Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 28

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.

TIL Links

Hey folks,

just a note. I'm reorganizing The Imperial Library and I accidentally broke something - Meridia knows how. So the majority of the links going from the UESP to books in the library will now be broken. You may want to hold off on fixing these though as I'm still reorganizing and some links may still become unbroken again.

I'll post here again when I'm done.

-- Proweler — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 17:16 on 27 December 2011 (GMT)

In general, we shouldn't be linking to TIL for in-game books anyway; we host our own copies and should be linking to those.
This is the second time we've had to go through all our links to TIL and fix them, so it may be worth creating some kind of central link repository so we only have to fix them in one place. A while back, I created the {{Stored URL}} template because we were getting messed around with the official Morrowind plug-ins being moved, and we can use the same solution here. How about creating UESPWiki:TIL and storing all the links on that? Can anyone think of a better solution? rpeh •TCE 11:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created {{TIL}} for now. Either supply no params (links to The Imperial Library main page), one (TIL links to the same page with a different description) or two (links to a URL loaded from the UESPWiki:The Imperial Library page - Map stuff). Unless I hear other ideas - and I'll admit this seems like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut - I'll go ahead and start using the new template. rpeh •TCE 16:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of a page that would house all the base URLs, but now that I've looked at your solution, I think I like it better. It allows us to use the same template even if one link is to forums, another to wiki content, etc., which might well have entirely different URL structures. Nice. Robin Hoodtalk 18:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. All links should be stable again. Damage was limited to just the in game books. So if no links go that way I doubt anybody will have noticed.

As a suggestion: I've been using a Drupal module to check links on the Library. Perhaps there is a wiki-bot equivalent for you folks (if you aren't already). 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Proweler

Right, I'll start updating the site to use the new template. Unfortunately we really need something to check all our links on a repeatable schedule, and that needs doing from the server itself to save on bandwidth. We may get a botserver eventually but not right now. rpeh •TCE 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Compelling tribute - nice bug!

Like in the subject - this small quest is really bugged. Hadvar/Ralof will can't talk with you, after the bittle with stormcloaks/imperials. I chose to go and kill enemies myself, and after dat the Hadvar is keeping enyojing himself by answering me with random lines. I don't know where this subject will be, so I am writing it here. Can I ask for your help, guys, any ideas? Im playing on ps3 and haven't got any previous save. I wrote to Bethesda, but nothing. Can you help me? Im looking everywhere!

(Sry for bad english, anyway)

Karol — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 22:30 on 29 December 2011

Sovngarde Location

In disambiguating the various Sovngarde links, I came across Skyrim:Sovngarde (place), which has a region of Sovngarde listed. This seems to essentially be a self-reference and I'm guessing it's incorrect. Can someone who actually has the game and knows where this is ;) please fix it. Thanks! Robin Hoodtalk 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically Sovngarde is a world as well as a location. But I'm not sure we want two separate articles for them, right now the place article is short enough to put the info for both on it. Just the classification as Military Fort is bothering me. It's probably the outside of the Hall of Valor, but game-wise it isn't anything I would either describe as military or fort. --Alfwyn 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and fleshed out the Skyrim:Sovngarde (place) article. Most of the information is based on lore that can all be confirmed both in Skyrim and on this wiki. The information could stand to be separated into Lore and Skyrim-related info.
I also disagree with Sovngarde being classified as a "Military Fort". Is it actually classified as such within the game files, or is that just filler text somebody put in when they first created the page? I agree with Alfwyn - Sovngarde is not military or a fort. It's an entire plane of existence. Thus, I changed the type from "Military Fort" to "Plane of Existence". Jak Atackka 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

YouTube Videos for Spell Animations

In the case of:

I created a series of videos demonstrating the animations and effects of each destruction spell. It shows first the spell effects, the small base spell effection animation, then what it looks like to single cast it, then to double cast it, then to use it on an enemy. Each spell's video was relevant and not spammy. The video's were high-quality, contained no commentary, nor spoilers, no back links, no easter eggs, nor any glitches.

My edit was rolled back and the links to videos removed. I understand in most cases it's suitable to remove YouTube videos. We all know how they can be... but I asked that in some cases where the video meets certain specifications and quality guidelines, then it be considered to not be removed on some articles. In this case specifically, the Destruction Spells page (see above).

Thank you for you time and consideration.

TENSUKI 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is out of the way, it hasn't been done before, so for consistency's sake, I think we should just not include them. ESTEC 05:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest trying to push hosting the videos here if you want to use them. There isn't a precedence though... elliot (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
In general I don't believe videos add anything to this site. While the animations may be pretty they don't really help the player or offer any new insights into the game. Additionally, there's always the risk with YouTube links that the owner may replace the video or remove it entirely, leaving us with dead or unacceptable or irrelevant links. That happened recently with some Redguard videos to which we linked, making an entire page useless.
The other problem - although it doesn't apply in this case - is that people tend to plaster their videos with "Look how 1337 I am" comments or only link to them to boost their viewing figures. Other ES wikis link to dozens of videos that do nothing but advertise their creator.
If there's a genuine desire to host videos I think we need them hosted on UESP where we can make sure the contents stay relevant. rpeh •TCE 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with rpeh. I have yet to find a useful video walkthrough on YouTube (for any game), and this seems like self-advertisement to me. Additionally, killing an entire courtroom, including a Jarl, may not be the most helpful addition to the site. Let’s leave some of the in-game experience to the game itself and get rid of all YouTube-links – maybe even add a ban on the very word “YouTube” if possible. --Krusty 11:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I haven't been looking through all YouTube links, the majority of them seem self-advertising and generally poor in both quality of footage and content. I think a ban on links to YouTube would definitely be appropriate, I can't think of an actual use of linking to them. I'd support a ban of the word YouTube. --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You've voiced your opinions, and it seems in the strong favor of not linking to the videos. You do not deem the videos helpful, useful, or relevant to the spells. I agree in the fact that almost every YouTube video I've seen is for pure advertising. I cannot argue that fact. I cannot argue that also, while there might opinions on whether videos are an exception to that rule, a solid rule must be enforced.
After all, if I were to post, let's say relevant video links demonstrating the basics of the spell... who's to stop people from linking to other videos showing them destroying towns, pillaging, and all because they believe it's justified as relevant and helpful. I agree. Perhaps I'll take the videos elsewhere. Thank you for at least considering my request everyone. Your answers were well mannered (minus the courtroom killing, as visual spell effects on enemies is helpful whether, but screenshots might be more helpful on that).
My opinion on the banning of the word YouTube is: If this site has absolutely no desire for outbound links to YouTube, then ban the word. Additionally, please add a clause into the rules and guidelines stating that videos or outbound links to videos is strictly prohibited so we don't have another issue like this arise.
Thank you. TENSUKI 17:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to ban the word, as there might be good reason to be discussing YouTube (like now), but if we really wanted to, we could always ban YouTube urls using the blacklist. My one concern there is that there could be good reason to post YouTube urls on talk pages and the like, for example "here's a video of the bug I'm talking about" type videos. Robin Hoodtalk 17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. We currently have 277 links to YouTube (mostly on talk pages) and that shows it can be useful. We just have to keep an eye on it. rpeh •TCE 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hosting videos: I suggest hosting videos on the site—though I am naive as to what technical or workload issues might be involved in doing so—after creating guidelines and standards for them consistent with the general quality values that set this site apart, and developing relevant structures. The fact that most existing videos have faults is important to consider, but in and of itself a poor argument for excluding a very powerful means of communicating. Could not someone have said that this wiki itself should have never been started if most or all of the others at the time suffered quality defects? It seems to me that especially among younger people, the massive trend toward communication via video would be ignored at the peril of the longevity of the popularity of this site. This does not mean replacing every page with a video. As an example of how the medium could be powerful, I can think of things (perhaps how to find an obscure entrance to a place) that require quite lengthy and complex pieces of text to describe with precision. Certainly, it is widely recognized that still images can be worth their proverbial 1k words on this site. If so, couldn't well-crafted videos (somehow) be worth multiples of that value? Maybe now is not the time, but it might be the sort of thing that can be done too late, given that other resources competing for the minds of us short-attention-spanned people. Someone, somewhere, is making high-quality videos, and I suspect that sooner or later, there will emerge popular and useful quality videos. Not that this site has to be the only resource of its kind, but I think that all of us who appreciate it like to see those impressive stats. --Jreynolds2Talk 06:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Site Ranking

Just wanted to say that as of 30 December 2011, has a global ranking of 3,838 and a U.S. ranking of 1,276.
Also of interest: this website's usage has gone up 12% over the last week, 20% over the last month, and 273% over the last three months.
Source: [1] Jak Atackka 23:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for main page

I can't find a template on this wiki for an edit request, so here it goes. On the discussion page of the main page, it says to direct comments here.

Can we please change "info" to "information" in "Please see our main Skyrim page for the latest info on the game." under the heading "Latest News".

I know it's a little request, but without being able to edit this is the only way to go about it. Needless to say it is in the wiki's interest to ensure the website is presented professionally. Atr 23:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that GuildKnight did this on January 2. Robin Hoodtalk 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Something to make you smile (hopefully)

Just thought I'd stop by to share something that made me smile today. The UESP Wiki is a clear favourite over at the Beth Forums, which is just one more little thing for everyone here to be proud of. There's still a lot that needs to be done for Skyrim, but I guess it's important to step back and remember to keep up the outstanding work :D --OblivionDuruza 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NPCs - Dead or Alive?

I was chatting with User:Thuraya Salaris this evening on the IRC. While doing NPC images from Helgen, he ran into a problem and asked if we wanted to depict deceased NPCs "dead or alive". We have the basic rule that if the NPC is found dead, he/she should be depicted as dead – but question is, what if you see the NPC in the introductory animation (when you are driving into Helgen on the wagon) and the NPC gets killed by the dragon before you ever gain control over your character? In the end, I recommended him to upload two different images, just as an example. Here is Torolf alive and dead. So – do we want images of living NPCs as seen in animations – or do we want the dead versions we can interact with? --Krusty 22:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your stance, but I would add that I think the one we see first (presumably the living NPC in most or all cases) should be the one we display first. Robin Hoodtalk 23:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess it's something we could consider on a case-by-case basic. I agree with RobinHood though. Images of dead NPCs tend to look a little... dead. Might it be a good idea to take an image of the NPC as you would them during the intro? I recall a few NPCs leaning on railings and such. --Timenn-<talk> 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There are quite a few examples of this situation with Helgen. Screen captures will result in pictures with more than one npc due to their location in the opening sequence. I have been able to circumvent this by using the console to unlock my controls. Furthermore, any natural screenshot of npc's will result in them being much farther away than desirable. The example that krusty provided is an example of me using this technique to attain a better screen capture.Thuraya Salaris 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should these pages get deleted?

[2] (won't post a [[Category:...]] link). I'm looking over my Skyrim map with all of the locations marked on it, and I don't see a single one of these anywhere. Do they even exist? Jak Atackka 07:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of those places probably can't be visited ingame. But I don't think that there is a pressing issue to get rid of them right now, we might still discover that one or the other is the name of a dungeon that can be accessed (without having a map-marker). --Alfwyn 11:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking closer at them, they are all map markers for a cell named "Warehouse Map Markers". One of those "Skyrim:Riverwatch" was already deleted, another of those (0x000f5fde) happens to share the name with a real location (Skyrim:Reachwind Eyrie). But all the places found in that category now, may indeed be a left-over from a developing phase. --Alfwyn 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of them also look like misnamed versions of actual Skyrim locations. Chris3145 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no point deleting them just because we don't know what they are yet. If they are unused cells, they'll probably get mentioned on a Skyrim:Test Cells article at some point. I don't see why that "Riverwatch" page was deleted. For now, it's best to leave them be. They'll all probably get recreated at some point as a redirect (although perhaps not, if some of them share the name with an in-game location). --Legoless 01:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On the "misnamed" comment, no: those values came direct from the game files, so they're all "correct".
The main priority on 11/11/11 was getting pages created, and I had a tiny amount of time to decide what was a valid page and what wasn't. I know I missed some - Nephele got her bot to create the ones I missed - but I also created some that may need deleting or redirecting. If, and it seems likely, these turn out to be test cells, then we can redirect the whole lot to one central page. rpeh •TCE 01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The seemed like game data locations that were either renamed or removed before release. I don't think we need separate pages for them anymore, unless it's possible for a player to console themselves there and they turn out to be actual locations with content that are just inaccessible. If they don't go anywhere I think we can get the rid of the individual pages and just list these on a single page. If it turns out that one of them actually is in the game, we can re add them. Chris3145 03:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

() I don't know that there's any pressing need to do anything with them at the moment, but if we do, I'd favour rpeh's suggestion of turning them into redirects to a central Test Cells page or something similar. This ensures that if we're wrong, anybody searching for them gets some result, and one would hope that they'll bring it up either here or on the Test Cells talk page. Robin Hoodtalk 03:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Great Bug Jar Conspiracy

Those of you who prowl Reddit have probably come across this story before: [3]. I've checked myself, and those etchings are on the bottom of the lids to each bug jar, and I'm pretty sure that they do translate into what is said on the main comment. My question: are the bug jars referenced anywhere within the game files besides where they are placed? I'm on the 360, so I can't pick at the files quite like you veterans out there. And no, I'm not a crackpot theorist, but the connection is very interesting. Jak Atackka 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nonsense. The jars serve no purpose besides decoration. --AKB Talk Cont Mail
The jars all have editor IDs that start with 'dunUnique'. However, there is no quest or other item with a similar editor ID. In particular the official game guide is wrong when it says that there is a quest named 'Captured Critters' related to these jars. There is no such quest. Furthermore, my standard searches don't find any reference to the jars anywhere else in the game data -- they are not used in quest variables, they are not included in any leveled lists or fixed lists. --NepheleTalk 19:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the responses! I suspected that might be the case. I still wonder why there are runes from a proto-Germanic language etched into the lids. Maybe it's just an Easter egg? Jak Atackka 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Initials of Bethesda artists? It wouldn't be the first time an Easter Egg like that were put in a game. Chris3145 17:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Loading Screen Text

Is there a file that contains the loading screen texts? Specifically, I'm looking for the one that says that says Throat of the World is the highest mountain in Tamriel. Chris3145 18:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

They are all provided in LCSR records in the game data. The one you mention is:
The highest mountain in all of Tamriel is Skyrim's Throat of the World. The reclusive Greybeards live near the top, in the ancient monastery of High Hrothgar.
--NepheleTalk 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the loading screen text be saved under Skyrim:Loading Screens or something similar? I imagine a bot could perform this task. Jak Atackka 05:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Putting up the text could easily be done by hand. However, I can't see anything about the corresponding model and cells for each loading screen from my limited access to the game data. Maybe someone with more knowledge will get around to putting a page up. --Legoless 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it's worth anything, but it appears that every model has a series of associated keywords, as do the actual loading screen texts. When it cycles, the game searches for either another LST under the first chosen keyword, chooses another keyword associated with the object, or chooses another keyword associated with the LST; it then takes a new LST with that keyword. Whatever list is chosen has a "Generic" tag or something similar, which is why a model of the Mace of Molag Bal can then start talking about the basics of Alchemy. ?• JATalk 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Quest Item Redirects

See UESPWiki:Community Portal/Quest Item Redirects

No Attribution

Website UGO used the wiki's image of Camilla Valerius without credit, and some of the other images may be ours as well. Seeing as the official Elder Scrolls Twitter account was spreading this article around, it's probably worth contacting them. I know there was an issue like this before with a couple other sites, but I can't find them in the archives... --Legoless 22:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed the author to ask for credit on that image and the Ghorza gra-Bagol one, which is also ours - I took that one. Last time this happened the author was very happy to give the correct credit. I hope that the same is true this time. rpeh •TCE 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Those two are now credited to us. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I got a nice reply from Sal to let me know but I've been away and couldn't post until now. It's good to see these sites being so willing to give credit where it's due. rpeh •TCE 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
...although I notice they've actually switched to different images now. Well it's their loss. rpeh •TCE 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a Second Opinion

This doesn't need any great consensus or anything, but I'd like a second opinion before I do anything. Minor Edits brought up the question of what to do with the red links in Skyrim:The Firmament. My first instinct was to unlink them in Skyrim space, but he suggested creating redirects for them to Skyrim:Standing Stone, as has already been done with Skyrim:The Atronach, which I think also makes a lot of sense. Does anybody else have an opinion? Robin Hoodtalk 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think redirects would work. I'm sure people have searched for them, so it covers both tracks. elliot (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point. We'll go with that, then. I'm in the middle of patrolling a whole whack of stuff right now, so if you feel like doing it, go nuts. If not, I'll get to it when I'm done. Thanks for the second opinion. Robin Hoodtalk 05:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree redirect to standing stones is great. Information other than about standing stones would be pretty irrelevant to someone playing Skyrim.Thuraya Salaris 05:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A full set of redirects already exists -- using the names of the stones, e.g., SR:The Warrior Stone. --NepheleTalk 06:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice your reply before I started, so I've already finished. This has the advantage that we don't have to alter the Lore page, I guess, and it'll provide a redirect for anyone who only searches on "The Lady", but we can switch it around if there's need. Robin Hoodtalk 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

() Reply to Nephele: Those ones now are place pages. That was a really stupid idea I had. I'm also going to redirect the new redirects to the old redirects. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Active discussions

We need to archive some of the discussions on this page. It's getting extremely long, and my internet connection strains more and more with every addition to it. Also, at the top of this page, there is a table that's supposed to cover all of the active discussions. Nobody's been maintaining this, and I don't think anybody's been using it. It doesn't have to be dealt with right now, but archiving some of the discussions on this page is probably a good idea. Plus, it's 2012, so that gives an excuse to archive last year's discussions. Jak Atackka 23:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, but anyone can archive any page (except User talk pages) --kiz talkemail 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
While that's true, historically the Community Portal has often had important discussions separated out into their own articles, so it's a bit more of a process (see the last section of UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archives). It looks like we haven't done that in quite some time, but that could well just be because there were no terribly important discussions with Oblivion winding down. Personally, I've never cared for the system, as I think it over-complicates things, but I can also see the benefit. Given the volume of edits to this page and to the wiki in general right now, I'd suggest we just do straight archiving for now, as Kiz has been done, and if anybody feels the need to separate out the major discussions, we can always do that later on. Robin Hoodtalk 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Using the WGT to destroy Nirn

(Moved from Lore_talk:White-Gold Tower)

Upon reading This text (letter 8) (compounded with in-game evidence, but this was the most convenient to link to) it seems that the WGT can be used to the opposite effect than is stated in the article - Instead of stabilizing Nirn, like what i presume the other towers do, this one could also be used to destroy it (which is the Talmor's end goal after "destroying" Talos (i think)), and yet this is never even alluded to in the article. Am i completely incorrect in my assumptions, or has it just not been added to the page yet? — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 01:15 on December 29, 2011

I don't know. I'm not sure whether we can consider those letters canon. Minor Edits 03:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the text is not found in-game, and since I find no indication that the developers consider this official text, I am going to vote that it is not worth being added to the page. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 15:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That's more or less what we were told in a fan interview back in 2006:
"30. How will the books and texts released after Morrowind (e.g. Vehk's Teachings) and the teasers and reports before Oblivion (e.g. Nu-Mantia Intercept, Love Letter from the Fifth Era, etc.) be folded into the official lore and will this lore appear in-game? ...
Remember that only things that have been published in Elder Scrolls games should be considered official lore."
That being said, many other pages cite to other material on the Imperial Library, so we've evidently not decided to follow that guideline. TIL material seems to exist in a nebulous gray zone where what can be cited is decided on a case-by-case basis. Three other pages cite to the Nu-Mantia intercept: Lore:Aldmeris, Lore:Mundus, and Lore:Heart of Lorkhan, so we might want to take this to the CP. Minor Edits 16:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

() I forgot to check talk pages; it seems like this has been discussed before, notably here. But the discussion is very long and I'm very tired, so instead of combing through that wall of text, I'm copping out and going to sleep. Minor Edits 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this section here, per ME's suggestion, to get some other editors' opinions. What are the policies on citing non-canon sources like Nu-Mantia and Love Letter? ESQuestion?EmailContribs 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've read the discussion (I had a lot of time to kill) and there really was no consensus. There were basically three viewpoints: Sload's, Gaebrial's, and Ratwar's. Sload argued that all OOG (out of game) work is canon, besides original research. Gaebrial argued that OOG work does not have a place on this wiki. Ratway is a minor character in this play (or farce at some points), but his suggestion was that OOG work by developers is canon, and OOG work by people who aren't working on TES anymore (Kirkbride, etc) are somewhat canon, in the sense that they should only be cited if they are relevant. This was never resolved, as far as I can tell. There were periods where it seemed like it was on the verge of being resolved, then someone would throw a wrench in the works and refuse to help. The debate ended when everyone gave up. That, at least, is what I can tell; people who were a part of the actual discussion could tell you better.
I personally agree with Ratwar's suggestion, however I don't want to start another war. In my personal opinion, the people that helped create the Elder Scrolls universe are still an integral part of it, even if they aren't physically developing the game at this time. However, their material isn't in the game, so it has less precedence over IG material. To answer your question, if this was what we decided on, then yes, I'd keep it in as a side note (e.g. "It is speculated that the Thalmor have plans that reach beyond world domination; for more info click here." ~ Jak AtackkaTalk 23:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There's usually no reason not to document out-of-game material. It's all relevant to the respective articles, and ES lore is so contradicting that it doesn't really make a difference to have another, slightly less official viewpoint thrown in. Many of the "obscure texts" help explain several of the odd discrepancies in lore, although at the cost of raising new ones and causing further contradictions. I'm all for the developer writings, to the extent that I'd support hosting them on the wiki (if that's even possible). In reference to the Thalmor's scheme, I'm sure I've read in-game that they want to destroy Mundus, and in Lord of Souls, Umbra wanted to use White-Gold for his own means. I haven't read those letters, but if they say something about the tower's capabilities then it should probably get added to the article. --Legoless 23:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, finished reading. They really said everything there is to say already. But if what the page says is accurate and no policy has ever been agreed upon in the last three years, I think it's about time we pick a horse. I endorse Nephele's "Proposed Guidelines" for OOG in their entirety; they seem best-tailored to channeling relevant and credible information to users in an appropriate fashion, and they best reflect how the site generally operates anyways. Minor Edits 05:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am satisfied with Nephele's suggestions, too. For whoever is interested, they can be found right here. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 06:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with Rpeh's notion that out-of-game material written by developers while they were with Bethesda was probably excluded for a reason, I can also understand the parallel argument that they probably just couldn't include everything, so the excluded material may well be perfectly relevant. So in the interests of picking a horse, to use Minor Edits' wording, I concur with the idea that we simply adopt Nephele's proposed guidelines. Robin Hoodtalk 06:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this has started up again - the system we've been using has been fine. Anything from a sensible source can be included as long as there's a reference (ie, yes to forum posts from developers but no to fanfic). Any out of game material must be marked with {{OOG}}. See Lore:Firsthold for an example of the template in use. Additionally, articles should at least start with wholly in-game material wherever possible. The vast majority of people are here for game-related material (I can't prove that statement, but unless people want to believe the server crashed under the load of people coming for extra lore I think it's fair enough). If we start putting in too much OOG material it's going to confuse people - see this talk page discussion for total confusion on the part of a gamer and a total inability of other posters to get the point. I say "wherever possible" because some important information exists only out of game - the name of Uriel Septim VII's probable mother for one (see here). rpeh •TCE 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I can see the point rpeh is making. I don't really like the idea of imposing guidelines on this matter. Most of the out-of-game references (in fact, most lore pages) have to be handled on a case-by-case basis (to quote Minor Edits above). "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Legoless 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
To Rpeh: Long story short, it started up again because I was confused. There's going to be some consternation one way or the other, but I think overall there will be less if editors have an established policy to follow. Currently, the only way to figure out the appropriate sources for lore articles and how to cite them is through extensive browsing and use of the lore namespace; having actual guidelines to follow reduces the learning curve and makes editors more efficient. I think the use of the OOG template was started after Nephele made those proposed guidelines, in which case, they should be updated to note its use. I didn't mean to suggest ending the OOG template; on the contrary, I think it is crucial (as I propounded in a long comment I deleted). Also, I think the proposed guidelines do effectively maintain that articles should start with wholly in-game material wherever possible, as OOG materials would be essentially barred on list pages and they make explicit that they are only meant to supplement in-game material. Finally, while it's possible that making guidelines may lead to an increase in OOG citations, vociferous and ardent talk page opposition to OOG additions which are irrelevant/unnecessary/untrustworthy will curtail negative affects on the pages. I agree that the system we've been using has been great, that's why I want to codify it, so new(er) users can quickly figure out how it works and questions like the one above can be easily addressed. The part I don't like is that only a handful of people know what that system is. The goal's not to change anything, but to provide clarity.
To Legoless: Yes, that's essentially what the proposed guidelines do, though: allow for decision on a case by case basis. The guidelines promote case-by-case decision-making via talk page consensus. Minor Edits 20:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
We do have policy - or at least, an unofficial way of doing it. It came out of a followup discussion that can be found here. rpeh •TCE 06:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

() Well, I skimmed it briefly and I, personally am satisfied. Thanks for bringing that up, rpeh. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 06:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The UESPWiki Lore page ends with "This article summarizes the guidelines that are specific to the Lore namespace." It has been stubbed, waiting to be filled in, for over three years. I have no problems with the "unofficial system" we've been using, I'm just saying that being unofficial does not seem to be a crucial part of it. If the problem is merely that no has drafted exact language, I can start working in a sandbox right now, and bring measures back here for a vote, one at a time if I have to. Minor Edits 06:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've finished a first draft of how I think the UESPWiki Lore page should look. I went beyond OOG; might as well get the whole job done. It's overdue. Don't mind that table of contents; it's fairly concise in my opinion. The comments at the bottom may address some initial concerns. If anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears. Minor Edits 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks solid to me. And I earned a new word, Amalgam. So you definitely did accomplish something lol. But back to the point, Its a pretty thorough and well thought out guideline. I am in favor of it. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 06:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects on UESPWiki

Hi. I've noticed that UESPWiki has rather few redirect pages. As one example, I'd imagine there should be a redirect from Skyrim:Dragons to Skyrim:Dragon, as the former seems like a very likely thing that people would look for. I've noticed dozens of other similar cases too, since I usually just type the URL of the page I'm looking for instead of using the search. On Wikipedia for example, redirects from plurals, alternate titles and spellings are regularly used. Why not here? Will someone yell at me if I start creating those? :) -- 13:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

To me the disadvantage to creating too many redirects is the additional maintenance overhead if the target changes (better no redirect than a redirect pointing to the wrong page). Having only a few names for a page helps normalizing the spelling too, since other spellings will show up as red links. --Alfwyn 13:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Redirects for plurals are completely unnecessary. If you just type "dragons" into the search bar, you will automatically be taken to Skyrim:Dragon. (Unless you're currently in Lore namespace in which case you get Lore:Dragons.) The search tool is smart enough to figure out the difference between singular and plural in most cases, so there's no need for redirects. --TheRealLurlock Talk 14:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I disagree with some of those reasons. Redirects make things easier to find, and the MediaWiki software is quite good at handling them (for example, redirects can be automatically tracked and "double redirects" [redirects that lead to another redirect after a page is renamed] can be automatically found and fixed). I'm sure I'm not the only UESP reader who prefers going straight to rather than than the correct namespace first, then search (searching for "Dragons" from the main page for example leads to the Lore page, not the Skyrim page. You have to already be in the Skyrim namespace to get to Skyrim:Dragons via the "Dragons" search string). In addition to making things easier to find, redirects can also help with avoiding the creation of duplicate articles on the same topic. Thanks for the quick responses, though. -- 15:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I just tried, and for me, searching "dragons" from the main page goes to the Skyrim page, not Lore. I only get the Lore page if I'm in Lore namespace. From other game-spaces, I get a search results page, the first link being the Skyrim page in every case. It's not at all hard to find the page. And even if you ended up on the wrong one somehow, there's almost always a link to any other likely pages. I don't know why you'd prefer to type out the URL rather than use the search tool - it's more typing and less likely to find the right page. I'm pretty sure there was a discussion years ago about adding redirects for plurals, and the general consensus was that it wasn't necessary, since the search tool is generally good enough. --TheRealLurlock Talk 15:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Which namespaces are searched is based on your preferences. I'm guessing, TRL, that you don't have Lore selected there. An anonymous user, however, has no preferences, and Lore space takes precedence over Skyrim in a search because it has an exact match for the page name rather than the singular. Robin Hoodtalk 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's easier to click Search (instead of Go) than it is to create a multitude of redirects. elliot (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it - but also is another good reason why such redirects are unnecessary. If you don't want to search Lore (or whatever), you can easily change the settings so that it isn't searched. True, this may not work for anonymous users, but what can you do? If you want better search capabilities (among other things), you should just create an account. It's free and easy to do so, so there's really no reason not to. --TheRealLurlock Talk 04:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Spell effect icons on Skyrim pages

We're currently using Oblivion's icons on Skyrim spell effect pages (see SR: Fire Damage). I think we should look to something from Skyrim to replace those. Currently, the best idea I have is to use the icon for Skyrim's spell school instead (Example). It doesn't have the benefit of a unique image for each effect, but I think it's better than Oblivion icons. Chris3145 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think having different distinguishable icons is more important than having icons that are from a different game. Otherwise, there's no point in having icons at all. (If they're all going to be the same, we'd be better off with no icons.) Of course, ideally, we'd have the actual Skyrim icons on there, and eventually we probably will, but it's more difficult since they're animated and have transparency, which makes extracting them from the game far more difficult. Likely when the construction kit finally comes out, we may have access to the original image files, as we did with Morrowind and Oblivion. And there are people at work trying to get reasonable facsimiles before that happens. Until then, we can live with the Oblivion icons rather than replace them all with identical graphics (only to be forced to change them all again later). --TheRealLurlock Talk 05:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant the icon for that spell school. Destruction spells would get the destruction icon, conjuration spells get that icon, etc., so it's not like every single spell would have the same icon. I also completely forgot about the discussion a few sections up (that I contributed too a little bit, even), so I'll move any further discussion up there. Chris3145 08:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim: Ingredients (should we include monster locations?)

For many of the Ingredient pages, we list guaranteed locations for the ingredients. Should we list locations of, say, Wispmothers, or Saber Cats? It would prove useful to some people, since some enemies have guaranteed spawn points. --Minimang 19:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have traditionally posted that information, because you can find creatures like sabre cats and wolves everywhere. So it would be impractical to list every location of wildlife. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, unless you are guaranteed a sample on that creature at that location, it's not noteworthy because theres a chance on most creatures that you won't get something. --kiz talkemail 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we include this information for Oblivion. See this page for an example. Eventually, it would be a good idea to have it for Skyrim as well. --Legoless 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be unwise to not include this information. Adding the parameter |creature= will add it to the template, so it should be added and as quickly as possible. elliot (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What does that mean though? Add that parameter... to what? And adding it to the template would accomplish what? (Sorry, I've yet to understand the intricacies of UESP). --Minimang 04:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
They mean the summary of information that appears at the top-right corner of the page. It's the stuff between the {{ }} brackets at the top of the page, if you open up an edit window in the example Legoless offered. You'll see one line begins with "|creature=[[Oblivion:Deer|Deer]]". This makes it so that the summary on the page will include deer and link to an entry about deer. You'll probably want to take a look at the help files.Minor Edits 04:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The |creature= parameter has already been filled in for all of the ingredients (unless I overlooked any when I was expanding the pages), and specifies the name of the creature that drops that ingredient. However, only the creature name belongs in the Ingredient Summary box. Details on where those creatures appear needs to be added as a separate section of the article, as on the Oblivion pages. That information will eventually be auto-generated from the game data, but it's a lot more complex than than the plant information, mainly because leveled lists mean that creatures are not generally guaranteed to occur in the same locations at all levels. --NepheleTalk 05:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Artifact Images

Hey everybody. We’ve been experimenting with a way to display SR artifacts in a consistent manner (something we never really achieved 100% in OB namespace) and my first thought was the usual fancy alpha channel-stuff – but since it is incredibly hard to make the items “glow” on our trademark yellow background, Thuraya Salaris came up with a good idea – and a surprising usage of the secret chamber in Markarth’s Hall of the Dead. The dark, dreadful background makes the images stand out better, so we decided to upload each and every weapon on the artifacts page using that same layout. At this time, I think this is the best solution , and we can always change it later. Hope everyone agrees. --Krusty 08:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the picture of the Mace of Molag Bal is an example, then I definitely support this - at least until we get a hold of the Construction Set. Is there any chance of incorporating the images into the table itself? Either that or create individual articles for each weapon with HQ images; either way works. ?• JATalk 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed. The others are up as well now so take a look at them as well!Thuraya Salaris 09:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
They're a little dark in my opinion. Some brightness/contrast adjustments would make them stand out a lot better. I find that any shots straight out of the games tend to be too dark when placed on the site, so some balancing is generally needed. --TheRealLurlock Talk 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Lore Guidelines Proposal

Per the CP discussion "Using the WGT to destroy Nirn", I would like to propose these guidelines be added to the UESPWiki:Lore page (excluding the comments at the bottom). I believe they fulfill all the purposes outlined on the Policies and Guidelines page and will prove helpful for those needing guidance on how the lore namespace operates.

For those who can't be bothered to read them, I'll sum up: they're a restatement of the policies lore editors have generally been following pursuant to numerous suggestions and proposals over the years. They're a reflection of how the lore space has been informally operating for quite some time (along with some relatively newer policies, but probably nothing that you don't already know if you're reading the CP). I think the lore namespace is set up great, but it needs plenty of work, and these guidelines are meant to facilitate productive contributions to the lore namespace to remedy that.

For those who may think guidelines are inherently some sort of hazard, the real hazard is not providing an overview for newer users. As a relatively new user, let me tell you: policies in lore are not always as self-evident as they may seem to UESP vets (especially to those who helped make the policies). Summarizing relevant guidelines on one page will greatly help reduce the learning curve for new contributors. Further, the guidelines will likely prove helpful for those who may wish to utilize them for talk page discussions. Having a neutral backdrop from which to approach certain subjects which can be easily found, referenced, and linked to can help curtail unnecessary discussions and assist necessary ones.

For those who may think the proposals miss or misaddress some relevant topic(s), I'd love to hear about it and address whatever I can. They're always open to revision or supplementation in the future should they prove acceptable. Minor Edits 08:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant to comment on this in the previous topic, but I think starting a new one was a good idea, just to make sure we're all paying attention. :) While I don't edit Lore very much—never had much of a head for history—the proposed guidelines look good to me. The fact that we found several discussions about the guidelines on talk pages in the previous discussion—but no codified guidelines on any article pages—tells me that this is exactly the sort of thing we need. Robin Hoodtalk 09:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just added a template which is relevant to this - Template:LetterPic, which is used to produce a fancy letter in books depending on namespace. You might want to mention it in the article in the section where you discuss these, as it's now much easier to do this. I didn't want to change your article because it's in your sandbox, but thought this might be of use to you. --TheRealLurlock Talk 14:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I really like the proposal and think it is important to have some written down guidelines. Some will actually read them, and one can refer people to it in discussions/edit comments without the need to start from ground every time or appear as making up rules on the fly. --Alfwyn 15:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Those seem to pretty much sum up what we're doing so I'd support them being turned into an official policy. rpeh •TCE 06:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Would a formal vote on the UESPWiki Lore talk page be necessary, or can positive reception here eventually suffice for promulgation? Minor Edits 08:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

() At this point, my plan is to add these to the UESP Lore article as proposed guidelines, and further review and/or voting can be done on the talk page there. This will technically devalue the couple of paragraphs that are currently on the UESP Lore page, but I don't think that will pose a problem since it merely would be a temporary, partial inaccuracy in the categorization of the page and we would all be aware of that. If there are no objections...? Minor Edits 11:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

LetterPic template

Discussion moved to UESPWiki:Community Portal/Templates#LetterPic template


More by accident than anything, I ended up moving a couple of articles over to UESPWiki:Archive before realizing that they were still listed under Major Discussions. Maybe it's just me, but I find the system of having some Community Portal discussions as subpages of this one and some as subpages of UESPWiki:Archive a little confusing. I mean, are we really trying to encourage users to comment on discussions that several years old just because nobody's gotten around to tagging them as "resolved" or whatever (see the intro to the Major Discussions section)?

Before I go any further with moving those to Archive subpages, though, I wanted to solicit feedback on a) why we have the split system (yes, I'm a site old-timer and you might think I should know, but I was much less active the first few years), and b) what we want to do with these discussions that are nominally still open for someone to comment on them sometimes five or six years after the last comment was made.

For the time being, I've created a new section in the CP Archives page to note important discussions that I've moved to Archive subpages, but honestly, I think we should probably move every last one of the pages currently listed under "Major Discussions" to Archive subpages and protect them according to current archiving policy. If people really want to bring up a discussion that's several years old, they should probably just start a whole new discussion and reference the old one if necessary. Similarly, with larger current discussions, once they're resolved, I think they should be archived (either by topic or just straight chronological archiving), not left as "Major Discussions" to linger for years, potentially being reopened.

On the flip side, with all the other work going on, I'm happy to just undo what I've done and save this for a later time if people want, but since a couple of CP discussions have recently been moved to subpages, which may well fall into the above process eventually, I figure it might be an important issue soon enough. Robin Hoodtalk 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll start by saying this. The UESPWiki:Archive/CP Discussion is the absolute worst way to go about this. If you are going to archive something, you put it as a subpage (that's how it is for every single talk page). I'm a pretty big user of Special:PrefixIndex, and keeping them as subpages would keep everything organized.
Also, as can be seen by my earlier dilemma, it makes any type of maintenance/organization that much more difficult. Discussions can be listed as a Major Discussion, but with the resolved parameter. It's still important to distinguish such discussions even after they have finished.
Now, I am not sure it is imperative to archive each individual discussion. Some are minor, and don't really need to be categorized as anything major. Discussions that concern policy, precedence, or nominations need to be classified as major (it's a pretty easy concept to decide on). And as always, they should be closed from editing after the discussion ends. elliot (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That was the other thing I meant to bring up was whether it made more sense to keep everything as subpages of the relevant page rather than a generic one (sorry, bad CFS day, not thinking very clearly today). I definitely think that's the better approach in the end. If that's what we decide, I'm quite willing to work on moving all the UESPWiki:Archive pages back under their respective parent pages, though perhaps change the naming scheme to something like "Community Portal/MD <title>" or "Community Portal/Archive <title>". (Given the volume, one of the bots might be better-suited...preferably not mine, which I'm trying to suspend development on for the time being unless absolutely essential.) Robin Hoodtalk 01:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be best to go ahead and do that. I don't think having MD or anything like that in the title would help, since we can differentiate the discussion by categories. Plus, the unnecessary space makes things more difficult than it really should be. If we want to do something such as UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive/Quest Item Pages or UESPWiki:Community Portal/Major Discussion/Quest Item Pages. That would be better, make more sense, and be easier to navigate. elliot (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it would. I think I'm just gonna go do some patrolling now, cuz if I didn't think of that, I'm clearly having a bad enough day that I'm not good for much else right now. ;) (And hopefully I won't patrol vandalism as good edits and vice versa while I'm at it. :Þ) Robin Hoodtalk 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I will start the process of converting these within the next two days unless other editors wish to make an opinion/objection to it. elliot (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Skillbooks Template?

Anyone else feels the need for a template for skillbooks? Maybe something like {{Skillbook|Title|Skill}} to link a skillbook for the Skill ? Could render out as a link to the book, followed by an icon representing which skill it raises? Or an abbr element (showing the skill upon hover)? The Skill argument could even be dropped if we introduce the skill in the book header template and manage to grab it from there. Sorry if this was already discussed. Krag 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It already does this. If you look at King, you can see the book raises your two-handed skill. elliot (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if I was not clear, but I meant a template that would tell the reader what skill the book raises without having to go check the book page. I know the book pages already list the skill (where appropriate), but I still run into plenty of cases where people link the books AND spell out the skill... eg: "[...] and on a table you can find a copy of King, which raises your Two-handed skill by 1 [...]". I think people are trying to point out A) hey: this is a skillbook, and B) it raises skill X, both without requiring the reader to jump onto the book-specific page.. which I think has some merit (following a link to another page does break the flow a lot). Hope this clarifies what I was getting at. Krag 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that's too complicated. It's much simpler to just spell it out. Two-handed King
They all work and are better than templates. elliot (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So just to be clear, Krag, you're thinking of something like:
  • You'll find the skillbook King; or
  • You'll find King (SR-skill-Two-handed.png).
Are those about right? We'd have to do something about the hover-text vs. link problem in the first case...I think you only actually get the hover text if you're hovering right on the dotted line itself. Robin Hoodtalk 05:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, that's just too much going on. Keep in mind, we are still trying to write articles. elliot (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Robin Hood got it right, as far as what I was suggesting. I see the problem with the hover approach.. could bypass that problem by leveraging the anchor's title. I'm liking the icon alternative better at the moment. Anyway, I would probably come up with something in a Sandbox, but wanted to see if there was a pre-established reason for not having this sort of template, or if the community felt it was going to be counter-productive before diving into the details. I guess I find the current alternatives (see elliot list above) sub-par because they are wordy, require the editor to include the skill-related wording.. and seems to allow inconsistent presentation of the data. So.. gauging interest before I spend the time learning about writing templates.. how can we do that? BTW, thanks for your feedback so far! Krag 12:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical of the need of a template here. Also I think it is best to describe it in words, it doesn't disrupt the flow of the article like an image would do. This could of course be achieved with a template too. --Alfwyn 16:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm also against the proposal of having a template for that sort of thing. Like Elliot said, it's a lot simpler to just write it out. --Legoless 21:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks all. Sounds like there's isn't much interest in this. I appreciate the feedback and am ready to shelf this one :) Krag 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If it weren't for the fact that the icons are pretty much completely unreadable at that scale, I could see trying something like this, but as it is, I just don't think it works. --TheRealLurlock Talk 06:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

() That was my general thought as well, but I wanted to be sure that I was imagining the same sort of thing that Krag was describing first. Robin Hoodtalk 06:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the icons are illegible at that size, plus they break up the flow of whatever section it's in. What about these:
  • " you will find the Skill Book King (Two-handed) resting on..."
  • " you will find the Skill Book King (2H) resting on..."
The template could be {{Skill Book|King}} or even just {{sb|King}} I'm not sure that a template is necessary, but if we had one I imagine it would be something simple like that. ?• JATalk 10:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Text-based (instead of icon-based) works for me. What about including +1 in the parenthesis? "...find a copy of {{SkillBook|King}}..." could generate either:
For the records, I find this sort of format (template-driven) less disrupting of the flow than the free-form currently available because at least I always find the same type of information presented in a consistent form - but I won't pretend to be an expert, by any means. Krag 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
For finding information in consistent form, there are usually infoboxes. The {{Place Summary}} has a treasure parameter. I think in that context a skill icon next to the book would be useful. The icon itself can be made more recognizable by removing the added border and such. I just can't find many pages using the treasure parameter. --Alfwyn 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We really don't need a template for this. We want to be able to provide variations with the information, which definitely makes for better reading. Now, I wouldn't necessarily be against including a skill icon in {{Place Summary}}, but I still think that is unnecessary, since you can just click the link to find the information. elliot (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Place Link template

Okay, so I've added a feature to the Template:Place Link template (currently sitting at Template:Sandbox), which adds the ability to add a "(quest related)" note after the link, which links to the quest. I've tested it at Morrowind:Sandbox and it works with or without the added parameter. (I also tried it in Oblivion and Skyrim, but just previewed, so I know it works.) The idea is to get rid of the mysterious "(quest related)" notes in the place descriptions, and make it so that you can see which quest it's talking about without necessarily going to the page. It could probably use some tweaking by people whose templating skills are less rusty, for instance being able to support places with multiple quests - I'm not sure how to work that out. Possibly it could just redirect to the place list on the given page. Fortunately, there aren't that many of these cases. I wanted to submit this for review before going further with it, as this template is used all over the place and could have a major impact. An alternative solution would be to incorporate these links into the descriptions themselves rather than altering the template. Any opinions? --TheRealLurlock Talk 15:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead with the template, I set it up in my sandbox 4 to utilize the #save and #load functions. User:Elliot/Sandbox/1 contains the Place, User:Elliot/Sandbox/2 has the Place Link, and User:Elliot/Sandbox/3 has the Quest Link template in it. This way, we can set them all up without having to edit the wiki endlessly. Now, if you have two different quests, it will pull the last one, as that is how save works. That may cause a small problem but nothing too bad. elliot (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This might work with MW and OB (plus extensions) but I don't see how it fits with SR's Radiant system. There are some dungeons that can be the target of multiple quests, which would break this from day one. Given that the description for a location is already user-generated, it'd make more sense to introduce a standard that the "quest-related" part be made a link, or stated as "related to multiple quests" where appropriate. rpeh •TCE 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I really don't know how to do anything like that with Metatemplate, but we could set up a parameter such as |multiple=, and if it exists we can then link to the quest page instead. Or, we could try to incorporate a radiant option in {{Quest Header}} and pull that information into {{Place Link}} to make it show as (radiant) instead of (quest-related). elliot (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NPCs for The Dark Brotherhood Forever

SR: The Dark Brotherhood Forever is a radiant quest which assigns one of ten contract givers. The contract giver then assigns one of ten possible victims. The NPCs used as contract givers and victims do not appear ingame unless they are filling a slot for this quest. My question: Do we need 10 nearly identical pages for victims and 10 nearly identical pages for contract givers, or can we have one page for each category like this example that I've started? Coldhearted Gravedigger, can be either a victim or a contract giver, but I don't see any possible complications aside from that. Chris3145 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have individual pages. It's not important to have a crazy load of information on them, rather it is important to have all relevant information on them. I don't think that we should worry about small pages (plus once we have the SRNPCRP, it will probably be expanded). elliot (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Elliot is correct. While I like your Sandbox work, it is much better to keep them at separate pages. Once we start adding inventories and all that, they may not seem so similar anymore - and since all of the victims has a unique line of dialogue, it will all be expanded later on. --Krusty 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 27 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 29