Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 26

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.

Important Question!!!

Hello everybody! This question goes to all editors with a healthy experience about how we do things on the UESP. The question is even quite simple: WHO is willing and able to pop in Oblivion and double-check stuff when asked? I have too many times tried asking my usual load of questions on talk pages, only to find that people doesn’t own Oblivion, that their copy recently broke and so on – I’m merely trying to build up a list of editors I can ask for an in-game opinion and, of course, receive an answer quickly. Just say “yes” if you can pop in the game – and don’t answer if you are uninterested. Thanks! --Krusty 22:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

.......yes — Unsigned comment by Honda1996 (talkcontribs) on 31 August 2011
yes, but only on xbox (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC))
I seem to be back up and running now, so hopefully no more excuses! rpeh •TCE 08:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
With the Steam edition, I just need to click on an icon ;) However, I only have saves for SI (but I do have them at any point during the Main Quest, for both "sides"). --SerCenKing Talk 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I can on ps3. Kitkat1749 TalkContribE-mail 16:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am, but as you know, I'm a lazy b****rd and not very active at all lately. I need people to be more on my a** to get me to do stuff ~ Dwarfmp 20:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit inconsistent on the wiki recently,with moving into college and everything. I tend to go a huge streaks of Patrolling or be gone for a week. But I do have PC Oblivion at easy access, with CS. --DKong27 Tk Ctr Em 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

() Haven't actually played in a few weeks, and I'm a console player and thus less than human, but if I'm home and active on the wiki, ask away. Minor Edits 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I am new too the site, but I would love to help any way I can. I have the GOTY Oblivion Edition on Steam. I should have an advanced save too. Let me know what you would like me to check out. I think there is an "email me" function on my profile.--JackWilmslow 16:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Kill Me's FormID

What is the FormID for the test NPC "Kill Me"? You know, the one in TestAlan that grows when you try to talk to him. FokkerTISM 10:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I would check in the Construction Set myself, but I don't have Oblivion installed. FokkerTISM 10:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
BaseId = 785e1; RefId = 785e2. rpeh •TCE 10:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Marker_Error.NIF at TestToddCrazy

When I COC to TestToddCrazy, I see a <!> (error symbol) in the corner net to the dummy torsos. Why is that? FokkerTI|SM (email) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Full skyrim 30 minute demo 1 and 2

1 Go to youtube type in "Skyrim demo quakecon" 2 (Reccommended) Choose part 1 vid by "SkyrimXtreme" as there is a link to part 2 and shows lists of items with full scene by scene analysis with full narration. (The only difference between e3 demo and this is that this is played live on xbox by todd howard and takes the same path as e3 demo but does not skip through ANY scenes played by todd with only slight differences in already seen footage but the full screening does have scenes youve never seen before e.g. Fort on side of mt. directly after horse, fighting a troll in the same cave in e3 but different location. ENJOY, AND SPREAD THE NEWS!Bobomolly 21:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the links, but as long as it isn't an official video released by bethesda, there's no place for this on the site ~ Dwarfmp 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There the links are deleted.Bobomolly 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well you didn't have to delete the links, but I was merely pointing out that we're not going to add them to an article or on the front page as a news item, that's all ~ Dwarfmp 22:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope the irony is not lost on anyone that an unofficial site bars unofficial pre-release material, especially since any and all reliable information that can be derived from unofficial material like those videos will still make its way on to the pages. Minor Edits 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I, too, find it a bit OTT. The Y character for the dragon language, for example, is from the Quake Con footage. I don't see the harm in using it as a source, even if linking isn't allowed (or reliable, seeing as how the videos tend to be taken down rather quickly). — Unsigned comment by Legoless (talkcontribs) on 8 September 2011
Legal concerns are key here, Consistency is the second factor, and not pissing off Bethesda is an additional factor.
I don't know what video is being talked about here, but I've seen a couple of dodgy videos that start with someone from Bethesda saying "Don't film this". On the legal front, this means the video has the same status as someone filming the latest Harry Potter movie from the back of the theatre. We shouldn't link to something like that. On the consistency front, it's unreleased content subject to change, and we had a huge discussion about that kind of content once before. Lastly, Bethesda have been very nice and given us permission to host copyrighted material like the PGE, so we really don't want to piss them off by linking to stuff that they don't like. That third point is a weak one: we had lots of news stories about rumours (most of which turned out to be true) that were probably meant to be secret. But there's a big difference between printing a rumour that a company would probably have preferred remained secret, and printing information that they explicitly said they didn't want released yet.
On the specific point about the "Y" in Dragon, remember Daedric: we have an official source saying there's no "X" and "Y", when both letters are used in game (see Lore:Daedric Alphabet). We don't need to try to sort this out now. We don't need to try to sort anything out now. Let's wait until the game is released. rpeh •TCE 00:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User Creation Stats

User creation stats

I think I saw someone asking about this somewhere and I wrote some code. This is a graph showing the number of users created on UESP by date, back to 24 June 2009, which is when the wiki was upgraded and started recording the User Creation Log.

Since then, the busiest day was 13 December 2010 (two days after Skyrim was announced, when 35 users were created. The slowest was 4 November 2010 (just two users).

In general, it looks like there's been slightly more user creation since Skyrim, but not vastly so. rpeh •TCE 13:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. I suppose it makes sense that there isn't a huge difference quite yet. It will be interesting to see what happens starting in November. Personally, I don't expect a huge increase, but an increase for sure. Maybe all the bad editors will go to another wiki if you get my drift. :p Joking...or am I? O.O --DKong27 Tk Ctr Em 17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the majority of people will want to edit the wiki, but I know they want to read it. I would like to see those statistics again. Elliot (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with Polish spam wave

I think we should block all .pl domains or disable account creation, making it so that Rpeh has to approve every account. But ifthere are any honest Polish users, we should allow them. FokkerTISM (email) 06:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound fair for them. Imagine the backlash if you ban anyone who practises Islam from travelling to the US. Ongoingwhy 07:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What doesn't sound fair for who? There's been a ridiculous amount of polish spammers over the last week and it's getting out of hand. Although FokkerTISM's course of action may sound drastic, it's already been said that blocking users from Poland temporarily is a possibility. Kitkat xxx TalkContribE-mail 07:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Other Polish users? The spammers might be a single user or a small community. I wouldn't know though, I just joined a couple of hours ago. Ongoingwhy 07:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(continued at UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Spam_Wave) rpeh •TCE 08:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Morgiah's Wedding glitch?

I'm doing Daggerfall for the first time, and I'm playing on DosBox. I delivered her letter to the King of Worms, then he asked me to deliver a letter back, only when I take it back to her she won't talk to me. I've clicked on her with all the options, stood there and waited, and she won't talk. Is this a glitch and if so am I screwed? Please help. 1:11 PM September 12 2011

Daggerfall is extremely glitchy, it that's a word, so it probably is a glitch and you may need to start again. But I would still recommend that you look at the quest page in the Daggerfall section just in case there is a solution. RIM 18:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Link to Lore Articles from Place pages?

As part of the SIRP, a lot of place-related Lore pages has been created, which is really cool and useful – however, the new Lore pages needs some links from the Place pages, so I’ve been thinking about adding the typical “For more information, see Lore:blahblah” to the Notes sections of the place pages. I’m NOT proposing a “See Also”-header, just a tiny link to more information on the place. Any objections or better suggestions? --Krusty 12:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Those Lore articles definitely need more links to them. rpeh •TCE 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
With the exception of Vitharn (still unfinished and I have it in my Sandbox anyway), all the interesting places in the Shivering Isles now links to the corresponding Lore article. I figured I'd just go ahead and do it, because Rpeh is correct; the new Lore articles deserve the links. --Krusty 23:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


I was thinking about creating a page for wallpapers from the various games at General:Wallpapers. They're already hosted on the official site, but I think it would be beneficial to bring them over onto the wiki. They might also bring in some traffic for people looking for TES wallpapers, and the individual sections could be linked to from the main pages of the games. Unless someone thinks this is a bad idea, I'll get to work shortly. Although, I'm not certain that the "General" namespace is the best place for them, but making individual pages for each game seems excessive. --Legoless 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate my idea, here is an example format. I have wallpapers of various sizes from Morrowind, Oblivion and Shadowkey downloaded and ready to upload. Most are in bitmap (to be converted to png) format, but a few are jpegs. --Legoless 16:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a useful idea, but it's stretching "Fair Use" to the absolute limit. Please can you add a full URL pointing to the original image when you upload it here? rpeh •TCE 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
General:Wallpapers is live. Licensing should all be good (thanks to Elliot for the new Vir2L license), but I can't find the official source for the three Shadowkey wallpapers and the two "armor" wallpapers for Morrowind. The article is linked to from the main pages of the individual games. --Legoless 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that the main page should be kept in the mainspace, with links to each of the wallpapers (sorted by namespace; Oblivion wallpapers at Oblivion:Wallpapers). What I might do is just create redirects in each namespace so they are easily searched. Elliot (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Redirects would be a good idea. Splitting the page up seems a bit superfluous. For example, Bloodmoon:Wallpapers would have a gallery of two images. What exactly do you mean by mainspace? As in simply Wallpapers? --Legoless 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably old

Cool mention of the Falmer here Corvus 00:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Starting to Create Skyrim Content

Up until now UESP has had to limit the creation of Skyrim content fairly strictly in order to prevent the site from being overrun with speculation and vague rumors. However, it's always been understood that the Skyrim namespace would need to be opened for editing before the game's release, so that some of the thousands of needed pages can be place when readers start searching the site for information. I believe that it is now time to switch gears and start preparing Skyrim content in earnest.

Why now?

  • Bethesda has released official video previews of the game, providing us with good quality information. We're not going to get anything better until we can actually purchase the game.
  • As much content as possible needs to be in place before release day -- (a) to decrease the volume of edits needed on release day; and, (b) to allow UESP to be remotely useful to people who start playing the game right away.
  • We only have two months before the game's release; it will be very difficult to get everything done if we wait much longer.

What I'm proposing is that we start setting up the Skyrim namespace using the same overall structure as Oblivion and the other games on the site. In other words, pages for each race, each skill, etc., along with redirects for overly-specific items such as Iron Longsword. Even though the majority of the articles will initially be stubs, those stubs are still needed:

  • The structure of the articles is as important as the content at this point -- if not more important. All the technical details such as templates, categories, layout, etc. need to tested so that problems can be identified and fixed.
  • The available information is getting too detailed to belong on Skyrim -- but nevertheless is information that belongs on UESP (and not just buried on a talk page). The details should all be put in their correct final locations, instead of creating broad articles that subsequently need to be split up.
  • To help new editors find the correct place to add new content.
  • Any time put into writing a stub now is time saved later -- even if details need to be tweaked later.

Immediate suggestions:

  • Take Skyrim off the blacklist -- allow non-admins to create articles.
  • Drop the requirement that references have to be provided, at least for any Skyrim pages other than the six already in place. As with Oblivion articles, the game itself is ultimately going to be the source of the information, and therefore the final articles won't contain references.

Beyond that, there will be lots of other details that will need to be worked out, but it's probably best if we start by just deciding whether to even start expanding the Skyrim content. Other questions can be addressed as they arise. --NepheleTalk 02:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Skyrim being taken off the blacklist so that we can have more articles on the subject. We're quickly running out of time before Skyrim is released. However, I don't think that it'd be a good idea to remove the requirement for references yet, while they will be useless come release day, I'd still like to know that everything that is added to the site is possible to confirm without digging around for a reference in all of the pre-release information we've received. Without references, we'll see the annoying speculation creep in that we've been trying to keep out. Of course the real focus here should be on setting up Skyrim Space for the impending release, being actually useful is less important than it being functional. If we're going to have any worthwhile content whatsoever pre-release we'll need for it to factual information from a trustworthy reference. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
For the moment we'll keep references on the front page, and refs will always be wanted on the language pages - although they'll switch to in-game refs eventually - this is just about the new pages.
I'm very nervous about letting anything be created, but as long as it's mainly about getting the namespace set up for business, I'll go along with it. rpeh •TCE 04:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
My concern with references is that including them will require a lot of effort -- not only on the part of people writing pages, but also patrollers and other people checking the page -- that will take away from the amount of time that can be put into all the other aspects of the articles. Short term, I think it will only lead to a marginal increase in the quality of the articles, and long term the references will all just get deleted.
Some specific examples of why I think references in new Skyrim articles have limited value:
  • Some content will not have a source. Take an article on soul gems -- necessary in anticipation of players new to TES picking up a soul Ggm 30 minutes into the game and asking "What do I do with this?" However, as far as I'm aware, the only reference-able fact on the subject is that a "Petty Soul Gem" exists in the game. Extrapolating from that small fact, I think we can put together an article stating that soul gems are used to capture creatures' souls, that there are different size soul gems for different size souls, and that soul gems are used to create enchanted items. The information will help readers, even if we can't provide references to back up each point.
  • References can be wrong. For example, there's already been a discussion of one article's statement that can Skyrim players can use alchemy to create a "resist potion spell." That particular typo/mistake is one that we can identify -- but there are inevitably other ones in the articles being used as sources.
  • The demo video can be wrong. Bethesda's videos are our most accurate source, but even they are likely to contain errors. As a concrete example, the video's in-game description of Destruction says "The School of Destruction involves the harnessing the energies of fire, frost and shock." Chances are very good that between now and November, someone at Bethesda will notice the bad grammar, and delete the extra "the". So what sentence do we put on the UESP article for Destruction? Current standards say that we should use the direct quote from the game. Personally, I'd prefer to put a grammatically correct sentence, mainly because I think it's less likely to result in countless helpful anonymous editors trying to fix it. But ultimately I think we need to just put some sentence -- any representative sentence -- in place, and then forget about it until the game comes out. If the sentence gets edited by someone who hasn't read this dicussion, just mark the edit as patrolled and move on. Admittedly, this is an obscure example, but it highlights that we can't apply the same standards to Skyrim content as we do to Oblivion content -- or that if we do, it can lead to a lot of unnecessary work/discussion/debate that ultimately does not improve UESP.
If we want to insist on 100% accurate articles, we can't write anything. If we insist on 100% referenced information, we're still going to get mistakes, and end up with big holes in our articles. I think more useful guidelines would be:
  • Use common sense. I think common sense is more useful than strict fact-checking right now. Use common sense to weed out obvious mistakes; use common sense and knowledge of past ES games to fill in gaps.
  • Assume good faith. Specifically, in this context, assume that if someone added information to an article it's because he read it somewhere and believes it to be correct.
Highlighting some of the problems we're going to encounter with new Skyrim content probably isn't the best way to convince everyone that we need to start adding it. On the other hand, the underlying issue -- that Skyrim content and edits are going to be different in character from Oblivion content and edits -- is going to continue to be true for months after Skyrim is released. If we can start to adjust for those differences now, we'll be that much more ready for November 11th. --NepheleTalk 21:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nephele on this one. The work that we would place into referencing the articles really isn't going to reward us with much quality. With that being said, we should prevent new users from creating articles in the Skyrim namespace. Once they are autoconfirmed, then they are free to start new articles. I am not sure if this can be achieved with MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or not, but we definitely need to do something. Elliot (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
After a little digging, I found out we can do it by namespace with something like (?!(Skyrim)).* <autoconfirmed>. I'm sure user permissions could be changed, but I don't know if or how. Elliot (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
First off, I agree with Elliot that the Skyrim namespace should require at least being autoconfirmed before you can create articles. Back onto the topic of references, I have to disagree with you that they'll create more work than they'll save. Without references to at least prove that the article's subject is confirmed content we're going to get articles that are entirely speculative in nature. While I'd understand if someone were to assume that if there were a mention of an ebony helmet, that there would be a full set of ebony armor. However, if we're to completely avoid the use of sources to create new articles we'll get articles entirely speculative in nature.
Of course sources will be wrong as they're representing an unfinished version of the game. Of course they'll be giant gaps in our information on the game as we don't have it on hand. This will be true for quite a while even after Skyrim is released. I'm not worried about errors, I'm more concerned about being able to confirm features as being in the game. While I'm not opposed to common sense weaseling, I don't support the development of Skyrim articles without clear sources backing up added information. While AGF insists that without evidence of the contrary, all edits are intended to help, I still don't like information that isn't easily verifiable being added to the wiki.
The more I think about it, the more I come back to the thought that the entire Skyrim namespace just won't be very informative or useful for quite a while. Trying to maintain it to the standards that we have for the rest of the site is like trying to keep an untamed animal in your house with the expectation that it behaves like a well trained pet. What I'm trying to say is that if we're going to just set up the Skyrim namespace without any expectation that it'll be of much use for anything besides existing, I guess that's fine. The real intention should be to get the Skyrim namespace to be as developed as it can be pre-release. I still don't like the thought that an entire namespace will be of lower quality , but it'd be better to have it set up in advance than to just wait for the release of Skyrim.
As a side note, is there a way to make note of this for every page in the Skyrim namespace? It would be nice to have a constant reminder that we can't fully develop the Skyrim namespace no matter how hard we tried. Would it be possible to create something similar to the talk page text notice for Skyrim articles? If we could, we could have a clear indicator that the Skyrim namespace just can't be held to the standards of the rest of the site yet, while avoiding any intrusive template on each page. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

() For me, it just comes down to the fact that we need as much info as possible on the articles before release. Having stubs, even completely blank stubs, will get our structure in place and make it more clear to new contributors what we need and where we need it. I also see no issue with autoconfirmed users being able to create new Skyrim pages; new users cannot create any new pages, though, if I recall correctly.

The issue of references seems simple to solve. Information a user adds should not be removed for the sole reason that it has no reference. If an editor questions the info, they're free to research it and either remove it because they can't find supporting info, or simply patrol it, adding a reference if they like. Keeping the reference requirement for the front page for now makes sense. --GKtalk2me 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As of right now, all users have the createpage right. Being autoconfirmed means you can edit semi-protected pages and move articles. (See Special:ListGroupRights) Elliot (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh... That... really doesn't make sense to me. I'd prefer new users not create any new articles, so I'd definitely support that restriction for the Skyrim namespace (especially since this proposal gets pages in place so that there's already a place to put the info). --GKtalk2me 19:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that it should be just Patrollers and Admins can edit and create Skyrim pages. And that content should then be placed on the talk page (that any one can edit) to then be put onto the Article by the Patrollers and Admins. This means the content is monitored before it is put on the page. And although the talk pages will obviously be long, it means that the content can be filtered and reference. Then when 11/11/11 rolls around references should be replace with in-game references once they are found. And the requirement for editing and creating an article drop to auto confirmed down from Patroller and Admin. I don't know if this is possible it's just an idea --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 19:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Simple suggestion here, I was talking in IRC and was asked to share my ideas. All we really need to do is halt all anonymous editing, then lock all Skyrim namespace edits to Patrollers and up. (the terminology has escaped me) and finally make it so only autoconfirmed editors can edit Skyrim Talk pages. The talk pages might go insane too, that can be adjusted as we see fit. And if there is an issue with protecting entire namespaces, we can protect each page individually and halt all page creation to Autoconfirmed and anon.--Corevette789 20:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

() Purely on references: I mean that as long as the SR:SR page is in its present form - a catch-all page for all useful information - it should get refs. Yes they can be wrong, but a glance back through the history of that page and the talk page reveals the usual mass of people adding "My friend told me that he'd heard there was a video that showed something that looked like gigantic anime figures attacking characters from Lord of the Rings" and other assorted gibberish. The language articles will need substantial revamping after the game is released, but we have got to keep refs on those pages because otherwise we end up with the Ayleid Language page, which is still full of guesswork and nonsense. Not as much as there used to be, but hey. rpeh •TCE 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Like rpeh, I am also a bit cautious when approaching the Skyrim namespace. However, I think Nephele is correct when she says we need to have a basic structure ready. I would suggest we limit ourselves to creating pages such as skills, race, item categories (weapons, armor, etc) and possibly skeletons for place and creature pages. With regards to creating pages for specific items (such as the Iron Longsword example), we should restrict this to items we have full stats for, not just items that have been seen in the demo videos. From my perspective, and I see most people agreeing, we have to get a basic framework of pages to channel the huge flux of activity that we will experience after the release. It will be much simpler to organize the namespace this way and it also means we can allow editing on D-day, as opposed to an older idea of locking the site on 11-11, which I think would drive people to other wikis.
With regards to refs, I think that requiring all edits to be referenced will be too hard to enforce. Yes, ideally we should look for references, but as the first-hand data available (demo videos) has basically dried up, I doubt we will find many people adding "new" stuff. This means we can be a bit more relaxed on refs as it will be easy to pick out a purely speculative edit just by using common sense. In any case, in 40ish days most refs will disappear anyway; and in fact I reckon it will be easier and less confusing for new editors to contribute if ref syntax isn't peppered all across the page. Let's give Patrollers and Admins the ability to create Skyrim pages, so we can keep a check on what is created, and allow auto-confirmed users to edit them. --SerCenKing Talk 20:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Limiting the creation of Skyrim articles to patrollers and administrators is rather ridiculous. No, it's completely ridiculous. It goes against all the principles of a wiki. Restricting the creation to 8 members is a disaster waiting to happen (you guys barely patrol all the edits that come through, so how do you expect to create that many articles plus patrol all of the edits?). I know that if I can't create Skyrim articles, then I won't really want to do anything with them. Limit creation to my suggestion above; restrict it anymore and you do more harm than good. Elliot (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is actually more info on Skyrim then featured on the page, if you do some google searching you can find many reliable sources with a lot of important info. I think that by adding pages now it would save time later on.Just think how much info is going to need to be added in a month's time, if some of it was added now, then later on it would only be a case of editing existing pages. That's just my view though. If you can't settle it here, you could take a vote. RIM 21:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I voice my support for Elliot's suggestion. Expecting the Sysops and the Patrollers to create the Skyrim namespace is unimaginable. While the limit to Autoconfirmed status being necessary to create articles in the Skyrim namespace (It might actually be worth changing that right over to Autoconfirmed for all namespaces besides talk if this is possible) makes sense to avoid a situation we'll have trouble managing while not greatly limiting the potential pool for Skyrim editors. By limiting it to only Patrollers and Admins we run the risk of isolating our community while creating an even larger amount of work for the few still motivated to do this (Which is what we're trying to avoid by the suggestion that references aren't required).
The suggestion that we should disable anonymous editing just doesn't make sense to me. Why is that required for this situation? The only rational answer would be to avoid potential vandalism from anonymous users. I just don't think that makes sense, if we turn off anonymous editing it's still quite simple to make an account for a determined vandal, so the only rational step would be to turn off account creation as well. If we're to disable account creation we're essentially killing the possibility of further grow the UESP community. As Nephele already said, Assume Good Faith. I don't think that the majority or even a large minority of contributors to the opened up Skyrim namespace will be vandals, and even if they are we can quickly cut it off from the bud by locking the namespace once more. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) In brief, I'm OK with limiting new page creation to auto-confirmed users, but I don't think there should be limits on who can edit -- essentially for the same reasons as stated by Elliot, although I probably wouldn't have put it so, umm, forcefully myself ;) I also posted some thoughts about Skyrim on the UESP blog today.
One suggestion is that a template, e.g., Template:Pre-Release be added to every new Skyrim page that gets created, basically stating that the page may contain errors. Although having a namespace-wide banner containing this message would be easier in the short term, I think a template on each page is preferable in the long-term. Deciding when to turn a namespace-wide banner off is going to be difficult. But with a template, editors can remove the template from each individual page as that page gets checked against in-game information. The template also includes a sentence that might help address problems with unverified facts -- by pointing anyone who specifically wants verified facts to the main Skyrim page. --NepheleTalk 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

() So you noticed that, Nephele? Haha I like the banner idea, since it is essentially the same as {{quality}} but tweaked for the circumstance. I think even putting it as an edit notice might do a little good. Can you do banners for just a single namespace? If so, that might be a little easier at first. Elliot (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Digging around, it is possible to have namespace-specific banners. For a banner that appears on the articles themselves, MediaWiki:Namespacenotice-Skyrim appears to be the place to put the message. For a banner that appears only when editing an article, it would be MediaWiki:Editnotice-Skyrim. --NepheleTalk 03:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes I guess allowing auto-confirmed to create new pages is better, I hadn't fully appreciated how few patrollers and admins are actively around atm! I'd opt for both a banner and an edit notice. It might be slightly overkill, but we're going to get a motherload of inexperienced editors who are going to benefit from a double reminder. --SerCenKing Talk 09:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the discussion so far, it seems to me that everyone is in favour of moving forward with creating more Skyrim content. Furthermore, most people seem to want to limit new page creation to auto-confirmed users, but allow everyone to edit the new articles -- although not unanimous, it's a large enough majority that I suggest we start with those permissions and see what happens.
For references, it's clear that we want to keep references on Skyrim:Skyrim and the Lore pages on language. As for new articles, my interpretation of the discussion so far is that we should not enforce references, but should use the Pre-Release template on all new pages. (Although that may be an overly generous interpretation of AKB's post from Sept 25th?)
One point that I'm not clear about is an edit notice. Could somebody provide an example of the text that should be included in a Skyrim-specific edit notice?
Assuming an edit notice can be worked out, I'd like to start opening up Skyrim content in the next couple days. Any feedback? --NepheleTalk 01:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
That's essentially the same way I interpreted the consensus for this discussion. The only thing that's really left to resolve is the issue revolving banners and the edit notice suggestions. First off, the Pre-Release template you created pretty much covered my wishes for what I wanted from the edit notice, except it isn't as subtle. So if we're to use the edit notice I'd imagine we have essentially three options for what it could be.
  1. Redundant: the edit notice is essentially just another version of the Pre-Release template. This would be useful for making it absolutely clear that we can't bring the Skyrim articles up to the rest of the site's standards.
  2. A message for what we don't want to see: We could re-purpose the text from the notices that GK put on the bottom of Skyrim:Skyrim and at the top of Skyrim talk:Skyrim.
  3. Helpful for new or rusty experience editors: This one is based on the assumption that a lot of new editors (Or old ones that forgot how to edit) will want to work in the Skyrim namespace. Something like: "If your require help editing, please review the Help Pages or contact a Mentor for assistance." Probably more in-depth, but something like that should definitely guide editors in the right direction.
Personally, I'd go with something similar to the third one as the Pre-Release template pretty much covers my original wishes for that suggestion. However, I'm open for suggestions. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't given feedback on this - I've been out all day. The versions you've been putting up look good to me. On refs, I just want to emphasise that I only want them on SR:SR until the game is released, and on the Language pages we can switch to in-game sources as soon as possible. rpeh •TCE 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
My concern with the edit-notice text in AKB's third option is that there's nothing Skyrim-specific in the message. I'd already thinking that our help pages will need to add information specifically for all the new Skyrim editors. So I took a stab at creating Help:Skyrim Content, with the thought that perhaps we could make a more Skyrim-specific edit notice by highlighting that help page. The help page needs more work, but I think it can be a starting point. --NepheleTalk 04:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
To provide something concrete, I've started a Skyrim editnotice message at MediaWiki:Editnotice-134. Any suggested changes? --NepheleTalk 06:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a change to the image in the notice but I couldn't think of anything else to add without making it a little long. Should we link to Help:Contents as well? It just seems to be missing a lot... elliot (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the new icon. I opted to not include a link to Help:Contents given that there's already a link to it below the edit box (plus another link to it that appears at the top of the page when you first create a page). --NepheleTalk 21:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm just worried people will ignore it, but there isn't much we can do about that! elliot (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

() Well it wasn't so much as a suggestion as a jumping off point for those who'd actually put some thought into it. Anyway, your suggested version works for me. It's a distinctive grey so it'll stand out against the UESP tan, it has a nice little image on it so it'll be more noticeable, and the text works. Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to rush this, but we're almost out of time. The only remaining topic of interest that I can think of (Note: I said I could think of, it's quite possible that I've managed to miss out on some important piece of work that needs to be done before the namespace could be opened I guess) would be to talk about which pages we should be focusing on, which I don't think was discussed quite enough. However, I think that would be a topic better discussed after we opened up the Skyrim namespace. I guess I'm also ignoring the whole "Only allow Patrollers and Admins to develop the namespace" topic, but I don't think that anything will come from that. So unless someone sees a reason to prolong this discussion, I think we should be moving forward with opening up the Skyrim namespace for editing. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 13:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that it seems like the immediate issues have been addressed, I think I'm going to forge ahead and open up the Skyrim namespace. Although, admittedly, part of my motivation is that I'd like to start clearing out my backlog of draft Skyrim articles.... --NepheleTalk 21:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

UESP Blog Again

Wordle view of the UESP blog

I've said this before, but it's worth giving you all a reminder: anyone can get an account on the UESP Blog. You don't even have to bother Daveh any more - just ask me and I can set you up. Post on my talk page or send me an email and if you've been around for a little while, you'll get an account.

Obviously, UESP isn't the place to air your views about the US Presidential Race, or Palestinian Statehood, but if you want to talk about games then get an account and do it.

Judging from the Wordle, I need to stop using the word "really" so much, and I'll be trying to do that from now on. Really I will. rpeh •TCE 00:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Playstation 3 vs PS3

In the light of some recent changes, I think a (hopefully) brief discussion about terminology will be useful. Elliot's probably right that the article should be called "Playstation 3" rather than "PS3", but what do people think about terminology elsewhere? I don't own a console so I'm not a fanb0i, but to me the WP policy WP:COMMONNAME applies here - most gamers call it the PS3 and our target audience is gamers. Opinions, please. rpeh •TCE 01:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's worth saying that the page had been at OB:PS3 since April 2007 with no argument. rpeh •TCE 01:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big deal, maybe the article title should be written in full, but as far as I'm concerned "PS3" is a general and very well-known abbreviation, and though it would make a small difference in size, PS3 is simply shorter and easier than Playstation 3. I do understand if the latter would be preferred everywhere, but I don't feel the need it has to be. Oh, and I do own one, if that is important to mention ~ Dwarfmp 01:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The main WP policy is WP:CCC, in my opinion. I just think the title should be Playstaion 3 (or PlayStation 3 if you want to get technical). OB:Xbox 360 isn't labeled OB:360 (which is what a lot of people call it, including myself), so it just makes sense. I really don't care about the links in the articles, though; both are fine. Elliot (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As per Dwarfmp. I agree with the article's move, but changing all instances of "PS3" seems unnecessary. --Legoless 10:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


I was on to Reaver of ElderScrolls.Net about the possibility of hosting their Oblivion Mobile interview (with proper attribution, of course), which we currently link to on the game's main page. He has given permission to use it, as well as an interview with Natalia Smirnova (who worked on the interface for Oblivion, Fallout 3 and now Skyrim) and another with a Shadowkey designer. I think these would be a great addition to the wiki, as I noticed we had an interview section (which currently contains only the one). I'm unsure about the standard procedure for documenting these kind of things (if there even is one), so any input would be appreciated before I put the interviews up. --Legoless 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If he gave permission to use them it should be OK, you might be better off asking an Administrater about procedure etc, you could also just put them up in say 12 or 24 hours if nobody has any objections. If there is a problem, they can always be taken down.Good find with the interview as well:). RIM 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Put them up in the normal format, if possible having not looked at the interviews yet, with links across to the site both on the page and, possibly, the edit summary as attribution. Its what we would expect another site to do for our content --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
As long as they've given permission them I'm fine with it. rpeh •TCE 08:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The interviews are now up at General:Greg Gorden Interview, General:Natalia Smirnova Interview and General:Oblivion Mobile Interview. --Legoless 15:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

signature again

i want to have this I plead LazynessEddie The Head as my signature except, i want the lazyness plea to appear above my name(if that makes sense) is there anyway to do that? (Eddie The Head 11:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Probably is to long, but try this: I pleade LazynessEddie The Head
Style stolen from Corevette789, who stole it from someone else. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 13:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks alot, i fiddled with it a bit and managed to make the awesomest signature ever :) thank you again. (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
Hm, but now the link to your user page doesn't work anymore (capitalization differences) ... --Alfwyn 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks for pointing that out, i fixed it (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
Corevette took it from Daedroyon, I think. Kitkat xxx TalkContribE-mail 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Quotations in Lore

This is something that has been bugging me for awhile now (see Lore talk:Daggerfall). I have always held the belief that quotes don't really belong on UESPWiki. One case where I believe it is too much is Lore:Vivec (god). Having a quote it nearly every section is overkill. The more quotes you add to an article the more and more they lessen one another's significance. Despite my distaste for them, I am able to compromise as long as something is decided upon. Here are my concerns:

  • Do we want inline quotations? This is something that is typical of most NPC pages (a little crazy at times I admit). Whenever you include inline quotes you enhance the readability of the article. It is streamlined, and, therefore, more professional.
  • Blocked quotes Block quotes are great for emphasizing, but its extremely simple to emphasize too much.
  • Beginning the article with a quote I always find this to be a little cliché. It's like being overly dramatic for the sake of being overly dramatic.
  • Quote farming This is the case of having quotes as filler, essentially. If a quote is there, it really needs to have purpose. Here's a piece from a Wikipedia essay that sums it up:
    While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit. (from WP:QUOTEFARM)
  • Referencing and style Finally, we need a consistent way of actually including them in the articles. This would include inline citations (normal references) and references in the blocked quotes. There are many ways we currently do this, and we just need one. I believe using {{cite book}} et al. would be preferable over normal wiki markup.

It's not something that is extremely important, especially when Skyrim is on the horizon, but we need something figured out soon. elliot (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In case of the Vivec article, I can see what you mean, but I also agree that it is nothing serious. Using quotes is simply another tool to avoid the walls of text and it applies for Lore pages as well as NPC pages. I think I have used it on 2-3 NPC pages, and never without reason – and the pages always ended up looking a lot better because of it (Matthieu Bellamont is one of my fave pages on he entire Wiki). That being said, it can easily be overused, so it’s worth discussing. Problem is, we write articles about a game and we have tons of written texts, notes/whatever at our disposal, as yet another tool to make the best of it. The old parenthesis approach: (see [[whatever article]] for more info) is dreadful, compared with a quote and a link to whatever note or book it originated from. In short, if the quote is motivated it belongs – otherwise it is worth a second thought when looking at the final result. Again, we have much bigger fish to fry these days, but that is my stance.--Krusty 23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

() The Issue: Whether or not we should remove pronounced quotations such as those currently on the pages of Vivec, Sotha Sil, Wulfharth, Direnni, Veloth, the Warlock's Ring, Volendrung, the Psijic Order, House Dagoth, and many others, from all pages in every namespace on the wiki?

My opinion: This is a mixed matter of content and style that is best left to the discretion of contributors and, if disputed, to the talk pages of those articles where it may be relevant. Pure questions of style are well-suited for uniform rules across the wiki (for example, if you wanted to make sure all such pronounced quotes on every page are italicized or not, bold or not, ect.), but questions of content necessarily vary from page to page. I don't think the goal of these pages (to convey information in concise and aesthetically pleasing ways) is best served by a blanket ban on having pronounced quotes. Further, I obviously don't think it should be mandatory to have pronounced quotes. They should merely be used at the discretion of contributors who think they have found a quote or quotes well-suited to illuminate the subject matter for the reader, a quote that is so iconic or substantially definitive of what you are talking about, that to not highlight it would make the subject more difficult to understand for the reader.

Whether or not the quotes of the Vivec page live up to that standard is a question for reviewing contributors such as yourself and/or its talk page (and in this case, I've already disclaimed in interest in defending the quotes on the talk page, collectively or individually, as I was somewhat begrudgingly continuing what seemed to be the standing policy of the page). Occasions where such quotes are appropriate are rare; I don't think I'll ever personally add pronounced quotes to a page that doesn't already have them. However, I think it would be a mistake to tie the hands of others if they think they've found a way to improve a page.

Further, I don't think it should be assumed that all such quotes are merely decorative or otherwise unnecessary. As I said on the Daggerfall talk page, a proper quote can be economical because it communicates more to the reader of the page than a paraphrased block of information. They may tell the reader about the subject's personality, about their culture, in ways that simple summations cannot paraphrase. If done right, they will inform the reader's understanding of the page as a whole by providing a context which often can't be substituted without forcing the reader to peruse the sources and maybe several more pages him or herself to gain the same impact.

As for the various types of quotes you've listed, yes, I think in-line quotes should be allowed. Yes, block quotes should be allowed (although the occasions where it's appropriate are borderline non-existent; I'll be removing block quote or two from the Nord page in a little while). Obviously, the practice of quote farming just for sake of filler is not a good idea; however, in many pages (notably Oblivion NPC pages, as I think you alluded to), the wiki seems to have established a policy to be comprehensive and include any dialogue available. I don't think that's a bad policy, though a cursory review of such NPC pages makes it clear, I think, that there may be a better way to convey all that dialogue than in massive paragraphs that often become hard to read and follow. As for references, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Inline cites should come immediately after a period or comma, or sometimes just the portion of a sentence which that cite supports. I imagine an inline cite should come at the very end of a block quote, regardless of whether the introductory text spells out the source. Minor Edits 23:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that while an exorbitant amount of quotes found on pages like Lore:Vivec (god) becomes an issue (both because of the distractingly large number of quotes and because there are no real grounds for having them in such abundance), I also believe that quotes are a necessary part of Lore. They are not only good as a way to make an article more effective in both presentation and content, but also because they serve as another vehicle for citing sources (assuming the quote is associated with the content, which, if not, it shouldn't even be there). Furthermore, though I agree that starting an article off with a quote is rather cliche, I do not think that's always a bad thing; sometimes, the use of cliche terms and styles of presentation help make the article more effective and support the information found therein (this is, at least, true in my personal experience). Though I won't bother to get too lengthy with this (no offense intended to those that did) I do wish to touch on two additional points.
  • The Department of Redundancy Department -- Though I have not seen this too much here on UESP, sometimes people (including myself) add multiple quotes with similar topics and/or meanings. This effectively rnders the article redundant, decreasing the efficiency of the article. This is the opposite effect that we want from including quotes.
  • Pronounced and Inline Quotes -- If I'm being totally honest, this really isn't a big issue for me. But, when it comes down to it, I believe that having the quotes be as obvious as possible is better than cramming in quotes to the text. On the other hand, inline quotes can be helpful when we're trying to avoid saturating the article with pronounced quotes. So I would have to say that, in my opinion, a controlled amount of both types is key. As for blocked quotes, I really don't mind that they're there as long as they aren't annoying and/or detrimental to the article.
Overall, the issue, though not major, is rather complicated. I honestly hadn't thought of this until I noticed it in the recent changes. I may have misused some terms (i.e. perhaps I'm incorrect on what the difference between quotes are) but hopefully my stance on the issue is still clear. Quotes should be included as long as they are not weighing down the article or hindering its effectiveness.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 01:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really trying to get an all-inclusive policy in regards to quotes. I guess I just want to get a general understanding of what is expected when adding them. Krusty, I understand that it is fairly important on NPC pages; my problem is when they are placed in Lore articles for decoration. Obviously every page is going to be different, but I feel as if people are just throwing in what they like. The quotes on the Vivec article are related to the subject, but they are definitely not "forward" in their meaning (they don't raise the quality of the article).
Look, I'm not trying to assume anything in this discussion (which is why I started it in the first place). I wanted to see where others stood on the matter (especially before I removed them all!).
And Kalis, I was referring to inline quotes in the matter of "According to Vivec..." etc. "As proposed by Vivec..." etc. then include the quoted material. It definitely keeps the flow of the article going.
I guess one thing I am proposing is that we 99% of the time frown upon having quotes in every section. It just becomes way too clustered. Secondly, we should avoid starting an article with a quote (show me an article where it works, and I will change my mind). Thirdly, we should limit blocked quotes to quotes that are lengthy. I don't want to put a value on the word lengthy, but it's just best to use your own judgement.
There are some examples of quotes in wikipedia:Abraham Lincoln. Look at While preparing for the nuptials and feeling reluctance again, Lincoln, when asked where he was going, replied, "To hell, I suppose." for instance and the different blocked quotes. Our articles look amateurish when compared to those. elliot (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, many of the major contributors at Wikipedia do tend to be good at what they do. And by good I mean very, very, very, very, very... well, you get the idea. They're proficient with grammar mechanics and they know when to and when not to include this or that. It has been my intention to suggest a page that helps new or those who are unfamilar with the many ins-and-outs of proper editing, one far more expansive than UESPWiki:Getting Started and being written with the perspectives of multiple experienced editors. This group of editors who would benifit from sucha page would include, if I'm being totally truthful, myself. Then again, perhaps I'm being a bit obscure with what I would expect from this page, were it to be created, but hey its a new idea. :) But I digress. The only thing further that I could say on the matter is that setting up a revamped sort of "style guide" (at the very least we could revise the current to comply with the new policies/quality expectations that are decided upon in discussions like these) should be on our list of major objectives at some point. In conclusion, I would have to say that I agree with you completely Elliot. The quality/quantity of quotes must be controlled before it gets too out of hand, which it certainly will if things keep up like this.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 02:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

() I'm not a fan of quotes like that in Lore articles. It's a style that one or two editors liked a lot but I think it's distracting. If the quote is really important it should be included in the body text; if it's being used as a reference, use a ref tag, and if it's just decoration don't use it at all. The article as rewritten by Minor Edits is immeasurably superior to the previous version, but I think the quotes distract from it. rpeh •TCE 08:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bug Template

I've just created a {{Bug}} template. The idea is that it will let us maintain categories of outstanding and resolved bugs so that Kivan and the other unofficial patch writers will be able to use UESP as a reference when creating the Unofficial Skyrim Patch. The template documentation is fairly clear, and you can see how it works for real here.

For the moment, please don't start using this on dozens of articles, or creating the missing categories. This could be a really useful template and I want to make sure we get it right before we start using it everywhere. Any comments or modifications are welcome. rpeh •TCE 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it works. It might be better if there were set definitions on what "fixedby" might be via "#switch", but as long as people know how to use the template, then it should be alright. Now, do you plan on using a bot to implement this? elliot (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I wondered about doing that. On the plus side, it'll keep things more consistent, but on the negative side we'll have to update the template after each official patch. It's probably better to do it that way though. rpeh •TCE 17:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done. On reflection, this is probably the way to go. Here for the example, but there's more at the updated docs page. rpeh •TCE 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we want the categories to be hidden? I think that is might be best, since the categories are going to be on a bunch of pages. Maybe the unresolved ones should stay visible, while the rest are hidden. elliot (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think they're useful enough to be kept unhidden. rpeh •TCE 13:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict Template

Can I create Infobox military conflict Template? We could use it to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner. For example [1]. I think that it would make Lore:Wars nicer, neater and more clear to understand. --Arkhon 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Try putting something together in a sandbox to see how it would look. I don't think there's enough information available on most battles to fill up an unfobox: all we typically have is a location, date and the names of the two sides. rpeh •TCE 08:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking for AOL users

Daveh just made a change to the site to hopefully fix a long-standing problem that has caused AOL to block all emails sent by UESP. And now we'd like to test whether the fix worked. So I was wondering whether any of our editors have an account on AOL -- even if it's not the email address you're currently using on UESP. All you need to do is set your email address (at Special:Preferences) to your AOL email address, then click 'save'. A message should then appear saying "A confirmation e-mail has been sent to the nominated e-mail address". (To trigger another email, there's also an option near the bottom of the page that says "Confirm your e-mail address"). Just let us know whether or not you actually receive the email. Thanks! --NepheleTalk 01:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

From Ysne58 -- this problem still is not fixed. I ended up using my gmail address to get the email.

Skyrim NPCs

Apologies if this has been discussed before, or if this is the wrong place. I'm just curious how the infoboxes for Skyrim NPCs will be handled, seeing as classes are not part of the game? Jayden Matthews 09:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to say. Classes might still be a part of the game for NPCs, or we might have to change the template a bit. It won't be a huge problem either way. rpeh •TCE 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Issues

I apologize in advance, because I'm not sure how to best articulate these propositions. The default size of thumbnails, I think, is very small- 100px, I think. I guess I'm wondering whether this should be increased.

For some background, I have my default thumbnail image size set at the maximum 300px, and I do a lot of work on pages with that image size in mind. Until now I haven't been religiously making sure that images are fixed at 300px, meaning that the pages often look a little more messy than they would have otherwise (example: the current default Dagoth Ur lore page with 100px images versus how I envisioned it, with 300px images, viewable in my sandbox).

Of course, we could keep the image sizes the way they are, and individual editors could fix the images in a larger size if they think it looks better- the status quo. Is that okay with people, or are their objectors out there who want everything at 100px or another, revised default setting? I just don't wanna get reverted if I start reviewing my edits and fixing image sizes at 300px on pages where I think it's appropriate (for instance, the Vivec lore page).

Another tangential issue I've been concerned about is the use of screencaps on Lore pages in general, since the text of the pages are supposed to appear as if they were written for a citizen of Tamriel. I'm fundamentally in support of their use, especially for initial profile pictures of the subject. I'm a little uncertain, however, whether it's appropriate to include more in-game screencaps beyond that (such as on the Dagoth page), and I was wondering what the community opinion is on this. I think in-game screens are a good idea, though I generally don't favor their use if some other relevant image is available that doesn't pose a potential "fourth wall" conflict- a drawing, sketch, map, engraving, ect. Is that pretty much where you all stand, too, and if so, should we put that in writing somewhere?

One final query: on the Imperial lore page, I included a Tiber Septim engraving in its full size, not as a thumbnail. Is that okay to do, assuming the image's full size is not too large, or should every image be in thumbnail form? Thanks for your time. Minor Edits 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To briefly answer your question, I feel that 300px images do not mess up the article (perhaps it's my monitor?). The images fit almost exactly with their respective sections, and they are actually discernable (whereas the 100px images have to be clicked on in order to really get any sort of real effect from them). However, I understand that they may mess up the page for other editors. With that in mind, I still feel that 300px is overall just plain better, unless the article becomes totally unreadable or the images become moot (I can't really think of a specific example for the latter criteria at the moment).
As for the second question, the engraving of Tiber Septim actually looks pretty neat on the article. Again, perhaps monitor sizing and zoom differences on browsers may change this, but from me perspective it looks really good. When I first looked at it, it seemed just a bit overpowering, but I've found that the image has grown on me.
That basically sums up my feelings at the moment, and I don't think that'll be changing anytime soon.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 22:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The default thumbnail size on UESP is 180px, not 100 px.
As a general rule, images should be included as articles using |thumb, and articles should not set the image size. In other words, images should be displayed using the viewer's size preferences. Furthermore, articles should avoid tailoring the text based on a specific image size. Articles should "work" -- i.e. the layout should not look buggy -- for a range of viewer size preferences, and a range of browser/monitor widths.
Also, note that even when we look at the version of Dagoth Ur in your sandbox, the chances are that none of us are viewing the same layout as you. We're using a dozen different monitor sizes, and may or may not have our browsers set to full screen. We may have chosen to increase or decrease the font size used in our browser -- even the font we're using to display the page can vary.
The reason for having image size preferences is to allow viewers to choose the image size that works best for them. In particular, viewers with slow internet connections should be able to reduce their preferred image size in order to allow UESP webpages to download in a reasonable amount of time. I think the site-wide default thumbnail size should err on the small size. I think it's more important to ensure that our readers don't have to wait 10 minutes to download a page, because if they never even see the page, details of how it looks don't matter. Any reader who wants to see any image in more detail just has to click on the image. I tend to treat thumbnails as more of an image preview -- a teaser to let readers know whether they're interested in the full image.
I don't think the Tiber Septim engraving should be included full size -- it's not a critical part of the article (i.e., readers don't have to be able to see it at full size in order to understand the article). In fact without using |thumb, the image stands out like a sore thumb (pun intended) when viewing the page anonymously -- it's so much larger than everything else on the page that you're left wondering why the image requires so much emphasis. Typically, only images smaller than ~150px (i.e., smaller than the site's default thumbnail) should be used without thumbnailing them. --NepheleTalk 23:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy Change for Links in Tables?

I think we need to change the current guidelines for "Avoid Cluttering Links", specifically with regards to links in tables. Oblivion:Spells (in particular the links for merchant names), is one case where our current guidelines constantly lead to problems.

The main reasons provided on the Style Guide for why to avoid cluttering links are: "Creating too many links can distract the reader and make the article hard to read; some readers are likely to pause on each link to determine whether the link is of interest". But these reasons only apply to standard article text -- paragraphs of information where we can reasonably expect that readers are reading through the entire section. Readers can't expect to skip directly to the third line in paragraph 2 and fully understand the context.

On the other hand, tables are designed specifically so that readers can just read the 10th row of the table, without having to first look at rows 1-9. Therefore, removing a link from row #10 just because it appeared in row #1 defeats the design purpose -- now readers have to scan backwards through the table just to find a link. Addressing the specific points raised by the style guide:

  • "Distracting the reader": I think removing links within a table increases the distraction for a reader, rather than decreasing them. A reader looking at the Defend spell is likely to wonder "why isn't Trayvond highlighted -- is he less qualified somehow?".
  • "Readers are likely to pause on each link": Readers don't "read" tables, they scan them for the specific detail they're interested in and ignore the rest. So pausing on links isn't an issue.
  • Tables can be sortable. If a reader re-sorts a table containing links, then any logic behind which names are linked and which aren't vanishes. Even if readers are only interested in the first line of the re-sorted table, they may now have to scan the rest of the table to find the information of interest.

Wikipedia already has an exception for links in tables [2]:

  • "[Exceptions to this guideline include cases] where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links. But, of course, within each list only the first occurence should be linked."

I'm not entirely clear on how to interpret this exception (i.e., does the final sentence apply to lists and tables, or only to lists?) Furthermore, wikipedia doesn't rely on tables to provide huge lists of statistics, at least not to the extent that UESP does. So I think we need to have our own guidelines on links within tables, such as: "Repeated links should only be removed in tables when the link previously appears in the same row of a table."

Any thoughts? --NepheleTalk 17:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me. In particular, tables being sortable makes linking the first occurrence completely impractical, so this policy change would certainly help those situations. --Legoless 17:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I have always wondered about this. Thanks for bringing it up. elliot (talk)
In case anyone wants to see what it'll look like, they can take a look at this version.
I agree it's probably time to change this, mainly for the reasons Nephele lists, but there's one more minor one. The Spells page was changed partly because it killed the server every time anyone loaded it, and reducing it by 11K (~15%) was partly a way of helping with that. Those were the Bad Old Days and our new servers make such problems much less likely. rpeh •TCE 05:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Vampirism page

Can I get some feedback on what needs to be done to improve this page before I launch it? Thanks :) Kitkat xxx TalkContribE-mail 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job KitKat. I'm just wondering why this page never had as much info as you added before now. :P It looks sorted, complete, and your writing style gets right to the point and is clearly executed. You must have spent some days getting it just right. I think you should launch it ASAP, and any changes can be made if anyone can find anything to change or add, which will be hard. --D. Gemini 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
My biggest concern is that during the time you've been working on this in your sandbox, the original Oblivion:Vampirism article has continued to change. Furthermore, the types of changes you've made aren't really ones that require sandboxing -- i.e., you're not rewriting entire sections of the article from scratch. I think it would make more sense for you to just work directly on the original article. --NepheleTalk 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Yeah maybe just comparing and adding to the original article is the best idea as to make sure nothing is left out. --D. Gemini 21:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kitkat! Just save the current article (with all the updates) in your Sandbox and use the Diff button to see the difference. I do that all the time, especially when I lose control of the work I have done (here’s an example). To avoid this problem in the future, you can always use the wipsandbox template. --Krusty 19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Once Skyrim is out, won't this wiki be one huge spoiler?

I was just thinking about how when I get Skyrim and start playing it would be great to have my laptop beside me so I can use this wiki to find information on names and places and such that are mentioned in the game - however it occurs to me that once the game is out some dedicated folks will complete it in double quick time and record information about their experiences in the wiki, thus making it rife with spoilers for types like me whole likely will not complete the game before the Qatari World Cup - I don't know a way round this, I wouldn't know what to suggest - maybe an option that redacts Skyrim sourced information might be a possible answer. Thoughts?

S. — Unsigned comment by (talk)

As a wiki, it is obviously going to contain spoilers, I think it gives a warning on the site somewhere. You're right though, maybe there should be a "warning, contains spoilers" message at the Skyrim page or an option to hide spoilers on certain pages.RIM 16:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
hiding spoilers would hide most the content on this wiki, it says on the main page: This site's purpose is to provide information; therefore, most of the content contains spoilers. this wikis main use is to give people walkthroughs and provide lore, so theres nothing that can be done about it, sorry (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC))
You may also wish to see the General Disclaimer. This wiki is not concerned with spoiling anything. If you don't wish to see spoilers, don't go anywhere that there are likely to be them. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
When I write an article, I try to keep the spoilers as far away down the page as possible. It's only logical there will be spoilers... there should be spoilers, otherwise the article is incomplete ~ Dwarfmp 19:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what Dwarf said; any potential spoilers should be low on the page if reasonable. Also, people worried about spoilers should be very careful about what pages they choose to read, but editors can also make sure that any potential Skyrim spoilers have some significant textual lead-in, so a reader has some hint that he/she should stop reading before they get to info they don't want quite yet. Anyways, I don't think a spoiler tag on specific pages is necessary or prudent. Minor Edits 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

() (I hope ME doesn't mind me tweaking the indentation because this is an important point and I want it to stand out)

In general - in general - you should be able to avoid spoilers by sticking to our Lore space. There are a few pages (mainly in History) that give the various games away, but otherwise we try to avoid game-specific details because, quite simply, people play the games differently. Apart from that, if you're trying to get hints from a website without giving away spoilers... you're always going to be on thin ice. For me, if Vampirism in Oblivion hadn't been so non-intuitive I might not have come here at all. After I did, I discovered loads of other things.

So yes there will be spoilers. In fact, I'll be spending at least the first eight hours after the game's release deliberately creating them! If that's not what you want, I'd suggest our forums or IRC or, at a pinch, LoreSpace. rpeh •TCE 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'S' says - That's entirely fair enough, I will have to make to most that I can from the wiki until 11.11.11 and then after this point stop using it. It would be nice to have it as a reference point whilst playing but the last thing I'd want is to speak to 'Ian the Fuzzy' and have him see say 'please seek out the legendary general Billy Bumfluff', then to search for info on Billy Bumfluff and have it say 'Billy Bumfluff, the legendary general that killed Ian the Fuzzy buy sticking a dragon in his back pantry'. Like you say, it's simply not practical so I shall have to learn as much as I can in the next 30 days then log on no more...

Great work on the wiki btw.


UESP blog

im planning on making the odd post or two on the blog and i was just wondering if its the same as the wiki in formatting and in linking? I uh, also cant figure out how to make a post... (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 13:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

You need to have an account created for you before you can post - it's not linked to the wiki. Formatting is totally different too as you'll see when you start editing. Post here what you want your account name to be, and either Daveh, Nephele, Krusty or I will create the account for you. rpeh •TCE 14:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
well i do have a account i think, it says im logged in on it, it was made a while ago, im not to sure if i asked for it or anything (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 14:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC))
So you do. I've moved you into the Bloggers group, so you should be able to post now. There should be a "Write" link at the top of the screen. rpeh •TCE 15:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
My bad - everyone can create an account, but you need one of the four people I mentioned to move you into the Bloggers group. Sorry for the confusion. rpeh •TCE 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
oh, well can you do that please? (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 23:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC))
I double checked, and you're in the bloggers group already -- presumably because rpeh did it three posts up. Are you still not seeing a "Write" link at the very top of the blog page? Have you tried logging out and logging back in? I'm not too familiar with the blog settings, though, so I don't really know what else might need to be tweaked. --NepheleTalk 00:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't too much trouble, I'd like to have my blog account moved into the bloggers group. I created it a while back but haven't messed with it much. Thanks. :) Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 03:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Nevermind. I just checked and I have a "Write" link. Probably should have checked that first. :\ Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 03:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
yep, i just checked, thanks (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 04:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC))
Kalis, I moved you into "Bloggers" when I moved Eddie. There were a few editors who've already been elected to positions on the site and I took the opportunity to move them all because it seemed like the sensible thing to do. rpeh •TCE 05:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for that. :) Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Daggerfall, again.

I am about to go on a massive Daggerfall Image edit spree. Whilst setting up, i noticed that there wasn't a Category for place images,where this should be. The reason I ask is, it seems a bit strange it was left out on so many images. Was there a reason? Or was it forgotten? I would add any images to any categories until i upload any, which will be this weekend. --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are probably quite a lot of DF image categories missing. The categories were an afterthought, although they've already proved really useful. Go ahead and create any cats you need - just make sure they follow a structure reasonably similar to existing ones. rpeh •TCE 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, well i've got 62 images i'm removing the in-game interface on and i'm then going to uplaod them all and then do all the categories if thats the case :) --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Elder-Geek's Child's Play Charity

Just letting people that know that we are partnering with Elder-Geek for their Skyrim 48 hour marathon for the Child's Play charity on November 11th. Currently this just involves advertising/linking to the event, donating some money, and some of my time during the event. If I can get my hands on some Skyrim swag I'll be donating some of it for prizes as well. I know everyone will be very busy with Skyrim and the site during those days but feel free to drop by or make a donation if you'd like. See the marathon announcment or the event page for more information on the event itself. -- Daveh 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've finalized the donation strategy for the drive: we'll be matching donations 1 for 1 up to 1000$. -- Daveh 15:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Its fantastic for the site to be involved in something like this. I for one will be chipping in some money for this before the marathon ends! - Emoboy64 18:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

getting logged out

Im on a school MacBook right now and i keep getting logged out, this never happens on my home laptop, i think its got something to do with ticking the stay logged in box as i do that on my home one and havent been logged out, thoughts? (I plead LazynessEddie The Head 04:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

No idea on that, but I know that I can't stay logged in for a reasonable amount of time. It seems like if I don't click a button every 15 or 20 minutes then I get logged out. That needs to be extended. Minor Edits 04:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Could be the school computer's preferences. I couldn't say because my school blocked everything game related though so I wouldn't have any experience with that. Although my MacBook Pro doesn't forget passwords unless I go a long time without using the page. I couldn't say exactly but a weekish maybe. Just throwing in my two cents there. Eric Snowmane 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As likely as not, it's a setting on the school computer (or whatever computer you're using), rather than a setting at UESP. Offhand, I'd guess the school computer is set to only store cookies for a very short length of time (which protects your privacy). When the cookies expire, you lose your logged-in session. --NepheleTalk 19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim Live-action Trailer

So... is this something we need to document on the wiki somewhere, and if so, any suggestions as to where? My initial thought was, "Of course, it needs an article." After some thought, though, perhaps just a section on the Skyrim article would be sufficient. There's not really much that could be said about it, just a few sentences, a link to the video, and the three images... --GKtalk2me 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did we document any other advertisement with it's own article (besides a news story)? While this advertisement is different in the sense that it's live action, which we haven't seen before (I think), I don't see why we need to document it. It provides no new information about Skyrim. The only reason I would believe we'd need to document this ad is if turns out to be a teaser for something bigger down the line (a short movie or something), or if we decide to document all (Maybe only notable ones? How would we decide what is notable or not?) advertisements for the series. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I rather suspect there's more to come, which is why I included the "(so far)" bit in the story. With all the costumes, locations, etc there's no way only one minute of footage was shot - it'd be the most expensive sixty seconds of film ever shot. It'd be difficult to write much about the trailer we've seen, although a line about its existence would obviously be a good idea, but if it is something larger, then a full article is going to be useful. rpeh •TCE 06:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a live action scene at the beginning of Daggerfall, and Ria Silmane in Arena is an animated photo of a woman. Those two are only relevant for lorespace, mostly. The one minute Skyrim ad is rather generic, and the only notable portrayals are those of the dragon and the hero. It seems rather pointless if we were to somehow document it, especially when compared with the current absence of a 'Making of Oblivion' article. Although if it does turn out to be a short film, it will definitely deserve its own article, if only to have an internal reference for lorespace (or even gamespace). --Legoless 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems rather contrary to our purpose to suggest that we shouldn't cover its existence at all. Any other "ads" we haven't covered were only gameplay and such. Besides, others will try to add info about it all over the place; we can preempt that by being able to say, "All relevant information on that subject is noted [here]." Like I said, there's only enough "meat" for a sentence or two with a link to the video and the three images. I mean, why not? (As an aside, do we note the live-action in Daggerfall? 'Cause I'd think we should...) --GKtalk2me 02:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't a link to it just belong on Skyrim:Pre-Release Content? We already mention the game-play videos there, and this is just another pre-release video. --NepheleTalk 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

() That sounds like the perfect place for it. --GKtalk2me 02:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Done: Skyrim:Pre-Release Content#Videos --NepheleTalk 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Role-Playing request from another site

Hey people! Just wanted to notify everybody that I received a friendly request from this site, asking us if they can use our Roleplaying content for their pages. Since the administrator promised to give the UESP full credit – and because I see absolutely no problem with lending a hand to this site, nor do I see a problem with our carefully hidden RP pages get some more attention – I’m going to give them a ‘go´. Unless, of course, someone objects – so I figured I’d post the information here, just in case. --Krusty 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - didn't see this until now. Absolutely no problem at all - our copyright is clear on that, although it's very nice of them to ask first. rpeh •TCE 08:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Content

I just want to remind everyone that discussion of illegal activities - including software piracy - is not allowed anywhere on UESP, either on the wiki or the forums or even, though it's not actually our site, the IRC channel. rpeh •TCE 08:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

i wasnt advertising it, i was just mentioning it (Eddie The Head 08:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC))
I know, which is why I didn't say anything directly to you but opted for a general announcement. Please don't take it as any kind of warning. rpeh •TCE 09:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

360 Leak

The Xbox version of Skyrim has been leaked, so a lot of information will likely become available online. I created Skyrim:Sinding based on the leaked footage, but I realised that we probably shouldn't be hosting the info. rpeh makes some good points in this discussion. I've since proposed the new NPC page for deletion (or speedy, if people agree with the action). Unless anyone has any suggestions, I recommend ignoring the new info which is sure to come pouring off the pirated copies. --Legoless 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the info could easily be wrong anyway and it's not like were desperate to get info.RIM 15:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the information needs deletion. Yes, we probably don't want to link to questionable leaks and don't want to systematically copy information found in those leaks. But single "facts" are far less problematic in my view. It could still be wrong, but that's true for almost any Skyrim content we have at the moment. Most of the information we have is based on some sort of leak anyway (granted, some are Bethesda initiated) and in generally it will be hard to tell the source of some bits of information. --Alfwyn 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm unaware of any leaks coming from Bethesda themselves. When they release information, it's not a leak. The way I see it, it won't matter in nine days. However, it is going to be hard to differentiate between information gained from leaked copies, and more reputable sources. In fact, I'm almost entirely positive that it will be impossible to manage as I'm sure no one here has acquired a leak copy themselves. I'm unwilling to defend information gathered from a leak, if it were to be challenged (as we can't source any information gathered from it). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

() Seriously, everyone. Did you not read the previous section on this page? This isn't just a leak, it's software piracy - pure and simple.rpeh •TCE 16:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. So how are we to treat information coming from the pirated games? As copyright infringement on Bethesda's game (which isn't allowed according to our deletion policy)? If so, I have no problem with that. Though I do wish to point out that it hard will to determine if the information came from an allowed or a less than reputable source. I don't think the wiki has ever dealt with this before, and this will likely come up quite a bit over the next week and a half. I don't really care what we do, so much as I'm confused about how our policy dictates we deal with this. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleting a page that will be recreated after about two days seems stupid. Just empty and protect the page if it's software piracy, that should be almost as good ~ Dwarfmp 16:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite tempted to put the page-creation block back on right now to stop anything new being started. At this stage, almost any new pages are likely to contain information taken from the pirated version. rpeh •TCE 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
rpeh, I can see the value in that, but it would be a bit extreme. Probably the best way to deal with this is to delete any page that is created using pirated information, "salt" it (prevent it from being created again - this would solve the problem you raised, Dwarfmp) and inform the user responsible that no information taken from the pirated version will be allowed on this site. --SerCenKing Talk 14:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I actually meant that in case they would only be proposed for deletion, it seems pointless to delete in a week. But I guess it falls under the conditions for a speedy, so deleting will be fine if protected ~ Dwarfmp 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

() For the specific example of Skyrim:Sinding, I'd prefer to just make the page "empty". In other words, make it look the same as the hundreds of bot-created NPC pages that will be created starting a week from now. It gives us an opportunity to work out what exactly we want an "empty" page to look like. The same approach can also be easily applied to other pages if the need arises.

I don't like the idea of deleting a page that's just going to need to be re-created a few days later. And I really don't like the idea of protecting the deleted page -- in particular, because protection is going to lock out the bots from creating the page when we need it. I also don't see any evidence at this point that protection is needed. If a page somehow manages to be such a magnet for unwanted edits in the next seven days that the page is a problem, then the situation would be different. --NepheleTalk 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a really a case of "omg the house is on fire!" There's no real sense of urgency, and the proposal Nephele stated is ideal. elliot (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mobile Site

I've started a very basic "mobile" version of the site at as it has been a frequent enough request lately. So far I've only tested it on my BlackBerry and feedback from other mobile users would be good to have. Note that if you view the site when logged in you will just see your skin as set in your preferences (unsure whether I should override this or not). See the Mobile article for more details. -- Daveh 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that on my Droid, I can't search because my keyboard does not pop up when I choose the search field. It's a common problem I have when trying to access mobile versions of various sites. Not sure how to fix it, but I'm pretty sure it can be fixed because some other sites work perfectly. Looks good other than that. 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
on my android, the pages are squashed to half the screen size (before when i went on on my mobile they were full screen size and worked fine), some tables are pushed into the margins of the page, a bit like my old signature and indenting turns it into one word per line, my keyboard pops up fine though and everything else i can think of works fine (Eddie The Head 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC))
I finally had a chance to check this out on my non-smartphone. When I persuaded it to load the CSS the site looked really good - it was clean and easy to follow and much better than trying to use the Monobook skin. rpeh •TCE 11:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
i just went on it again today, i was very impressed with it and liked it alot, however when i logged on, it went back to monobook, but that would be because of my account preferences, i can use it on my mobile logged out again, its very good. (Eddie The Head 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Mark Jones Interview

A few months ago we asked for questions to ask Mark Jones, one of the artists on several TES projects. Thanks to everyone who sent some in (hopefully Krusty will name Names!). The answers are now in, and there are some very interesting bits of information. For instance, who knew there was a full-sized dragon that was cut from Daggerfall? Thanks again, Mark. rpeh •TCE 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting logged out

Recently, I've been getting logged out as I edit pages on the wiki, and I'm not sure why. I'll be working on an article, and I'll find that I've been logged out, even though I'm still doing things like viewing previews or looking at other pages. Any ideas what's going on? --OblivionDuruza 08:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

its a caching error i think, but lemme just say, when i had my own laptop and could click keep me logged in it worked perfectly and i never got logged out. (Eddie the head 08:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC))
It's been happening a lot more to me, too. I don't get logged out but the wiki tells me it's lost session data - sometimes after only a couple of seconds. rpeh •TCE 08:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i get both the loss of data and the getting logged out. (Eddie The Head 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC))
If you do experience the logged out symptom can you let me know the time/page you experienced it and try not to log back in (if possible at least). The browser/OS used might be useful as well. Unfortunately, there are no obvious issues but I'll keep looking into it. -- Daveh 15:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This may be related to the issue discussed here and with the session.gc_maxlifetime in the PHP configuration. This was currently set to the default of 1440 sec (24 minutes) which meant that after that time the session file would be deleted. Mediawiki would/should regenerate this file properly but it may be the case that it sometimes doesn't which would result in a session loss. To test this I've increase the session lifetime to around 28 hours and will see what effect, if any, it has. If you see any session loss or "logout" issue please let me know. -- Daveh 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've stopped experiencing the issue, although I could be speaking prematurely. Either way, the problem seems to have been resolved. A couple of days ago, I could not have been logged on for this long without being logged out. Thanks. --OblivionDuruza 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The exact same thing happened to me but I find that having a second tab or internet page open at the same time stops it from happening.RIM 11:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A Bot's Life

It's time for a kind of FYI post on what RoBoT will be doing on release day.

So far I've written some code that should give us basic details about quests, NPCs and Places and should create copies of all the books too. I had some code for magic effects, but having looked at the number of TODO tags I've left myself and the detail already present, I think those are better done by hand. I'm not writing anything else now because the other factors are less important and there's already too much that can be wrong.

I originally started trying to be clever and working RoBoT's changes into any text already present, but I've given that up. Now, everything already on a page gets shunted to the bottom below a line and the page is added to a category like "Quests that already existed when the bot ran" so they stand out. For the rest of the info let's have a mini FAQ:

When will RoBoT start running?
I don't know exactly. I'm getting the game through Steam so there's going to be a decryption stage that'll probably take an hour or so, then I have to check out the data files, probably tweak a little program of my own, run it, then take another look at the data to make sure things still work in roughly the same way. The earliest I can see things possibly starting is about 2am GMT, but it could be much later. I'd love to have lots of pages up before the game is released in Bethesda, but we'll see.
The major Finagle factor is the file format (nicely alliterative). If things are reasonably similar to Fallout 3's file format then things shouldn't be too tricky. All my code so far is written on the assumption that the same basic structure will apply. If it doesn't, or if there are any big changes like the introduction of GRUP records as happened between Morrowind and Oblivion, then it'll take much longer - possibly days longer. If there's going to be a big delay I'll post something telling you.
What order are you doing things in?
Ideally, Quests, NPCs, Places, Books. It's quite possible that if I hit a major problem I'll change this order, but unlikely.
What information will you be adding?
It depends. I've tried to second-guess what information will stay the same and include that, but things might be so different that I end up just creating a blank page.
Blank page?
The main reason for doing this in such a hurry is to get the pages created. The bots will make sure we have the correct names, so even a blank page has some use. It won't be literally blank in any case - there'll be a couple of templates at least. Besides, RoBoT has to leave some work for humans!
Why limit yourself to quests, NPCs, places and books?
I have to sleep, plus I want to play the game myself! Nephele is working on items, so that's potions, armor, weapons, ingredients, ammunition etc taken care of. I might well do some really, really basic code to create blank pages (see above) for some other things like creatures but it all depends on...
How long will it take?
Let's assume 1,000 NPCs, about 250 quests and about 250 places. Then assume four edits per minute... that gives 6.25 hours. Now throw away that estimate because it's worthless. If the site's slow it could be longer; if it's working fine it could be shorter. If I hit problems it could be longer. I'll make a post when I'm done. Until it appears, if there are any gaps assume I'm swearing at my computer screen trying to fix a problem.
How can we help?
There are going to be lots of blank parameters in infoboxes and a lot of largely blank pages. Start filling those in. Look at the categories like "Quests that already existed when the bot ran" - I'll create a list before things kick off - and merge things together. Keep an eye on the rest of the site and keep things in order. I'm going to be spending my time looking at the next bot job rather than watching the site so that's up to you.
It looks like something has gone wrong with RoBoT - it's messing stuff up!
If you're an admin or a blocker, please block it immediately. This shouldn't be necessary but even the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley, as Burns put it, so it's best to have a procedure in case it all goes pear-shaped. If you aren't an admin, post on my talk page, send me an email, and I'll try to be in IRC so bug me there. I'll be keeping at least one eye on the bot while it's running anyway, but the more eyes, the better.
I can't see RoBoT's changes on the Recent Changes page
By default, edits by bots are excluded from that page. Hit the "Shot bots" link or try looking at RoBoT's contributions instead. rpeh •TCE 12:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's everything I can think of for now. As I said, I'm going to try to be in IRC while the bot is running - just please don't deluge me with "how's it going?" questions. rpeh •TCE 12:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To add another chapter to the bot saga: NepheleBot will also be creating Skyrim pages, as mentioned by rpeh. NepheleBot's focus will be on creating redirects, in particular for items such as weapons, armor, clothes, etc. Rpeh and I have being discussing what each bot will do, so the bots shouldn't be stepping on each other's toes.
Many of the FAQ points listed by rpeh apply equally to NepheleBot. In particular, I'm subject to all the same uncertainties/caveats mentioned under "When will RoBoT start running?" One minor difference is that if NepheleBot ever needs to be stopped, just post a message on NepheleBot's talk page. If you have other questions about the bot, please use my talk page instead, to avoid unnecessarily stopping the bot.
Given the nature of redirects, NepheleBot doesn't have quite the same pressure to get pages creating as quickly as possible, regardless of whether the pages are empty. Therefore, NepheleBot won't start running until some basic details about the items can be reliably extracted. For example, before creating weapon redirects I'll want to be able to identify whether the weapon is one-handed or two-handed, and what type (dagger, sword, mace, etc.) of weapon it is, so that the correct categories can be added to the redirect. Nevertheless, it's likely that NepheleBot will be able to start on November 11th. What I'm not sure of is what order I'll do the redirects in -- that's probably going to be determined by which item types can first be decoded enough to be useful.
The bot activities will be done in conjunction with non-bot edits to basically dump lists of items onto the appropriate pages, creating the targets that the redirects are pointing at. Initially, the organization of items is likely to be crude -- i.e., all enchanted weapons, including artifacts and unique weapons, are probably going to be dumped into Generic Magic Weapons at first, and probably all in one huge table. Only minimal efforts will be made to remove test items from the lists.
After the initial round of creating thousands of redirects, there will probably end up being more than one round of cleanup -- improving the categorization, adding more item stats, etc. Overall, I think we'll want to use the bots as much as possible to add basic statistics to Skyrim articles.
rpeh: one question I had about RoBoT's pages is whether there would be a useful way to provide input on boilerplate contents that RoBoT could place onto the pages, for example, to build in editor comments/instructions such as those that I added to the "blank" version of Skyrim:Bleak Falls Barrow (quest). Would it make sense to edit User:Rpeh/Sandbox/5 to create some chunks of text that RoBoT could just copy and paste into new pages? Or would some other wiki page be better? --NepheleTalk 02:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Editing that sandbox page is probably the best way of doing it for now. I'll put a Place example up a little later - books probably don't need an example because they're likely to be pretty similar to what we already have. rpeh •TCE 08:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I'll be listing exactly what's happening on User:RoBoT, along with lists of categories that need human intervention and so on. I'll try to put some of this up in advance but since I'll probably be rewriting up until the moment I run the code, it'll almost certainly be changed.
Incidentally, the reason RoBoT no longer supports the post-on-talkpage-to-stop mechanism is that I switched to the Bot API, which means I don't get the handy orange box if someone posts a message. At first I did an extra check and loaded the talk page after each edit, but this slowed things down, caused an extra hit on the server, and has never been necessary. I'll be watching a lot of what RoBoT does anyway. rpeh •TCE 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Related questions:
  • I just tweaked Quest Header to make it automatically check whether or not there's an image, and have it add the NeedsImage tag if necessary. Are there any objections/concerns with doing things that way? My rationale is that the tag is more likely to be used correctly and consistently if the template takes care of it. One minor issue is that now most of the Daggerfall quests have two NeedsImage banners -- because one had already been manually added. An alternative way of handling it would be to have Quest Header just add the page to the appropriate needs image category, but not make a banner actually appear. If anyone else thinks this makes sense for quests, should I go ahead and do it to NPCs and places, too?
  • I also created an Empty template a couple days ago and forgot to ever ask for feedback (or else I remembered to do it, and then forgot that I'd done it... hard to be sure of late). One reason for creating it is to have something to put on any pages created in response to New Page Requests. But also I thought it could be useful on bot-created pages. Basically it's a way of giving readers an explanation of why a page exists with no information. And I included options to make the banner also give editors a link to the appropriate style guide layout page (triggered by using {{Empty|quest}}, {{Empty|NPC}} or {{Empty|place}}, respectively). Besides the question of whether or not the template seems useful, I was also wondering whether the template should automatically put the pages into a category, and if so, into the stubs category, or into a separate category. --NepheleTalk 14:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Folding NeedsImage into the Quest, Place and NPC templates is a good idea. 99 times out of 100 we want an image and having to add the extra tag is pretty pointless.
The Empty template is good too. I think it should add pages to a different category, because the bot-created pages will have pretty much no text, even less than a "X is a Y Z" stub. Yes it's yet another "This page isn't finished" category, but I think it's necessary. rpeh •TCE 15:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

() For various reasons, things might have changed a little. It now seems almost certain that the file formats are the same as for Fallout 3 and that the same rough structure applies. There are a few major changes - almost all strings are now localised so there's an extra step or two to go through - but nothing that hasn't already been handled. I would like to give a "thank you" to Rick here in addition to the cookie upon which he's already chewing.

The fact that some things have been verified actually gives me an excuse to push back the start time for RoBoT. This is because some of the things I thought I'd have to check have already been checked and it means that a slightly later start time will be about adding extra information instead of getting any information on the site at all. I'm not going to start anything I can't finish too quickly, but it seems likely that more data might be gettable from the get-go. In short, here's a new answer to one of the FAQ-format questions from above:

When will RoBoT start running?
I don't know exactly. I've got the game through Steam so there's going to be a decryption stage that'll probably take an hour or so. After that I have to run a little program of my own that'll probably take an hour, take another look at the data to see if there's anything more I can do and then I start. The earliest I can see things possibly starting is about 2am GMT, but it now depends mainly on how long my PC takes to decrypt the Steam files.

Anyone who wants instant updates should sign into IRC and add User:RoBoT to their watchlist. rpeh •TCE 19:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's... 13 hours before release but RoBoT has created its first quest pages: Taking Care of Business, Escaped Criminal, Diplomatic Immunity and The Fallen. I imagine anyone who looks at the quest stages will realise pretty quickly that Something Is Not Right. Hopefully when I get the final files I'll be able to sort this out, but if not I'll simply skip the quest stage notes for now. That'll be a shame, but it's still better than nothing. rpeh •TCE 11:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course, it helps if I use the updated strings file. Now fixed - and if you look at the history you'll be able to see how RoBoT deals with pages that already exists (really, really simply) rpeh •TCE 11:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Last-Minute Skyrim Actions

I'll be adding various post-release Skyrim tasks to the Task List over the next day. But in the meantime I wanted to point out a few things that editors might want to consider during our last few days of preparation:

  • Become a mentor, if you qualify. Being available to help out new editors is one way that anyone can make a difference when the game comes out. Mentors might want to include their Skyrim status on the mentor page, e.g. "I'm buying Skyrim" or "I haven't bought Skyrim yet, but I'm still willing to answer wiki questions".
  • Become a userspace patroller, if you qualify. We're likely to have a huge increase in userspace edits, so we'll need the help. Also, it would be good to get any userpatroller requests out of the way now, before the admins become inundated with other work.
  • Improve the Help pages. It would be great if multiple editors could look through the help pages to see whether there are any errors or omissions, and also to make sure they're up to date for Skyrim. In particular, anyone who recently joined the site can help immensely by looking through the help pages from the perspective of a new editor -- those of us who've been here for a while tend to miss some obvious questions. If you know something is missing, but don't know how to add it yourself, add a comment on the talk page.

Finally, I wanted to make sure to let everyone in the community know that you don't need to purchase Skyrim to help with the new content. Anyone with wiki experience will be able to find tons of opportunities to help out. We'll need people who can answer questions such as "how do I upload a screenshot and add it to an article?"; people who can add wiki formatting (links, lists, tables); people who can reorganize content that's added in the wrong article; people who can spell check and grammatically improve new content. --NepheleTalk 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with everything Nephele suggests. As a minor addition, it's worth registering on IRC too - especially if you're a patroller or admin, so we can get permissions sorted out in advance.
If anyone has any other suggestions, ask them now because things are likely to be a bit busy for a while.
Otherwise, the only other thing I'd add is that people should remember the new patrolling guidelines and be much more relaxed with the Undo button for a while. We're looking to encourage people to add new content, not annoy them by deleting it straight away. rpeh •TCE 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

New Pages

The request page for new articles has been left unanswered for eight hours now. If any administrator is online and reading this, could you perhaps address the line in the waiting room? :P -- 21:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We all know it's there, whilst i'm not an Admin it's not just Admins that can create pages. You have to appreciate that were trying to get info onto a lot of place, quest and NPC pages as we can. Whilst it's not just us that are working, we check every single edit made and will, where we see fit, format it accordingly. --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Kiz you can create pages -- that was the whole point behind giving userpatrollers more permissions. Anyone patroller or userpatroller who sees one of these requests can help all of us out by handling it -- it's a simple process, and is outlined here.
It would also help all of us immensely if editors would spend a minute checking to see whether a page exists before posting a completely unnecessary request that we then have to spend time checking on and responding to.
We're all trying our best to handle a deluge of edits, so please have a bit of patience. We've already created 9178 Skyrim articles, nearly all of those in the last five days. Eight hours really isn't that long. If you can't stand to wait, you are free to create the talk page for the article, and post as much information as you'd like there. In fact, if you set it up the same way as an article, we may be able to simply turn the talk page into an article, making the entire process easier for everyone. --NepheleTalk 03:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that sometimes we simply can't create them. Creating Skyrim pages requires the admin/patroller/user patroller to log in, and there have been times when the site has been largely inaccessible for logged-in users. That's a shame, but sometimes the only thing is to wait. We'll get there in the end. rpeh •TCE 10:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I am aware I can create pages Nephele, but that late at night on my phone I really couldn't do the job, that message was right on my character limit. And saying it took me 5 refreshes and type outs to post it I didn't do bad. I have, whilst on my PC, been watching the page and trying to create them. --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 19:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 25 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 27