh(Talk,Contribs,E-mail) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Morrowind Pickpocketing article

Having just started playing Morrowind recently, I'm still rather uneducated on much of the game. Still, I wish to create an article here, as I feel this wiki should at the very least explain HOW to pickpocket someone, if not give some idea as to how BEST pickpocket someone. Before I begin, however, it'd be handy if someone could verify my thoughts thus far:

  • It seems the common consensus online that Sneak is the skill exclusively required for pickpocketing. While you obviously need Sneak in order to look inside your mark's pockets, the Xbox manual states that it is the Security skill that states your chance of success (as well as how many of the items you'll actually see on them).
  • It seems that a check is done when you attempt to lift an item, and when you close the mark's inventory. If you fail to take the item, the inventory screen closes, everyone nearby becomes hostile and the guards are alerted. Likewise if you successfully take the item, but fail to "safely" close the inventory. Failing the "close inventory" check will alert the guards regardless of whether you attempted to take an item. This discussion mentions that there are in fact two checks per item lifted. If you attempt to take a pile of items in one go (eg 10 gold), does the pile count as a single item?
  • Using the Xbox Classics version of the game, it seems chance of success is excessively low. As in, with full (100) security/sneak/agility/chameleon, plus with high luck and invisibility active, standing directly behind a mark... You're still very unlikely to grab an item weighing 0.1 units off someone, let alone get away with it. It seems if you manage to take one item from someone, you'll be able to take them all. Is this version dependent, a bug, or am I just missing something?
  • Seems to me that holding down "sneak" mode doesn't have any affect on the matter.

- Bomb Bloke 10:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Elder scrolls etymology

I made short Elder scrolls etymology using various dictionaries.I am not sure where to post this, so will post it here. — Unsigned comment by (talk) on 13 November 2009

NPC pages/Master Training Quests + a bit about Independent Thievery

Okay, as the ONPCRP is digging its way through the many NPC pages and and the pages grow bigger and bigger, I think we should discuss a few changes. As of now, the Master Training Quests can be found at the bottom of the relevant NPC page and it is starting to look messy. Take a look at Dagail for a perfect example – the page is not even finished and the Master Training Quest is already out of sight. Her quest is not entirely complicated, but it could still use its own page – it looks kindda messy with the quest stages and everything. For a more complicated quest, take a look at Pranal. That page is more or less finished but it is a mess (a bit like Umbra (person) was a mess until recently). I suggest that we give the Master Training quests seperate pages (and do some rewriting on some of them while we’re at it) – and let the NPC pages provide info on the NPC only.

Oh, and another thing – while I was researching for the Methredhel page, I noticed that we don’t have a quest page for the Independent Thievery-quest. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to produce such a page – after months on the IRC, one of the most common questions have been – ”where do I find the most valuable loot for the Doyens” ect ect. Why not take some of the player tips from the Thieves Guild page and make a proper quest page for the IT quest? --Krusty 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Krusty's concern, I created this, as a basic layout for the master training quests. Feel free to check it and post what you think here :) --MC S'drassa T2M 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's good! Make sure you use {{Journal Entries}} though. And the ID isn't correct, but that's minor. If you plan on making all of them, just tell me; I can help you with the rest if you need it. –Elliot talk 02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually I posted the ID from the Trainers page, and I really wasn't sure if it was correct, luckily it was only a sandbox. I would be glad to make them and I could also use some help with the pages (21 pages are too much for a single person), so thanks in advance for any help. By the way, where can I find the correct IDs? :) --MC S'drassa T2M 02:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
They are in the Journal Entries box in the parentheses (TrainingAlteration). I can get started tonight, I will go backwards alphabetically so we don't bump into each other. –Elliot talk 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I will start some tonight and continue tomorrow. :) --MC S'drassa T2M 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that all the pages are finished, we need to decide if we should include them in the Oblivion:Quests page or in each city page as a related quest. And do we really still need the Oblivion:Master Training page? I mean now that we have an individual page for each one I think that the page is redundant. --MC S'drassa T2M 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the first statement, I see that they are included in [[Category:Oblivion-Quests]], which can be accessed from the first link. As for the Master Training page I still think is redundant. Thoughts? Complaints? :P --MC S'drassa T2M 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would make much sense to not have a ob:Master Training overview page. There are many pages that link to the page when referring to master training in general. I've changed the links in the table to point directly to the quest articles. --GKTalk2me 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks GK. At first I thought that it would be better to delete them , but you're right there are quite a few pages that link there. :) --MC S'drassa T2M 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Prev: Archive 16 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 18