Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 42

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.

Talk page policy

Tl,dr. Short version:

1. No more suspending talk page policy after a new game is released.

2. We should be deleting old forum-like topics when we find them.

1. When Skyrim rolled around, the decision was made (not sure when or by who) to relax policy for a while when patrolling talk pages, resulting in quite a few additional forum topics on the talk pages. With ESO coming up, I want to preemptively bring up my opposition to doing this again. While relaxing the standards is a temporary convenience, the results are permanent annoyances, and in my opinion, our baseline is pretty relaxed to begin with.

I think most if not all regular contributors here understand implicitly that what constitutes an appropriate talk page discussion varies with circumstance. Unproductive talk page topics eventually become like pornography; you know it when you see it. Obviously, some talk page inquiries about the subject matter are going to have the potential to elucidate for collaborators on the article some important facet of the subject, and a better understanding of the subject will ultimately translate into a better article. Other topics will be asking about our favorite races or some **** like that. We don't have to tolerate one for the sake of the other, no matter how busy the site gets.

2. Besides opposing any more temporary free-for-alls on the talk pages, I think we should start removing older conversations which don't concern potential page alterations. Our tolerance for topics which show potential frequently doesn't pan out in the end. It eventually becomes self-evident that a conversation has withered on the vine, producing at best some additional forum-like replies, and the page is no better for it. In fact, you could argue the whole wiki is worse off for it, as people looking for forum-like conversations generally have a much easier time finding them in the forums, so when we give them the impression those kinds of conversations can be found here, nobody wins. Once something off-topic and forum-like gets a foothold on a talk page, it can fester for years. These types of conversations certainly must give some people the wrong impression about what kind of discussions are acceptable on talk pages, inevitably leading to more reversions and new contributors getting butt-hurt and swearing vengeance against us all.

Since it was the inspiration for this commentary, Lore_talk:Nirn#Laws_of_Physics_on_Nirn and its most recent addition should provide a good example. The topic probably should not have been allowed to remain on the page in the first place, but someone either decided to see what might come of it, or else it slipped under the radar. Regardless, it's picked up a couple off-topic replies over the course of six years and sets a bad example for newer contributors.

I guess we could archive them, if anyone insists, but I don't think the conversations I'm talking about have any intrinsic value which we might want to preserve. Which is precisely why I'm ranting to get rid of them. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:52, 27 February 2014 (GMT)

1. Actually, patrolling policy was relaxed across the board, not just for talk spaces. That was Nephele's proposal and was, I think, unanimously supported. The advice I was given when I became active again a month or two after that discussion was something to the effect of "if it's not spam, mark it patrolled". While I understand the intent, and would have even supported the proposal had I been active at the time, I think it comes from a position of "patrolling is a priority". Over the years, I've realized that patrolling isn't the be-all-and-end-all, however. Given that information may be difficult to patrol for ESO in any event, we may have to adopt some version of that policy on article pages for a while...I'll leave that to another discussion. There's no particular reason it has to apply to talk pages, though. If a talk page edit doesn't get patrolled, it doesn't get patrolled. If it's a forum-like topic and nobody notices, it's not the end of the world, and we can be fairly relaxed about it. After all, "hey, I had this happen to me" may be an indirect form of bug report that leads quickly to a {{Bug}} entry. If someone does notice a clearly forum-like topic, however, it should definitely be removed or redirected. I think redirection is the more appropriate choice for newbies, plus it leaves a record on the page so that people will see it in the future should they be tempted to post something forum-like. A repeat offender's forum-like posts, however, can probably just be removed with a statement to that effect.
For redirection, while we've already got a {{Forums}}, we could perhaps even create a simple text template, {{Forum Topic}} that says something to the effect of "This topic is better suited to our forums. Please continue this conversation there. Further discussion will be removed unless it pertains directly to improving the content on the page." Never mind, apparently we already have {{Closed Forum Topic}}, as Silencer mentions below.
One thing I do notice, however, is that we don't explicitly state that forum-like contributions should be redirected or removed. We should add that to the policy so that it's crystal clear. Some of the other wording near the beginning may need to be tweaked as well.
2. I think this has always been understood—I've removed old forum-like topics, and I know occasionally I've seen others do so as well—but like the first point, it needs to be stated clearly in the policy so that there's no doubt that this is acceptable behaviour. Robin Hood  (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
I completely support removing forum-like posts from talk pages. But I do agree with RH that we should get a documented policy in place for both of these issues. --Nocte|Chat|Look 10:16, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm against removing old posts, it just doesn't sit well. I made the {{Closed Forum Topic}} template for exactly those situations where someone tries to revive an old topic that was closed down, as well as close topics that are current and drift off the original intent. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:16, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
I haven't been apart of this forums for more than a month, so I won't dare tell you guys how to run this wiki, but I do wish to share my humble opinion if I may. I came to start reading this wiki over the official wikia website several months ago because of the high standards and depth of information this wiki provides. You guys do a wonderful job of keeping things accurate and on point. That being said, given the example above, Lore_talk:Nirn#Laws_of_Physics_on_Nirn, I believe that posts like these offer no substance or information, and actually detract from these standards. As far as my opinion regarding deleting or leaving the post, I believe both have merits, but that removing the post does more to keep these standards in place. Again, I just wanted to impress upon you that it is these standards that draws new people to this page and it is these standards that keeps the casual user coming back, so when at all possible, I believe they should be maintained.--draagyn (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Fully support removing forum like posts on sight. Discussion about the specifics or mechanics of a power or weapon for example should be allowed. @Draagyn - the wikia is by no means official.--Jimeee (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm also opposed to removing old topics. In the end, forum-like posts do zero harm to the wiki, and while I don't care so much about removing new ones as they appear, deleting archived or old discussions is generally a Bad Thing. —Legoless (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Suggestion: make the "talkpages aren't forums" guideline more clear in the welcome message? That message would also benefit from a mention of this wiki's non-threaded talkpage reply indenting style.
Generally, deleting things without a trace from talkpages strikes me as an unusual policiy for a wiki to have, except in cases of spam/vandalism. It might make sense to just leave it, or to leave a notice template to mark the deletion. Then the discussion can still be found via the page history. --◄mendel► (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
Or perhaps a "talkpages aren't forums" notice on the talk pages themselves? Could a bot do this? Sorry--Beezer1029 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2014 (GMT)

() I agree with point 1, but not point 2. It's all well and good to remove forum-like posts, and certainly we need to maintain the standards that visitors and users have come to expect from us, but removing archived posts seems like bad form to me unless they're something serious like spam or illegal content (and how often do we miss that kind of thing anyway?). By our own rules, archives shouldn't be edited except in the case of minor maintenance, so if a forum post slips through the cracks and goes unnoticed for that long, it's kind of on us. We have a nice little template now, so I think all we need to do is be a little more careful before we mark something patrolled. ThuumofReason (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

I'm not suggesting we alter existing archives. My concern is the talk pages themselves, as for less-active talk pages (the vast majority), extremely old topics don't get archived, they just hang around, like the example at Lore talk:Nirn. The goal would be to ensure such conversations don't make it into a future archive to begin with. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:58, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
On a relevant note, despite a forthright notice on Skyrim talk:Rune people couldn't help themselves but speculate, so I archived early so that the notice was the only thing left on the page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:03, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

New Template

Hey guys, I had an idea for a new template today, {{AltText}}, and I think it'll be very useful, so I wanted to draw people's attention to it.

This text is on {{AltText|all|MW=only Morrowind|UESPWiki=only UESPWiki}} pages → This text is on only UESPWiki pages

As noted on the doc page, there may still be times when using a #switch will be easier, but I think this'll make most of the clunky #if stuff go away in Lore space. It might also be useful to rename or just plain move it, as I notice in actually typing out the examples that "AltText" is surprisingly difficult to type. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2014 (GMT)

If its a straight swap for the clunky #ifs then please add asap. A shortcut template at "If", and maybe "Switch" as a name, but the only real obstacle in templates is remembering where the capitals are in the name. I guess from the display that there are no limits to how many changes can be included. I have little understanding of what these things actually do, so why is it that "switch" is sometimes a better option? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:07, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
If it is two versions using one spelling, two another, one can abbreviate that with #switch: MW|OB=long_text1|SR|ON=long_text2. Anyway, even with a template like this, trying to keep all different versions of a text in one article that way becomes quickly cumbersome. I tried to update the ESO differences for Modern Heretics but gave up in the middle - the code just gets a jumble and really checking if all the spacing works out as intended in each namespace becomes a burden. For the differences, see here - often it is just a spelling switch, or changed punctuation, other times whole words or passages switched.
Ideally, I would like something like it is used in combining branches of software projects - have all the different plain texts of the version, then apply the linking changes to all those versions. --Alfwyn (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm not 100% sure what you mean, Alfwyn. Are you just talking about splitting all the pages out into their separate versions and have the Lore pages link to all of them? (And perhaps transclude the most recent or not transclude any of them at all?) Robin Hood  (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
Sorry, that was just me dreaming, not directly related to the template. I know, not possible with the current setup, but I would like to be able to automatically merge the link addition changes made by us, and the changes between games. In the current setup we have either to clutter the lore page with all the game changes, or just copy the text, but manually do all link changes to both pages. Most of the time the changes are few, but if not it may be better to just copy the text - and the situation will get worse with each new game.
Anyway, back to the template, a short name would be nice. But I don't think that "if" and "switch" are good names, those I would expect to work like the parser functions and not automatically take the namespace as value to act upon. No good idea there, things like "case" or "version" may work. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2014 (GMT)
"at" kind of gives the wrong impression. Maybe "nst" (namespace text)? Robin Hood  (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
If you want some added value, you could make the template more complicated and put the texts in a couple of <span> tags on lore that displays the default text with a dashed underline and the other versions as tooltip text that appears when you hover over the marked text. This requires some custom .css to make it work, but you'd be able to recognize and explore the different versions of the text on the lore page while transcluding the correct version in the corresponding game namespace. If anyone wants to see this in action, I could demo that in userspace using personal .css. --◄mendel► (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
I'm not sure how often that would actually be much of an added value. The vast majority of these book changes are simple spelling/grammar/capitalization corrections, and then another significant proportion would be too lengthy to display in a tooltip. We do have {{hover}} if there's a special case where we'd like to have a tooltip anyways. Robin Hood, thanks for this template; it really simplified the namespace switching stuff! Unfortunately I have no input on the naming issue, I'm rubbish as that sort of thing. -- Hargrimm(T) 06:30, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
Well, I had looked at Lore:The Battle of Red Mountain, and one difference there is
  • The following is a transcript of the words of Lord Vivec, addressed to a Dissident Priest, Malur Omayn, who confronted Vivec with the Ashlander traditions surrounding the Battle of Red Mountain and with prophecies of the Nerevarine, and to unnamed magistrates of the Inquisition who joined Vivec in interrogating the Dissident Priest.
  • ON=(The following is a transcript of the words of Lord Vivec himself.)
But yeah, I can see how it might not be worth the effort. My intended technique would be somewhat more flexible than what {{hover}} does, since on that one you can't use any formatting (such as line breaks), but with proper CSS you can format the popup text as you like and set it to display once you hover over the underlined text. --◄mendel► (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2014 (GMT)
Just a minor note, but the reason {{hover}} doesn't allow line breaks is because it breaks the floating tooltip part. It's a limitation of most HTML browsers, not the template itself. • JAT 08:26, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

() If you use an HTML-encoded line break character (&#13 or &#10), the tooltip can have line breaks in it. Just tried it on Chrome and Firefox and it worked in both. No other method works, though, at least not that I found. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

In the absence of other feedback, I've updated the name to {{NamespaceText}} or {{Nst}} for short, and I'm working on changing those that have already been added. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO Beta Weekend

Another ESO beta is here and there's a few important things to talk about:

  • Guild -- Feel free to join the UESP guild for adventuring or chatting. Just whisper to me (Reorx I think) or one of the other guild officers.
  • Chat Log -- There is a chat log that records all sorts of interesting things (quest stages, item data, combat, etc...). It should be in your Windows users folder at \Documents\Elder Scrolls Online\live\Logs. Check it and see if it is recording anything. If not try the chat command /chatlog and see if that does anything. It recorded for me without doing anything but not for others (no idea why).
  • ESO Map -- I've been rushing to get the ESO Map up and running this week. It is very rough but everything is there for people to start entering locations into it. See ESO Map Design for basic help and usage. There are a bunch of things we need to add to it:
  • Locations (there are no raw location data to use that I can find)
  • Skyshards
  • Treasure Map Locations (probably need a new icon for this)
  • Lore book locations
Feel free to point out bugs, feature requests, and comments...I assume there will be lots at this stage.

Like some others I have an extra beta key if anyone wants it...priority goes to wiki admins/editors but it is first come first served pretty much. See you in the game soon! -- Daveh (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2014 (GMT)

For the sake of curiosity, I may wish to claim that extra key...that is if no one of higher authority is dying to have it... :) •WoahBro►talk 02:49, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
A number of people here have mentioned either privately or on Facebook that they have extra beta keys, and we've pretty much established amongst the admins that none of us need one, since we're either already in the beta or aren't interested, so I doubt anyone's going to pop up with "higher authority". :) Robin Hood  (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
I'm one of the "others" Daveh mentioned, so there's at least two keys available. E-mail me if you want it. And I'd start the download tonight if you want to be able to start tomorrow at noon EST. It took a pretty long time the first time I did it. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
Just so ya know, I sent you an email Dave! •WoahBro►talk 04:32, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
Mine is still available, but I'm going to bed now so someone wants it, you'll have to wait until morning. Goodnight. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2014 (GMT)

Got a spare key for this also, email me if your interested. --Kiz(email - talk) 17:51, 28 February 2014 (GMT)
I have multiple spare keys if anyone is interested. • JAT 08:28, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

() A couple bugs from the map. Currently linking to a wiki page will send it to ESO:name, whereas the wiki uses either ON:Name or Online:Name. Also, is there an easy way of finding the worldIDs of a specific map so that you can link locations to the map for that location? Jeancey (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2014 (GMT)

Easy to change ESO to Online in the map code although I've been thinking about adding a ESO namespace alias anyways. You can get the worldId currently by either editing a location or the world. The worldId is shown in the bottom of the edit window. -- Daveh (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

() Post-Beta Comments --

  • Map -- I have several pages of todo notes from using the map this weekend. I've done most of the Glenumbra area with the basic locations.
  • Chat Log -- This didn't work for me either this weekend but...
  • Add-Ons -- I created a simple add-on for logging game information (item, quest, and game locations). It is similar to other data-loggers like the one from ESOHead. I need to clean it up and add some things to it but will release it for the next beta or the game release to help with data gathering. There's lots of stuff that can be captured (see ESOWiki:Chat Log for details on known events).
  • ESO Wiki -- The private beta wiki we made is now public although all of its information is, or will soon be, in this wiki (it will be shut down soon).

I'm having way too much fun with the game...I'm looking forward to the game's release when I can have time to slow down and enjoy it more (I was rushing through Daggerfall content this time to get quest and location information). -- Daveh (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

I saw the worldID there, Daveh, but when I tried to use, for instance, Auridon's world ID and link Skywatch to it, I get sent instead to the map of Stros M'Kai. I'm unsure of why, but it refuses to send me to the correct map. Also, many of the place names on the side list are misspelled, in particular Skywatch and Firsthold (which do not have spaces, but they do on the map list). This may be in the data and have nothing to do with our map, but I thought I should point it out. Jeancey (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
Ahh...I think the confusion is over world and location IDs. In the location edit the destination ID is a locationId. In the world edit the Parent Map is a worldID. The misspellings are entirely my fault...the raw map names are all lowercase with no spaces or punctuation so I went through quickly and did a "best guess". You can edit the world names but the "grouped map list" is currently hard coded. Making it load dynamically is on the long map todo list for this week. -- Daveh (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
I did that, if I am understanding you correctly. The internal ID for Skywatch is 146. When I set that as the destination ID for the skywatch icon on the Auridon map, it sends me to the Stros M'Kai map, not the Skywatch map. The internal ID for the Stros M'Kai map is 376, but using that sends me to the Glenumbra map. The issue seems to rise from the fact that the icon ID for the To Betnikh icon on the Stros M'Kai map is 146, so it is sending me the the 146 Icon id, not the 146 world ID, if that makes sense. Jeancey (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
You can't use a worldId as a destinationId for a has to be another location. What I've been doing is creating a "hidden" location on the center of a map (create location, save it, edit it again, record ID, set icon and label as 0/none, re-save) and using that new locationId as the destinationId. Forgive the confusing interface...there's still a lot of work to smooth things over in the new map system. -- Daveh (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
Ah! Okay, I'll do that from now on! I have notes on Skyshard, lore book and treasure map locations built up over the past few betas, so I'm gonna work on adding those in today and tomorrow. On another note, I suggest that we put the Achievement hint for each Skyshard in the description field of that shard. That way people can see where the ones they still need are located. Jeancey (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

Beta Weekend (March 14)

I'd just like to remind everyone that I've still got a spare beta key for this weekend. First to e-mail me gets it. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (GMT)

Here are some of the patch notes for Beta 0.18. I'm putting them here so people know what things have changed from previous betas and will need to be updated this weekend (only patch notes relevant to UESP content are here; for all of them, see the Beta Forums or the ESO subreddit):
--Enodoc (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2014 (GMT)

A few of the usual notes for the upcoming ESO beta this weekend:

  • Guild -- Message me (Reorx) if you'd like an invite to the UESP guild.
  • Add On -- Shortly after the beta starts on Friday I'll upload an Add-On which logs various things. People are welcome and encouraged to install it and then send me the collected data after the beta.
  • Beta Images -- I'm in the process of extracting the image from the most recent beta patch and will add the links here when done. I've also updated and uploaded so that it works with this beta patch. Note that each of the following includes a text file that lists the changes in the relevant files from the last beta.
  • Map -- I've done a bit of work on the ESO Map since the last beta and welcome people to edit it to add locations. We have the next set of zones opened up in all three alliances it would be nice to get the basic set of locations done for.
  • TeamSpeak -- Not necessarily for this weekend, but would people like a UESP TeamSpeak server setup?

-- Daveh (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (GMT)

Ah, good - none of the changes to the icons affect anything I've already done. (Thanks for that diff.txt file by the way - saves me the trouble of checking.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (GMT)
Don't know if it matters, but on the help page for the addon, it says the data will be saved automatically to Documents\Elder Scrolls Online\live\SavedVariables\uespLog.lua. But my uespLog.1ua file isn't there; it's in Documents\Elder Scrolls Online\live\Addons\Eso-Addon-uespLog. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:56, 14 March 2014 (GMT)
Is that the saved variables file or the add-on file (they both have the same name: uespLog.lua). The saved variable version should just be a large list of text data assuming you have run the game for a bit and logged out (or /reloadui updates it too). As long as its working I guess it doesn't matter. If it isn't working let me know. -- Daveh (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2014 (GMT)
Hey, have you extracted the files from the latest patch yet? There's definitely some new icons that weren't in your previous two batches. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
The above files are from last weekend's beta. If there are files missing they are probably ones without filenames or otherwise "hidden". -- Daveh (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (GMT)

() Post-Beta Comments -- I don't know how many people were using the uespLog add-on but remember to send me the uespLog.lua file from your SavedVariables folder. I've gotten a few already and have created a simple LUA program to combine and turn that into CSV files. I'll upload the parsed data here in the next few days for people to use as needed. -- Daveh (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (GMT)

Ugh, then it's what I was afraid of - half of the Achievement icons are NOT in the Achievements folder but will have to be tracked down. I was just thinking because more than half the icons that ARE in the folder are just the default question-mark that maybe we were missing some. Oh well, I guess we'll have to do this the tedious way... Oh, and what do you mean by files without filenames? How is that even possible? Did you mean just non-descriptive filenames? Because I can deal with that (and have been doing so for the past few weeks). But NO filenames? That's scary somehow... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
All the game's files are compressed in the various DAT files. Only some of them actually have filenames assigned to least in the data that we know about so far anyways. I can export files without an assigned name but we have no way of assigning it a meaningful name beyond trying to guess at the extension. And looking at at the extracted data I don't think we still are assigning the filename to files entirely correctly. It mostly works but there are a few mismatches I've noticed which may explain some of the image/icon mismatches we've noticed.
Btw, since you appear to working on achievements then this may be useful to you: Achievements.csv. It is a raw dump of achievement data from the game using the uespLog plugin. Among the useful data are icon filenames. If they don't seem to match the ones I've uploaded, or there are any missing, let me know.
Additional note on the achivement icon filenames in that CSV. The icon files I've uploaded have been organized a bit so the icon filenames won't exactly match. You'll have to convert the first part of the filename into an additional path...for example:
  • Original = /esoui/art/icons/
  • Uploaded = /quest/bangkorai_imperial_coin.png
Hope that helps... -- Daveh (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
Ooh, that might be useful. Sweet juicy data. And yes it does seem like they just chose various skill and item icons for many of them. The item ones are the worst because they don't have backgrounds by default. But hey - I just figured out how to do that with the skill icon borders you saw. Now I'll just need to make one that's three layers, because it needs the background AND a border added... Mmm. Icon sandwich. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
The parsed uespLog data is now available: (1.2 MB). It has a bunch of data in CSV format (except the books which are just text files) which should be easily imported into most spreadsheets. No attempt has been made to remove duplicate elements. Data includes
  • Book text (225 text files)
  • Books
  • Lore book locations
  • Skyshard locations
  • Achievements (all)
  • Recipes
  • Chest locations
  • Dialog
  • Fishing Hole locations
  • Items
  • NPCs
  • Quests
  • Misc location data from the EsoHead addon (includes harvest nodes, containers, and quest starts)
  • Combined location data for a bunch of things (combinedlocs.csv)
  • Combined item data based on id (itemdb.csv)
  • LUA Global objects (functions and variable list)
I'll be working on an update to the uespLog add-on before the game's release as well as a simple database repository to collect and display it all. If anyone has suggestions on other data to collect let me know. -- Daveh (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Just looking at the data, I'm noticing a couple of things compared to the data pulled from this file. First, the "IsHidden" column doesn't exist. I can probably just ignore the blank and "TRACKER GOAL TEXT" rows, though, and call that sufficient. Probably more importantly, the full reward information isn't there, and where we have the XP, it's not actually linked to anything. For example, in the Google Docs file, the reward for Soul Shriven in Coldharbour is 1 skill point and the Soulshriven Signet. I don't see that at all in the uespLog data. Similarly, looking at the uespLog data where we have XP (line 87 is the first one), I would have to assume that that's linked to the quest immediately above it, but the data doesn't indicate for sure. Lastly, while it seems unlikely to affect anything, I'm confused as to the format of the timestamp data. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
I'm unsure of the timeStamp format myself. A little digging reveals it doesn't look like any normal timestamp format (FILETIME, NTP, seconds, QueryPerformanceCounter, etc...). Once I can access the game again I can use the GetDateStringFromTimestamp() API function to help decode it.
The quest reward information is harder to decode as it is not directly link to the quest itself. The data in the Google-Docs spreadsheet is parsed from the chat log of the first beta where it was easier to look for a LOOT_GAINED message right after a QUEST_REMOVED message. It is a little harder within the add-on. In theory it could be done by looking for an item received within 10-50ms of the quest removed event. That is currently more effort than I can spend and the "new" uespLog add-on will be improved to record this data (hopefully anyways).
The current add-on, its information and the parsed data is very basic...I'm working on improving the uespLog add-on that will make it easier to track and record a bunch of various data. -- Daveh (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Okay, I'll see what I can do with what we have, then. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Quest info is on its way up now, at least what we have so far. With the limitations of the info we have available, it'll probably need a lot more massaging than other games have, but as someone said a while back, it's better to have the pages created for the sake of consistency than not to have them at all. I believe I've designed it such that it can be re-run on the existing data at any time—if the page doesn't exist, it'll create it with a basic template like we did with previous games; if it finds an existing page, it should clobber any existing Journal Entries table, but leave the rest of the page untouched. That will require that all data from uespLog be cumulative, though.
Also, I haven't added XP at all because in a quick scan, different people got different amounts for the same quest, so I'm assuming it's level-based. We'll have to see if we can figure out more about it as time goes by. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
The timestamp is seconds since 1.1.1970, but it's encoded as a double (64 bit IEEE float), not an integer. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

3rd-party mod bugs

I know we have had a long-standing philosophy on not documenting bugs caused by 3rd-party mods, and I fully agree with it, but is it spelled out in writing somewhere? The closest I found with a quick search was a paragraph here about 3rd-party mod statistics. Am I just not seeing it, or do we need to address this more specifically? --Xyzzy Talk 21:55, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

Style Guide. However, it could be more prominent, like a point on Policies and Guidelines or something. Applies to all mod content, not just bugs. Vely►t►e 22:59, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO skill icons

Okay, so I've put up quite a few of these today. I do have all of them, but the problem is they aren't all nicely labeled, so it's difficult to tell which icons go with which skills. I'm sure I've probably swapped a few here and there. Since the beta isn't currently on, I can't check them in-game. For the Sorcerer (sorry, I always make that mistake) and Templar, the icons are mostly named well, but I think some of the names are working titles that were changed before the beta release. The Dragonknight I partly guessed and partly knew from experience. I don't know the Nightblade class well enough to attempt the same. Also the weapon skills are a mix of experience and guesswork. And I do have the passive abilities as well, but NONE of those have nice descriptive filenames, so I'm at a loss there. The question then becomes - is there a way to look into the data files and figure out which icons go with which skills even if the beta is offline? And if not should I just upload the files anyway and rename them once we get things sorted out? (I do at the very least know which trees the skills are on, though there do seem to be more icons than there should be for each tree.) I may not be active in the game when it hits full public release. (That will depend on my acquiring gainful employment in the near future.) So I won't be able to do much more after that for a while. I've also got all the other icons, but that's a whole other can of worms... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

Details on skills can be found here - the crossed out ones have been transposed to wiki already, the remainder need doing if that helps with the filenames. --Kiz(email - talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Not much help on the icons, but it does help fill in some missing data. Also got a few of the names wrong, since they don't match the icon names. Fixing what I can, but many of the morphs are still missing. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Where did you get the icons for the Passive abilities that you added? I noticed that a couple of them are a bit questionable. (Not saying they're not like that in the game, they just may be temporary in the beta.) In particular, Helping Hands, Kindling, and Warmth are all actually found in the Sorcerer's folder, though they're not used for any Sorcerer skills. (There are way too many passive icons in the Sorcerer folder.) They notably do not match the Dragonknight's color scheme. Also, Mountain's Blessing and World in Flame are the same image. If this is that way in the game, it's probably temporary. We may need to wait until a future version to get this stuff right. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO Quest Icons

Discussion moved from Online talk:Quests#Quest Icons

ESO doesn't have quest icons, but quests are still divided by type (eg zone quests, main quest, guild quests); so I think we should create some icons that are representative of that type so they can easily be identified. Here are my initial suggestions:

Main Quest
ON-icon-quest-index.png The main quest can use the quest index icon
User-Enodoc-ONqico1.png or it could use an icon representative of Coldharbour
Zone Critical Quests
Critical quests are the ones that progress the story of the alliance within the zone; when one is completed, the next one usually comes to the player (although they can be taken out-of-order by visiting the quest start location)
ON-icon-quest-assisted.png Critical quests can use the assisted quest icon
but many are tied to location objectives, so incorporating the location icon in the quest icon seemed like a logical extension
Zone Side Quests
Side quests are found across the zone, and are not connected to the alliance story; the player must go out to find them
ON-icon-quest-active.png Side quests can use the active quest icon
but some may again be tied to location objectives (although the only location objectives I have encountered so far are from the critical quests)
Guild Quests
ON-icon-quest-available.png Guild quests could use the available quest icon
but specific icons for each guild may look better; either incorporating the quest icon, or just by using the guild icons alone

Enodoc (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

Moved this out of ON talk to give it more visibility. --Enodoc (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Are the different colors of arrows used in the game? I recall the one you have for zone sidequests, but I can't remember if the others were in or not. Also, where would these quest icons be placed? That may influence which style will be used. -Thunderforge (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Yeah they're all technically in the game, but have different uses. The first (white) one is the button for the World Map's "Quests" filter and the Journal's "Quests" tab; the second (grey) one is the one that appears on the compass, map and HUD to tell you which is your currently-tracked quest; the third (black) one is the one that appears on the compass, map and HUD to show all your other current quests; and the fourth (blue glow) one is the one that appears on the compass and HUD to show a new quest that you haven't taken yet. The associations I gave them are based on my personal in-game experience; the Zone Critical was always my tracked quest, and I had a bunch of other Zone Side quests that were active that I did as I passed them. The white one I picked for the Main Quest to set it apart from the Zone quests, and similarly I went for the blue-glow one for the Guild quests to distinguish them from other Side quests.
On the pages, they would be placed next to the quest summary, like the knotworks for Skyrim quests and the blue icons for Oblivion quests. --Enodoc (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
I think it would be wiser to use the combined icons rather than the different coloured quest icons. They already have different meanings in-game, so assigning our own is just confusing. I say use the white quest icon along with the Coldharbour/guild icons to distinguish those quests from miscellaneous ones.
I also think we should question having quest icons at all. The quest headers work fine without it, as can be seen with Morrowind. Making up icons just for the sake of it seems misguided to me. The Oblivion icons and Skyrim knotwork were featured only because they appeared in-game. —Legoless (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Given this information, I would be alright with having just the icons representing the different factions issuing the quests, since they all have their own icon (with the exception of the main quest, which I would be alright using Coldharbour for), but I agree with Legoless, since the colors don't have a true meaning in the game, we probably shouldn't be relying on them. That said, I'm also alright with not having any icons, as we had with Morrowind. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Sure, that makes sense. The only thing I would say is that if we don't use icons, or don't use icons of different colours, we have no way of distinguishing between a Zone Critical and a Zone Side quest. This distinction isn't made in-game either, so anyone who just wants to zip through the zones doing only the major quests (or someone who wants to put off doing those ones for as long as possible) needs somewhere outside of the game to go to that has that information. --Enodoc (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (GMT)
Couldn't we convey which quests are critical by organizing them like what we did with Tribunal:Quests (or if you can wrap you rhead around it, Daggerfall:Main Quest Walkthrough)? In that case, we had several quests that were part of the main storyline, but optional. From what I saw in the beta, we have the same deal where some quests are part of the overall faction storyline, but are optional. Also there are some quests which are critical, but can be done in any order (for instance, do the next 3 quests in any order, then once they are done do another quest). I think that we could just organize the quests like that, providing the information you are wanting to provide, without creating our own iconography that is independent from the games. For the Tribunal page, there was also a list of side quests at the bottom that were not part of the main story, which I think would also work for the side quests of a zone. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, I would say that should work. Then we indeed don't need to introduce icons that are not present in the game. We can also just add in the lead section whether the quest is a part of the zone storyline, or a side quest, and if the quest forms part of a location objective. I'll keep what I've made in case anyone ever decides we need quest icons, but I think we're agreed that we don't need them for now if we make sure all the necessary details are in the text. Thanks for your input guys! --Enodoc (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2014 (GMT)

() For completeness, and because I hate to leave things inconsistent, I have updated the icons now that the Assisted Quest icon is a different colour. If these recoloured icons happen to lead to renewed support for this idea, let me know; but otherwise, this is just a note to say that the icons above have been edited. --Enodoc (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

How much detail can we handle?

There is currently a trend, to add every minor item found in a cell to place pages. One question would be if that is really needed, important treasure gets buried under a load of food items and clutter - it doesn't increase the overall usefulness of the page in my opinion. But another problem is the immense workload it introduces to make sure the details are actually accurate. Sure, it may not be that important if that barrel contains one pelt, or maybe more - but then why mention it at all?

So it comes down to a matter of priority - are we willing to spend all the time it needs to get all the clutter accurately checked? If not, it will be much better just not to add it to pages. --Alfwyn (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2014 (GMT)

If anyone remembers my pages, I only ever mention the existence of a container, not whats in it. Of course if said container were guaranteed to hold some valuable or notable items that would be mentioned, but such things are rare. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 14:57, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
I think it's better to just not add it. I've read some of the articles that mention everything, and it can get really boring, particularly when you are dealing with a dungeon of any significant length. I also doubt that anyone is reading an article to know what minor loot and junk there is in a location. Better to only highlight the important stuff and make it easier to read and navigate. --AN|L (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
I don't recall seeing anyone adding "clutter" to pages? with regards adding ingredients, details of foods, useful items for crafting, etc surely that's the whole point of place pages to record what is at a given location? Which in turn helps keep quest pages far more streamlined. In fact that's exactly what has been specified as required by SHRP guideline-- "List everything that you see (all food and drink items and stuff of value, like weapons, clothes and armor), but do not write about clutter like pots and pans". Biffa (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Agreed - I also would extend this to NPC pages where we list every article of mundane clothing they're wearing and what spells they happen to know (mostly seen this on MW pages). It's just not necessary and feels like filler. If you can't find anything more interesting to say about an NPC than describing his unremarkable wardrobe or abilities, maybe you should reconsider whether that NPC even needs a full article page at all. We have pages for Non-Relevant NPCs for a reason. We're starting to lose the signal in all this noise. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
Oh, and as far as adding crafting ingredients, nobody is going to go through hundreds of location pages to find where certain ingredients may be found. If you're looking for specific ingredients, you go to those ingredients' pages and they have lists of locations where they can be found (in significant quantities mind you - no need listing every place where you can find ONE sample of X ingredient unless X is super-rare). — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
The whole point of place pages is so that people can find out what is at any given location. Listing ingredients as well as the other items is so that people can find out what is at a specific place. Different people play and use the wiki differently, this wiki is supposed to be for everyone, so what is wrong with having the place pages giving correct details of what can be found, otherwise why have place pages at all. You may not feel the need, but maybe someone else does. The game is about far more than unique items or the most powerful kit? Biffa (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2014 (GMT)

() I disagree with this, completion of information is important, especially if you know what you're doing. If you don't want to mention the loose broom found in the chamber of extremely valuable loot, then that's fine, but the tone here has gone a bit too far extreme for my tastes. In fact, to just avoid a much larger rant on this, for every ten or so requests I see for us to add more content, I see virtually none for us to remove content. Quite frankly, I see the sentiment here as being overly deletionist, a philosophy that I find has done much more harm to our site than good. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:48, 16 March 2014 (GMT)

The natural tendency is always to be as comprehensive as possible, so we shouldn't fight it. Not in the gamespaces, at least. People add the important stuff first, and other people eventually fill in the gaps as they see fit. That's how a wiki is supposed to work. If information isn't erroneous, there's little harm in it being added to the relevant page. And if it's conveyed on the page in a manner that's appropriate to its importance, there's no harm at all. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:24, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
I have no major issues with trivial information being added, but overall, I'd rather see us stick to the important things, with minor items summarized with phrases like "and a bunch of minor items" or "glowing mushrooms are everywhere here". If we do present more detail than that, then it needs to be done in such a way that it's easy to find the "important" information. I don't want to miss out on a flawless diamond, for instance, because it's listed as "1 gold piece, 1 glowing mushroom, 1 pot containing a flawless diamond, and 1 purple mountain flower". While that example is made up, in a scenario like that, the flawless diamond needs to pop out in some way that you can spot at a glance, whether that's as simple as bolding or by listing it in a separate section of major items.
Patrolling of trivialities is also a concern, but I think that that should fall under the relevant project, rather than being left to individual patrollers. I'd like to see a system where a patroller can patrol minor items of no consequence on sight and the accuracy and completeness of that information will be reflected in the place (or whatever) bar. It's a lot easier, after all, for a single user to load up the CK or game and verify what they see throughout an entire location than it is for ten users to load up the CK/game and verify a few small items each. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
I believe that we should try to be as comprehensive as possible in articles. From a reader's standpoint, the level of detail that we have on many of our pages is what initially grabbed my attention and attracted me to this site over other websites that document the Elder Scrolls. What some people may see as pointless tidbits of information may be important or interesting to others. This being said, the inclusion of this information has to be done in a way such that important details still stand out over other information. Plenty of methods can be used to make important information stand out as well. In the example of a list of items, placing the important details first is a simple way to make sure that detail is not missed (e.g. "on the table is a pot containing a flawless diamond along with a glowing mushroom, a purple mountain flower, and a piece of gold"). Linking also helps make more unique items stand out, since items that appear commonly in areas will be linked to once and then not linked when they appear again in the prose, leaving only more unique, notable items being linked later on in a section of a walkthrough. Overall, I completely agree with AKB that completion of information is essential and beneficial as long as it is done properly. Forfeit (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
One minor point we do have a way of highlighting import treasure/items by using the "|treasure function" on pages, this notes them in the top right hand corner of the page in the same way as ores and craft stations. Biffa (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
I'll throw in my proverbial two cents as someone who has been doing Stub filling. Most of the Skyrim Place stubs, for instance, are complete in listing pertinent or valuable items. Yet, in many instances, the stub tag is inserted due to a lack of detail. I feel sort of guilty removing a stub from a place if there isn't some level of detail; I mean someone thought the page was lacking in some respect enough to tag it a stub. However, I don't care for adding too much fluff... fine there's seven carrots - great. But the user can see that, I don't feel like the walkthrough needs to spell it out. I've worked out this double-standard thusly: There is a difference between dungeon detail and house detail. In dungeons, I'm not sure every bottle of wine found laying about needs to be accounted for. But, in houses, that's pretty much all there is. General statements, i.e., food items, glowing mushrooms all around, seem sufficient, particularly for a dungeon delve. Readers want to know where the good stuff is; there isn't really a need for Captain Obvious to point out the third loaf of bread on the table.--Beezer1029 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
I am actually going to cut back the itemized inventory of minor items and use more generalities; its just plain tedious to count it all and report it, even in houses.--Beezer1029 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
This conversation again, in yet another form! It seems like whenever the issue of detail comes up, there are always the same two perspectives: one says we should be complete and comprehensive, while the other says we don't need to include every little speck of detail because it makes it harder to pick out the important information. Eventually we all get tired of the discussion and shelve it under the rationale that the articles should be fleshed out before we start a project. It makes sense, but at the same time, when there are no guidelines as to how the article should be written, it can be difficult to write it at all (That's my experience, anyway).
My personal opinion is that we need to strike the right balance between concise and complete. I think Robin and Beezer have both touched on important points: First, we need to generalize when possible to avoid cluttering up the article, and we need to consider whether the information we include will be useful to the reader. Second, it's important to consider the nature of the place you're describing when deciding what does and doesn't deserve mention. I would support Beezer's proposal of only including things like wine bottles and such in articles for houses. But honestly, what we need more than anything is a resolution to this ongoing debate. ThuumofReason (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
I honestly think the best thing to do is just drop it. Yes, just leave everything be. A lot of pages are very detailed and a lot of pages are just concise information, and I think they're all great! I think it really does just depend on the game/project because some work better with more/less detail, if you get my meaning. It should be established by the project guidelines from the start. I think that there is a good balance on the site, and I think that this balance should (in theory) continue to be fairly balanced. I hope all of this made some kind of sense haha. •WoahBro►talk 16:23, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
Well, a lot of it does depend on the game engine itself - Morrowind pages can be more detailed because almost everything is set in stone - it will always be the same for every person who plays the game every time. Starting with Oblivion and increasingly so in Skyrim, items in the world are dependent on random leveled lists, and are thus unpredictable. (Morrowind used leveled lists as well, but mostly for things in containers and NPC inventories, less so for things found out in the open.)
I'm not entirely opposed to this overly-completionist mode of editing, but where it becomes a problem is when it impedes the ability of the reader to distill the important bits of information from the pile of weeds it's buried under. I mean, if you really want to know things down to that level of detail, you have the Construction Set/Kits available for the games, so you can dig around for yourself. What makes sites like this useful is that we've done all the work of painstakingly combing through the various CS/CKs and highlighted the information most likely to be of interest to the most readers. If we can find some way of separating the important stuff from the chaff and making it quick and easy to find and reference, there's no problem with also including said chaff - just put it down below in list form maybe, where it's not obscuring the information that's going to be most useful. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
Could we perhaps create a spoiler-like section that is collapsed by default, which contains all the clutter items? This way the main items would be clearly visible and the clutter would be present, but not immediately visible unless the user does a deliberate action to see it. Wookieepedia does something similar for their lists of what people and things appear in a work (e.g. this section). -Thunderforge (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
As much as I liked some of the skyrim detail (especially number of mining / gathering nodes), I think we will have a problem doing more than listing the number of interactive bookcases, chests, baskets, and other furniture in a house since it seems almost all the ESO items in them are random based on container type and location level. Even interesting things like skill books seem randomly placed. --Swordmage (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

() Actually, it'll be much, much easier in ESO, cause all you have to do is list the number of containers and their types, and then you can just link to the page which describes the contents. That's much easier than having containers which contain specific things that differ in each container. Basically, now we have to just do "The room contains three crates, two sacks, and a bottle". And the words crate, sack and bottle can link to the page with their contents. Easy peasy. Jeancey (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2014 (GMT)

I've been looking through many of these pages and agree that something needs to be done about them. The two problems that stand out to me are the length and minor details. Some people will likely argue that more content is always better, but some of the walkthroughs are too long and wordy to be useful. Take the page Faldar's Tooth for example. A first glance at it reveals nothing about the location; any important loot, monsters, points of interest, etc. are buried in words. Even if you follow it from the beginning while playing the game, there are entire sections that will be skipped since they point out the obvious. When you are clearing a dungeon, most non-clutter items will be plainly visible and anything extremely valuable is probably at the end. No one cares about the red mountain flower on the shelf in a particular room of a dungeon and if they did, a dungeon is not a good place to collect them.
I suggest revising the place pages into a format similar to that of Oblivion articles. Look at the page Malada for instance. Most important objects are summarized without any unnecessary directions to them. A map is used instead, which acts as a visual for the page and a guide for the reader. Some may even skip the text altogether and just use the map's labels as a reference. If someone is looking for that potion of minor healing to the left of the door going into the boss room, chances are they will see it (potions are not very difficult to spot). If they don't see it, they'll find five more on their way out.
I'm not sure getting rid of some of the hard work that has been done should happen, but it definitely needs to be reorganized to put emphasis on certain things. --Vindëgaer (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

Superscript templates

Would anyone be opposed to creating superscript templates for the Oblivion DLC, much like we have for expansions and Skyrim's add-ons? For example: Purgeblood SaltsVL. Personally I find these quite convenient for distinguishing stuff on the Skyrim articles, so it would be nice to extend it to Oblivion articles too. I know in some cases we're using Plug-in, but that just seems ugly to me and I see no real reason why we shouldn't specify exactly which add-on is being referred to. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2014 (GMT)

The necessity of the subscripts determines their usefulness. Only those that make a significant number of changes should have templates, as each one made removes the possibility of using it for something else. Only two DLC for Oblivion add anything of significance that affects or is placed in the already existing parts of Oblivion and they have subscripts. Skyrim has an official addons without subscripts, Fall of the Space Core. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:10, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
We probably should spell out the add-on for all those minor ones. We get too many clashes for two letter acronyms otherwise, and nobody will be able to remember them anyway. Currently it is Purgeblood SaltsPlug-in (which does link to the specific add-on), but Purgeblood SaltsVile Lair would work for me too. --Alfwyn (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Another option might be to create a catch-all template that we could use for the less common add-ons, like {{Addon|VL}} (AddOn? Add On?). If we do that, I'd suggest we limit it to just those that don't already have a two-letter template so we don't have two different methods of accomplishing the exact same thing. The short form could be picked up on by the template, then linked to the appropriate page. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2014 (GMT)
That's a good idea, and would be more practical than making separate templates for each add-on. It would also be somewhat future-proof, since we could incorporate any new small add-ons that are released one day into that template. I agree that acronym-creep could be a potential issue, although the problem with spelling them out fully is that it may get too long for practical usage e.g. Battlehorn CastleFighter's Stronghold and Sundercliff WatchMehrunes' Razor as opposed to Battlehorn CastleFS and Sundercliff WatchMR --Dorsal Axe (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
Another option might be to do something like Plugin-FS, which would narrow down the reader's mental scope to the plugins alone. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

Really old mail

I'm assuming this has something to do with the changes Dave just made, but I just got some really old talk page notifications in my e-mail. Since it seems unlikely that I'm the only one, I just wanted to post to say that I'll be e-mailing Dave about it. Don't everyone flood him with similar e-mails! :) Robin Hood  (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2014 (GMT)

Yes, for some reason the sendmail daemon wasn't running on any of the content servers since they were last rebooted. I think content2 was rebooted a while ago so any wiki e-mails which happened to have been sent from there would have never been sent and left in the mail queue until this morning. -- Daveh (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (GMT)
It's been a very long time since we rebooted some of those servers, then, as one of the e-mails I got (the one I forwarded to you, I think) was from September 2012! Robin Hood  (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (GMT)

Icon overlays

So I was doing some experimentation to try and get the icon images to look more like they do in the game, with a nice beveled border around the edges. See Online:Ardent Flame for example. It works for me, but I'd like some feedback because I'm not sure if there are other browsers where it won't look right. Also, if somebody knows how to tweak Image Overlay such that clicking on the image brings you to the back image page rather than the front, that would be preferable. I'm just stoked I got that to look as good as it does with minimal effort. Just want a little confirmation before I go wild adding it everywhere... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

Looks great! I tweaked the CSS on the frame div and that seemed to fix the back/front image clicks. Can confirm everything also appears to work and look fine on recent versions of Chrome, FireFox and IE on Win7 as well as on my Android mobile. -- Daveh (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

Skill Morph layout

While I'm in an experimental mode (see above), I thought I'd try out a different layout for the Skill pages. I thought it was a bit annoying how the Morphs were separated into another section rather than sitting next to their parent skills (particularly for the Ultimate morphs - so much scrolling back and forth), so I tried incorporating them into the main table instead. See Online:Draconic Power for example on this one. (Don't want to do two experiments on the same page.) I found the graphic for the Morph split arrow and fit it into the table. We still need to figure out how we're going to document the different values for the skills for Ranks I-IV, but that can be done just by adding a few more rows above the Morph sections and maybe another column for the Rank value itself. (Possibly put it above the Arrows column, and remove the colspan on the Cast Time column.) Any thoughts on this? It's a kind of radical change on the design, so I don't want to go all out on it before I get some feedback. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

Looks good to me. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:04, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
I concur, looks good. Putting the ranks above the morph arrow makes sense, as the morph is effectively "Rank V". Of course the morphed versions have Ranks I-IV within them as well. On a side note, Magicka/Stamina cost is determined by player level, and the magnitude of the effect (damage, healing etc) is determined by a combination of Max Magicka/Stamina and Weapon/Spell Damage in addition to Rank, so I'm not sure how you want to go about indicating that the values can change based on those. --Enodoc (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, I'm getting all my numbers from Esohead's skill calculator, so certain things aren't represented. My understanding (at least for skills involving weapons) is that the damage is just the weapon damage in addition to the damage from the skill. Anyhow, we can't possibly include numbers for every possible combination of gear/skills/level/etc. on the tables, so the numbers should serve as a baseline for comparison, rather than a perfect representation of what your character will see in the game. I at least got the rank data in for that one, using the "[1 / 2 / 3 / 4]" format. I originally tried putting each rank on its own row, but then that's twelve rows per skill, with mostly identical text and only one or two numbers changing, so it seemed redundant and bulky. Since there don't seem to be objections to the new layout, I'll start doing the same for the rest. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Something I just thought of: would it be worth changing the column called "Rank Required" to "Skill Level", to differentiate between the Levels and Ranks that the skills have? This would match with the usage of level and rank on ON:Skills. --Enodoc (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
I'd been changing them to "Skill Rank", and adding a line-break to make the column narrower. It's a little confusing because there are so many things called "Rank" in the game. There's your Rank in the skill tree, and then individual Ranks for each skill within the tree, and then you have Rank in Guilds, which is the same as the skill tree Rank for those Guilds, and finally if you take part in the Alliance War, you get yet another Rank which is entirely unrelated. At least your character level is unambiguously "Level" and not "Rank". Another source of confusion is whether they should be called "Skills" or "Abilities". The latter is used more frequently in the game. "Skills" is used only to refer to the menu where you choose your Abilities (hence default-bound to the 'K' key, but then 'A' is obviously used for movement, so wouldn't work). There isn't a clear distinction between the two as there was in previous games. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Oh how confusing :P With all those Ranks, wouldn't it make more sense to call one of them Level? Or do we want to keep Level uniquely for character level? When we get to early access, we should see if anything is unambiguously used in the in-game Help. Similarly for Skills/Abilities, the in-game Help may use only one term. --Enodoc (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
General policy on the site is to use the games' terminology whenever it's reasonable to do so. The problems arise when the games themselves are not internally consistent, or when as in this case they present ambiguity. We could distinguish them by type: "Tree Rank", "Skill Rank", "Guild Rank", "Alliance Rank". (Or just leave Alliance Rank out of it, since it's mostly irrelevant as far as I know.) And Guild Rank does seem to be the same as Tree Rank for those trees at least. So maybe it's just two we need to worry about. And they are distinct in that Skill Ranks are given in roman numerals, while Tree Ranks just give regular numbers. Earlier I uploaded roman numeral icons to use for skill ranks, which will come in handy for that (mostly on the Crafting skills, since they have the most ranks available). And it just now occurs to me that what I was calling "Skill Ranks" just now is different from how I used the term on those Skill pages, where I'm using it to refer to Tree Rank. Oy veh. Let me fix that... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO Guild

I'll be creating a UESP guild in ESO mainly for the purposes of being able to chat and discuss things with other UESP members, not to mention the use of the guild bank and store. Membership is most definitely optional but with being able to join 5 guilds in the game I would encourage and hope people would join us.

This leaves one truly important question to answer: what guild name to use? There are a few obvious options:

  • Based on the site name
  • UESP
  • Unoffical Elder Scrolls Pages
  • An ES lore name
  • Julianos (God of Wisdom and Logic)
  • Shrine of Talos
  • etc... (lots to choose from)
  • Generic name
  • Temple of Wisdom
  • Seekers of Knowledge

I'm leaning towards a lore name based on Julianos but would love to hear other people's ideas. -- Daveh (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

Sounds good! On the name, Jeancey suggested way-back-when over on the forums [1] a UESP guild with the name The Unassociated Elder Scrolls Protectors (UESP). Aside from that, I have a couple of questions: will there be an NA and an EU branch, and which alliance would you associate with? --Enodoc (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
As I understand it, Guild transcend Alliances, so you can be in different Alliances even within the same Guild. (And this is in fact the only way to communicate with players in opposing Alliances within the game.) So it shouldn't matter. That said, I tried a number of times in the last beta to /w to Reorx, and was told "Could not find player". Not sure if we just weren't online at the same times or if I was doing something wrong there. If you were mostly in Cyrodiil, I'd have missed you since I only played in the PvE regions, both Alliance and Covenant (I did Pact last time). Oh well, unless I'm very gainfully employed by June, I won't be playing in the full game anyhow. Definitely won't be there for early launch, so I'll just have to play vicariously through the site... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
I love the Julianos angle, but I think it's important to have the initials remain the same. Followers of Julianos are teachers, so I think United Educators on Scholarly Pursuits would be good, or something in that vein. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 14:27, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Other options: Unassociated Elder Scrolls Press. Unified Explorers Searching for [Peace/Prosperity/Power/Progress]. Unaffiliated Enchanters of Supernatural Prowess. Union of Extremely Skilled Protectors. I could do this all day. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 15:18, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Great ideas...leaves me more to think about. Guilds do cross Alliances as well as characters...if you join a guild on one character you join it on all your characters. I was online a good portion of the weekend...I'm wondering if /w uses the account name (Reorx) or the character name. I was assuming the former but of the latter that would explain why it didn't work.
I'll be on the US server and assuming the EU server is separate someone playing on there can create a UESP related guild as well if they so wish to -- Daveh (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (GMT)

() With just a few days left before release I think I've found a good name based on Minor Edits suggestions:

United Explorers of Scholarly Pursuits (UESP)

If there are any specific objections to this or better alternatives let me know. -- Daveh (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2014 (GMT)

Sounds like a winner to me (obviously). Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 14:29, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Seems fine to me :) Jeancey (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2014 (GMT)

Editing tools and tips

So, as I've gotten more and more involved in editing, I've come across a few tools that are quite helpful in making the process quicker and easier. Primarily, I have saved so, so much typing using Texter to replace short snippets with long, commonly used pieces of text. For example, I can just type {{es and it will be automatically expanded to {{ref|name=Skyrim|Events of [[Skyrim:Skyrim|]]}}. I've put together my bundle of replacements here, along with a readme for getting started with Texter and importing the bundle for your own use. I can't recommend it enough. Secondly is a more limited-use thing, but I found it invaluable when adding new ESO books to compare our existing text and the new version. That is WinMerge (screenshot) which just quickly highlights differences between two pieces of text. It's a little more flexible than the wiki diff functionality, as it ignores wiki formatting and allows you to compare multiple pages at once, such as an entire book series. Anyways, I just felt as though I should try and share the wealth of these neat tools that save me so much time. If anyone else has similar little tools, or just tips for more efficient editing in general, I'd love to hear them! -- Hargrimm(T) 00:23, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

Online Books

I'm just working on getting the ESO books uploaded, and I'm noticing that for some single-namespace books, like Venarus Vulpin's Journal, we've only created the book in the relevant namespace and not in Lore. Other books, like Against the Snakes, we've created both a Lore version and a namespace-specific version. Is this just a mistake? If not, what's the decision-making process as to what gets put in which namespaces? Robin Hood  (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

If a book is deemed "loreworthy" then it is added to the lore namespace. Many notes and letters don't contain much lore that could be added to pages, so they get only the game page. Others, like Skyrim:Skorm Snow-Strider's Journal are important and are added to lore. Personally, for ESO, I am judging the notes and letters on a case-by-case basis and deciding if they need a lore page. To be fair, Venarus Vulpin's Journal is quite loreworthy and probably should have a lore page. --Jimeee (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
We do have a guideline for this here. Basically, if a work could be a useful source for a Lore page (preferably multiple pages), it should have a Lore version. Very general, or very game-specific, stuff like A Hero's Weapon has no usefulness in informing the specific topic of an article, so there's no need for a Lore page. Personally, I'd have no problem putting Vulpin's Journal in Lore. -- Hargrimm(T) 17:05, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
Thanks, guys. This'll have to be something left up to individual users, then, cuz the bot has no way of deciding what's Lore-worthy. I could take a crack at authorship (and have, in fact), but even that sounds like it may not be all that reliable. I think it's best if I just dump the text into Online space and people can take it from there. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, case by case with journals, notes, and letters is the way to go. It's worth pointing out that most if not all journals from Oblivion and Skyrim eventually made their way into the lore section anyways. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:17, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
Okay, books are on their way. I have to leave the computer, so if anything goes massively wrong, just post to the bot's talk page to stop it. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

() Need some help from the ESO people. The following book is listed as being in two different collections. Can someone please verify and remove the book from one page or the other?

Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

Yes, this is something I noticed with another book. It appeared in two different collections, according to esohead. It may not be an error and in these very rare cases we probably should list that it is part of two collections. I imagine the template would need a tweak?--Jimeee (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
It isn't in two collections. The wording is slightly different between the two versions. The one we currently have on the wiki is the correct one for the collection listed. Jeancey (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
That's rather weird. The only difference between the two versions is that Literature says 'the tree above", while Tales says 'the tree by" the inn. Not sure why that would happen, but they are definitely two distinct works in the data. -- Hargrimm(T) 22:09, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
Same with the two books that RH already removed. They are separate in the data. Jeancey (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
There are several examples of this. The two versions of "Yenadar's Journal" aren't even in different collections; they're both in Personal Journals. However, I'm not sure that the text is different in every single case where there are multiple texts under the same name. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 22:20, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
It's possible that only one appears in game for each of the duplicates. Jeancey (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

() Okay, the bot's updating the collection info and removing the "lorename=none" from those books where it finds lore pages with the same names. It will probably be necessary to manually update these oddball duplicates by hand afterwards.

Speaking of oddities, though, while checking what the bot was doing, I noticed this change, which was done based on it being listed at Online:Tales of Tamriel. Is that correct? Robin Hood  (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

It's correct. It's also a skill book. I can confirm that from first hand experience, that I got a skill from it. Jeancey (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (GMT)
There may be a duplicate of it, then, because I just looked through the limited collection info we have in the log files, and it agrees that at least one version of it is in the same collection as A Hypothetical Treachery and Brave Little Scrib, which are both in Tales of Tamriel. I'll revert the bot's change for now until we know more. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO Passive Skills

I'm debating in my head whether to continue the changes I've been making to the Passive Skills. I've been breaking things down to multiple rows to show the effects of investing more points in a skill. (See any of the class skills for example.) But getting to the Racial Skills, and I've done two (Altmer and Argonian), and I'm not sure if it's really an improvement. The data was already there, just in "X / Y / Z" format, so all this is doing is creating redundant text. It may make more sense to do this with the crafting skills, where the description changes more dramatically with each additional point, listing the types of materials you can use, etc. But I'm not sure if it's justified with the other skills where the text is exactly the same except for a few numbers. Thing is, if we follow one rule for some skills and another rule for others, then we end up with inconsistency. Not sure if being consistent and treating all skills the same is more valuable or if keeping things concise and avoiding redundancy makes more sense. Also there's the fact that I haven't been doing these row break-downs for the Active Skills, mainly because it would involve twelve lines for each skill, given the morphs. Also, the numbers as given are for reference only, since they are affected by too many variables for us to document on each skill. Perhaps that needs to be stated explicitly in a note on each page, to prevent people from changing them to whatever numbers they see on their characters, which won't necessarily match everyone else. Anyone have thoughts on these issues? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

I think that continuing the multiple rows makes sense from a consistency point-of-view. The total page space used isn't that bad for any of the passive skill tables I have seen and I like the idea of having an explicit line for each thing we spend a skill point on.
As far as the active skills are concerned, I wouldn't want to see a line per skill rank for all the reasons you list -- even some of the current numbers will just cause confusion (primarily damage/heal amounts and skill costs). Again, since we only spend a skill point for rank 1 and for the morph, those are the lines I think are most important (the ones you have created with that neat branch icon). --Swordmage (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2014 (GMT)
BTW: the line rank column which currently shows the rank for the first upgrade should probably show the rank needed for each passive upgrade (essentially: remove rowspan).--Swordmage (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (GMT)
I don't have data for the passive upgrades - do they have an additional rank requirement? If somebody has numbers for those, let me know or feel free to add them yourself. I was under the impression that there was no additional level requirement, only more skill points. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2014 (GMT)
I also think the separate line for each rank looks better, probably because I've seen it done that way on other game wikis. --Xyzzy Talk 14:17, 24 March 2014 (GMT)


When we left off, I thought there was a consensus that "Online" sufficed as the shortened name, to be used in see also links and similar situations where we would say Oblivion, Skyrim, etc. But now "Online" is being switched to "Elder Scrolls Online", which, IMHO, is terribly and unnecessarily wordy. It's not even shortened really, it's the entire name. Doesn't make sense, not with the setup we have. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 13:22, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

I changed it mainly because people searching for Online on google probably won't be trying to find us. People searching for Elder Scrolls Online WILL be trying to find us, so I was attempting to up the usage of that phrase. And I've only been changing it in non-prose contexts, i.e. category descriptions, ref templates, other sorts of templates, notes, etc. I'll stop for now though. Jeancey (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
If that's necessary, I imagine there are ways to tag the pages with less aesthetic downsides. On a small screen (like my tablet), "Elder Scrolls Online" has a pronounced cluttering affect. It definitely shouldn't be used in Summary boxes, in my opinion, and would appear generally inconsistent with the rest of the wiki if it is used in See Also links and references. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 14:19, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
Well, it should be ESO, that is the name people are actually using and "Elder Scrolls Online" if we want to be verbose. I see no problem in using an acronym, we usually don't write "Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages" either (and as an aside, looking at the image top left, it's UESP and not TUESP). "Online" is just used far too much in other context to be a good name, it is not distinct enough. --Alfwyn (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
However, Online fits with our naming style much better than ESO does. We use the unique part of the name for our namespaces. In this case the unique word is Online. We also have always used a single word for the gamespaces, so Online is still better than ESO. ESO is the equivelant to using ON, therefore, as you said, Elder Scrolls Online would be the full version. I don't think [[Elder Scrolls Online:Daggerfall|Daggerfall]] is a good thing to be using all over the wiki. Jeancey (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
Sure we did that in the past, but it just doesn't work that well in that case. When talking to people, it is actually "Skyrim" or "Morrowind", but it is never "Online". In several cases we don't want to spell out the full name, and "Online" is just a strange shortening that won't be used very much elsewhere. --Alfwyn (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
I agree with Alfwyn that putting ESO to use makes the most sense. Let's call it what it is instead of sticking slavishly to an unmandated paradigm. An exception is in order. Obviously, ON would remain as the namespace abbreviation, but ESO is the most logical choice for the shortened name. I regret not pushing for it more emphatically before. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 15:26, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
TES is discounted for every namespace. It is not TESA (Arena), TES2D or TESD (Daggerfall), so the same must be applied to TESO (Online). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:32, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
It's just the "must" part I disagree with. We must be able to adapt when past practice is left wanting. If it's not broken, don't fix it; that's what I'm all about. But it is broken in this case. I think everyone recognizes that Online is a compromise, and one we don't have to make. Ideally, it would be ESO, because like Alfwyn said, that's the term that has won out across the ether. It's how many contributors here refer to the game, including myself. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 15:43, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
ESO still ignores the The as part of the name, the game is not Elder Scrolls Online, it is The Elder Scrolls Online. Applying this naming to Online makes it out to be a special case when it is not. Online may not fit with the previous style of it being a province, ignoring of course Arena which was even less appropriate a name than Online ever will be. Namespaces are our own creation, and have no relevance to the wider ES community, and the namespace will only appear once on any page in the title and nowhere else. Our abbreviations are short for the namespace, and usually take the form of the first letters of the two main syllables in it. Online therefore is shortened to ON, as ESO has no relevance to Online as a word. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:53, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

() I believe the developers have used both ESO and TESO interchangeably. Anyways, abbreviating the game name is not the point. That ESO is an abbreviation is merely incidental. As I said, it's just what people have settled upon. And I expressed previously my own curiosity on the logic of it, but the logic behind the particular name is irrelevant. What the masses are using; that should be our polestar. And it implicitly always has been, and that's what we shouldn't be deviating from now. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 15:59, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

So you would prefer to have the namespace be called ESO. And that's it? No full name for the namespace, JUST the abbreviation? Which would break from all of our previous namespaces in that it either wouldn't have a full name or it wouldn't have a Namespace ID? Jeancey (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
I was just editing this in: We must be pragmatic with the naming (the same reason why ON is preferable to ESO as the namespace abbreviation). NOTE: I am NOT advocating we change the namespace name. This is just about the shortened name of the game as it will appear in non book notes, see also sections, summary boxes, etc. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:05, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
So for you ESO would be preferable to Elder Scrolls Online and Online? Just trying to understand the situation. Jeancey (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) x(lost count) That same logic of 'following' the trend was totally dismissed during the selection of the shorthand for Dragonborn. DB was often used as an abbreviation for the Dark Brotherhood, yet when that was pointed out it was dismissed as irrelevant (here). That can be ignored but it needed pointed out.
So not the namespace but the name appearing? Well there's arguments for and against, the main one being to get search engines pointing here as all the words appear. This is largely due to the unwieldy name of 'Online' that is neither unique or rare enough to set the game apart. I am of the opinion that in most instances the first mention should be The Elder Scrolls Online, followed by the abbreviated version or Online elsewhere on a page. In summary boxes though, Online should suffice, but most instances seem to use the full name. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:16, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
Yes, Jeancey, in the circumstances described, I find ESO vastly preferable to Elder Scrolls Online. I have always been willing to settle for Online, as I did not believe there was any substantial downside. But if Online is unacceptable, Elder Scrolls Online is not the solution. That's my fundamental position.
Silencer, if you read my first comment in the discussion you linked, you'll note that I advocated for DB with the expectation that it would become the trend. Following the trend, setting the trend; doesn't matter, all that should matter is the trend itself. And in this case, as I've been saying, ESO has carried the day. We should get on board while we still can. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:36, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
Just a quick sidebar on the subject of namespaces: ESO and TESO are already defined as aliases for what we're currently calling "Online" (e.g., ESO:Main Page, TESO:Main Page). Even if we did decide to change the namespace name itself, since we wouldn't want to break all the existing "Online" links, we'd have to keep that as well. Juggling the names would be trivial, but at the same time, a nearly pointless exercise. About the only effect would be that the links would display as ESO rather than Online by default, but otherwise nothing would change. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

() "ESO" is also more preferable for me over "Online", simply because of the generic connotation of "online". As far as the "The", leaving it off is fine with me, except in cases where we are formally spelling it out (e.g. "The Elder Scrolls V, Skyrim"). The last MMO I played was The Lord of the Rings Online, abbreviated "LOTRO", not "TLOTRO". If we are looking to get search engine hits, which should be one of our primary goals, it seems like a no-brainer, rather than sticking to past models out of a need to "maintain consistency". --Xyzzy Talk 21:19, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

+1 for ESO in all fields. —Legoless (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
Another vote for ESO. As others have said, Online is generic and is not evocative of The Elder Scrolls. This is a time to make an exception to the previous status quo. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
So are we discussing the namespace, or just the "shorthand term" used in page text? I'm indifferent on the namespace but would support ESO as the standard short name. --Enodoc (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Just so everyone knows, this is not for renaming the namespace. The namespace will remain Online, and the abbreviation will remain ON. This is solely for Notes and templates in lorespace that link to the gamespace, and certain gamespace articles. I would like to put forward that the categories continue using Elder Scrolls Online, as the descriptions aren't long anyway, and there isn't really a need to make them any shorter than they already are. Jeancey (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

() Thanks for that clarity, Jeancey. Now, I am finally comfortable voting, now that I understand what's happening. I'll support the change to ESO in those areas. -damon  talkcontribs 23:59, 20 March 2014 (GMT)

I've given this some thought, and I agree that "Online" fits our namespace setup well, but for all purposes beyond page naming, it should always be "ESO" or "Elder Scrolls Online", whichever fits best. The developers have used "ESO" and "TESO" interchangeably, but not once have they referred to it as simply "Online" (personally I prefer "ESO" because it's a tad less redundant). "Online" and "ON" should be acceptable in the case of page naming and possibly in-article [[linking]], but beyond that the terms "ESO" and "Elder Scrolls Online" should be the preferred names. • JAT 00:12, 21 March 2014 (GMT)
A related question: for this edit, is the shorthand "Online" best here, or "ESO" or "Elder Scrolls Online"? "Online" follows the format of the other games' entries, but doesn't seem right for ESO. --Xyzzy Talk 20:15, 21 March 2014 (GMT)
On that particular page, I think it's really about the game name, not the namespace name, so my preference would be to spell it out in full as "The hero of The Elder Scrolls Online." Robin Hood  (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (GMT)
They tend not to use the "The" in the name unless it is the only thing posted. For instance, the official twitter is TESOnline, but the displayed name is just Elder Scrolls Online, not The Elder Scrolls Online. Thus, I think that if we are spelling the name out in a sentence, it should be Elder Scrolls Online, with no "The". Jeancey (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2014 (GMT)

() In that aspect, I disagree, Jeancey. "The" is part of the title, and presumably, many of the instances where it would have to be spelled out in full seem would probably lose the grammatical correctness. To use RH's example above, "The hero of Elder Scrolls Online" just doesn't feel as natural to say. In many instances, like saying "Thiis book appears in "Elder Scrolls Online" in the infobox, that would suffice, but not spelled out in a sentence. -damon  talkcontribs 22:27, 21 March 2014 (GMT)

I actually 100% disagree with you. I think that "The hero of Elder Scrolls Online." sounds much, much, much more natural than "The hero of The Elder Scrolls Online." It just sounds awkward and forced with "The." Jeancey (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2014 (GMT)
It might sound forced, but it's completely correct. Compare "the hero of The New York Times" to "the hero of New York Times". The latter is wrong, since the "the" is part of the title. —Legoless (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2014 (GMT)
Lore:Hero uses the shorthand term for every other game. Arena, Daggerfall, etc. Seems like "the hero of ESO" would be most appropriate there (or whatever shorthand name we decide on). And based on past practice, I had imagined that the proper name would appear as TES Online. So I'm not sure why we're debating between The Elder Scrolls Online and Elder Scrolls Online in the first place. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:57, 24 March 2014 (GMT)
Because the devs tend to use Elder Scrolls Online in text, and The Elder Scrolls Online in graphics. For instance, the display name of the official twitter is Elder Scrolls Online, not The Elder Scrolls Online. Jeancey (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2014 (GMT)
I might as well throw my two cents in as well. Although I understand the logic behind using "Online" as the name, it isn't the best name from a Google search point of view since it is a word in general use.
I like ESO for most uses and either "The Elder Scrolls Online" or just "Elder Scrolls Online" when a full name is more appropriate (choosing the one fitting the given sentence). I am taking a cue from the packaging of the games: on the boxes, the names Oblivion, Morrowind, and Skyrim are in large type while "The Elder Scrolls III" (and IV and V) are in much smaller type; however the reverse is true on the ESO box (Online is in much smaller type). --Swordmage (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2014 (GMT)

() I agree to most of what has been written, my preference would be for ESO, with it written in full where appropriate either with or without "The" as the case warrants. It provides uniqueness, ability to be found via searches and clarity, not provided by the use of "online". While I understand people wanting to keep consistency, but to slavishly do this without thought is detrimental to this fantastic site. Biffa (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2014 (GMT)

I personally prefer "Online", as it fits our current naming standards. - Alarra (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2014 (GMT)


The bot's working on uploading the ESO NPC information that we have so far. Having discussed it a bit with Jeancey, it seems like most of the information we have about NPCs is either variable (like level, health, and location) or unknown (like race and class). I've kept the template very minimal as a result. We'll have to see what we can figure out as time goes by, but I suspect much of the data will either have to be omitted or filled in by a human.

Also, much like Skyrim (but even more so), creatures and NPCs are indistinguishable from one another, so all are being uploaded at once with the same template.

I'm off for dinner, so if anything goes massively wrong while I'm away, post to the bot's talk page and it'll stop. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2014 (GMT)

Skyrim Place page layout standardisation.

I'm trying to understand and find any info on the standardisation of the layout of Skyrim's place pages. I have read various previous discussions, but none of them or the help/guidelines/policies see to cover this. There has been a couple of issues recently with another wiki editor as to what subheader should be used where and in what order. I'm not looking to impose my ideas on the whole of the wiki or to change the correct order, however The main issue Ive found is that there is huge variety in what subheadings are used and a huge variety of the order they are displayed in.

As far as I'm led to believe the correct order is supposed to be:

  • == Residents ==
  • == Related Quests ==
  • == ???--(see below) ==
  • === Exterior ===
  • === Zone 1+, name of zone/place ===
  • === Displayed Merchandise ===
  • === Standard Merchandise ===
  • ==== Notable Loot/Ore Locations/Ingredients/Other (if necessary) ====
  • == Maps ==
  • == Galley ==
  • == Notes ==
  • == Bugs ==

I believe this to be the correct ordering of the subheaders by looking at the info by Nephele in their Style Guide/Quest Layout and on UESPWiki talk:Style Guide/Place Layout and Style Guide/Place Layout, plus reading the policies, guidelines, help pages and community portal archieves etc and examining the examples of the house pages on the Skyrim Houses Redesign Project.

Where I have put question marks, it is because of the great variety of differing subheaders used across the Skyrim place pages that include those shown below and many, many others.

  • == Walkthrough ==
  • == Detailed Walkthrough ==
  • == Description ==
  • == Exterior ==
  • == Exterior: plus the name of the place ==
  • == Interior ==
  • == Zone 1 ==
  • == Zone 1, name of zone/place ==
  • == Place Name ==

I have been accused of introducing the use of == Walkthrough == subheader and is trying to force it upon the wiki, however I only started using it due to several of the walkthrough I've completed being "corrected" to include this subheader. See here for the earliest appearance on a contribution by myself and you will see I didn't add this subheader to the page. There are countless examples where it was used before I ever start editing pages such as here. When it kept being added, obviously I took that to mean I'm supposed to use it, especially as until recently was never remove from a page during the many clean ups. I've consistently tried to improve my writing to avoid people having to come along behind me correcting my work, but I'm getting fed up with the accusations, so I'd like it to be spelled out clearly to everyone what the consensus is for the correct order and names used on Skyrim places pages, so that I and anyone else completing these place pages can keep them in a standardised format. — Unsigned comment by Biffa (talkcontribs) at 15:54 on 26 March 2014‎

The second one was used for Oblivion. It is outdated, and most of us hate it. use the first one. Jeancey (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (GMT)
I'm not tremendously involved in the Places area, so I can't speak to what has been done in the past, but it makes the most sense to me to use simply 'Walkthrough' as the top-level heading for all the zone-by-zone guided information on the page. The only other note I have is that according to this CP discussion of last December, Gallery sections should be below Notes and Bugs (although Maps don't move), but I don't know the extent to which that was actually put into practice. -- Hargrimm(T) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (GMT)
It's very bad timing as ESO is coming, but it seems the need to start a Skyrim Places Redesign Project is overwhelming. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:43, 26 March 2014 (GMT)

() Agreed, a SRPRP is very needed, but we should put off until the summer or fall. Granted, it might be lost in ESO-related activities and projects, but days before early release gameplay means the project will definitely be forgotten about. At least after the initial surge, there will be a better chance of it being recognised. -damon  talkcontribs 19:05, 26 March 2014 (GMT)

Oh, I actually asked a question about the need for a SRPRP last year (and got a non-answer about stubs fulfilling the role, but whatever) so I would be very much behind a project. Although ESO would push it off the radar at least initially, would creating one now really be an issue? The page will still be there if needed, and as Biffa has been filling out stubs anyway, I think a page to refer to (especially for those of us not getting ESO) would be for the best. And in summer/fall, then we can advertise the project if needed -- and it probably will be. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 17:20, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but I can't imagine that EVERYBODY who edits the site will be playing ESO and contributing only to its articles. There will undoubtedly (in my mind) be editors that will be willing to devote time to an SRPRP, so I don't see the impending release of ESO as a legitimate reason to delay it. If editors want to kick it off, let's do it. --Xyzzy Talk 17:42, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
I'll have time if we move forward with it.--Beezer1029 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Silencer and I just agreed to work on the project guidelines for the overdue SRPRP. It will probably take some time to get everything right, due to the numerous types of places in Skyrim. However, when we think we have something that resemble a project page, we will launch a fully-fledged discussion so we can get everything right. ☺ --Krusty (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
I would gladly get involved with such a project, I'm unlikely to be able to start ESO at launch as my laptop doesn't have the requirements to be able to play, waiting to see if the wife's has the right spec, if not might have to consider a PS4...I am hoping to be able to knock out a whole load of SHRP pages completed over the next few days. — Unsigned comment by Biffa (talkcontribs) at 18:16 on March 28, 2014-- oops, sorry. Biffa (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2014 (GMT)

() I'll endorse and help with such a project, but I really think we should wait a little bit and let the ESO steam slow a bit. We've already messed up by waiting so long on such a project, but this doesn't seem like the time to do it, and it really should be on the backburner for ESO and ESO-related tasks, IMO. -damon  talkcontribs 19:00, 28 March 2014 (GMT)

Yes, ESO should be a priority, but I don't think it will necessarily hurt anything/anybody if one or two people get a jump start on this project. As long as it doesn't spam the RC like most MWOP checks do nowadays, it should just be normal traffic. •WoahBro►talk 20:13, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
Should I take offense to that MWOP comment? Jeancey (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
I'm guilty too Jeancey :p and so is Hargrimm hahaha. •WoahBro►talk 21:18, 28 March 2014 (GMT)
We seem to have drifted from the original question, of what is the "correct" subheaders and order for those headers when updating info on Skyrim place pages? While I'm more than happy to get involved with any project, now or in the future. There are still many updates happening now and getting peoples' responses now would help no end, before ESO early launch completely swamps everything else and would be greatly appreciated. Biffa (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2014 (GMT)

ESO Release

Less than a day before ESO is released and I hope everyone is ready...I know I'm not (could use another month)!

  • Guild -- The United Explorers of Scholarly Pursuits (UESP) will be open for membership tomorrow. I'm totally not wanting people to join just for access to the guild bank and store...not at all.
  • uespLog Addon -- Update to the latest version v0.10 which includes the uespLogMonitor which monitors and sends data to the UESP automatically. Look for an update within the first day as I have not tested it with the game yet. It would be better if you didn't use the older uespLog versions (0.07 and earlier) and delete it along with any old saved data. Access to the parsed data will be within a couple of weeks I hope.
  • Game Offer -- Only a few people have taken me up on my offer of buying or reimbursing ESO. I apologize for not yet getting back to few people yet...I'm getting there slowly!
  • ESO Map -- I'll be doing a lot work on the map to add features as well as adding locations. A reminder that it is open for editing for anyone with a wiki login...just use it with the same browser you have logged into the wiki.
  • Server Status -- The site is running smoothly and if the traffic surge is anything like Skyrim we should be fine. I have prepared a spare server for serving content if needed as well as preparing scripts to get another server up and running quickly should we need it. If you experience any site issues don't hesitate to tell me.

Hope to see you all in the game shortly. Don't forget to enjoy the game and have fun.... -- Daveh (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2014 (GMT)

Note on the guild only accepts half of our chosen name so I just went with "UESP" as the acronym. Message me on my account "/whisper @Reorx ...." to get an invite. -- Daveh (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
A couple of queries on the uespLog: does it still output System text when it logs data? I haven't had any logged output even though I've checked it is "on". Also, how do I change the "Saved variable path"? I'm using the EU client and that one's path is \liveeu rather than \live. Thanks! --Enodoc (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
It should output a bunch of text text if you do /uespdebug on. If it doesn't it may be an issue with the EU client. The path can be changed in the View--Options menu. -- Daveh (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Wasn't able to whisper. It seems like "user Reorx doesn't exist" on the EU megaserver? :/ —Legoless (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I was/am offline just now but I'm on the NA server...are we even able to talk to each other between servers? I'm still a little fuzzy on which areas/platforms are separate or not. -- Daveh (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I haven't seen anything about it, but I assume the two servers are as separate as the consoles will be. I would have thought characters and guilds carry over though... —Legoless (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

() They are entirely separate. You can't communicate between NA, EU, Xbox One, and PS4. Jeancey (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

If that's the case, we should probably set up an EU guild asap. —Legoless (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I would support that. Then we can add it to the official guild page for EU peoples. Let me know who's going to be Guildmaster so I can join in when one is set up! --Enodoc (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2014 (GMT)
I would love to join too, once I'm up and running! Biffa (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2014 (GMT)

ESO and Google

So I noticed a thing while googling searches: Any search including "ESO", the frequently used official abbreviation for Elder Scrolls Online, and a particular search term (say, Aldmeri Dominion), brings up results from official pages and the other wiki. For that particular query (eso aldmeri dominion), we don't even show up in the first ten pages (though we're first page with our Lore:Aldmeri Dominion on a search for aldmeri dominion). I didn't look past that. When expanding "ESO" to the full name, we're at the bottom of page two. For comparison, googling things like skyrim thieves guild has us as the second result and skyrim races as first. The only exception I notice is eso destruction, which leads to our Destruction Staves page, and searches for particular NPCs.

Point is, if we want people finding us on Google, we need "ESO" somewhere on the pages. The best spot would be the namespace, though I understand that would be an annoying move. We could also add a category or some sort of invisible text. Otherwise, I'm not certain.

That's assuming we care about Google, which I assume at least some of us do, and that eso is commonly searched (which, according to Google Trends, is nearly twice as common as elder scrolls online, though results are a bit skewed thanks to the fact that eso is an actual word in Spanish, although the term eso itself had a huge jump recently in searches). Vely►t►e 02:01, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

I think it is a good thing to at least keep Google and other search engines (though Google is the main one) in mind. I wonder if categories could be renamed, since I'm iffy on namespaces switching even after the recent discussion (which I can't be bothered to find, oops). But search results are very important to keep traffic flowing, and since cats should be on most every page anyway, I'd lean more towards that. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 02:20, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Personally, I'm in favor of renaming the Online namespace either "Elder Scrolls Online" or "ESO". This is a big discussion to have at such short notice, but in my mind that's the only major improvement that can be made to make our site more relevant on Google (and subsequently for any new players looking for ESO resources). • JAT 03:38, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
While it will be quite disruptive, we do need to move the Online namespace to Elder Scrolls Online (ESO being shorthand). The simple fact is "Online" just does not hold up, as a naturally sounding shorthand version of the game's title, or as a easy to search for term. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 04:10, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
That is unfortunate, but if you all are sure it's in the best interests of the site, well, we don't have much choice. Any idea on how long the site would be essentially inoperative during such a move? Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 04:13, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

() I don't think it would be inoperative. It would just be messy, and poorly timed. We need to move it now, if ever, as well. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 04:15, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

Any way we can keep all the namespace links as is? Essentially, allow Online, ESO, ON, Elder Scrolls Online all to redirect to the correct page (that being Elder Scrolls Online i guess). Do we even have any current namespaces with spaces in the name? Jeancey (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Alternatively, we could alter our image naming format to use ESO instead of ON, as that appears to be how searches for sr thieves guild, etc. are showing up on Google with our personal abbreviations. Vely►t►e 04:23, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I would also like to point out that "Thieves Guild" finds us, as does "Fighters Guild". Once we have the pages filled out, we probably will start getting the hits. One of the issues is that we didn't create the pages until we actually knew something, whereas other places created placeholders. We are just now creating many of the place pages, and thus google hasn't cached them yet, so they aren't showing up. I don't think this is as big an issue as people think it is. Jeancey (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I would also like to point out that the #1 search result for "Aldmeri Dominion" is the Wikia site, which is currently ALSO using Online as their disambiguation for ESO pages. I honestly don't think we need to move the namespace. Jeancey (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

() If everyone wants to make a namespace change at the very last minute, I'm sure it can't be too hard to make Jak or RH or both start moving pages once a namespace is made, though it's a stupid decision to make this late in the game, and it could potentially be disruptive to have the bots systematically change each page to [[ESO:]].

What I want to know is what will be our short-term gains and long-term gains with either side? On the one hand, we could get a short-term gain by getting a boost in our listing on search engines, but it would come at a potential disruption to our momentum as the namespace is created and everything is moved over. That will take time to verify all links, pages, templates, etc are set up to be accurate and functional at the transition, and in less than 24 hours we'll have ESO players playing and adding information to the site. Is this short-term disruption worth it when we have so many new users looking for a wiki to work on, and ours is down for maintenance when the competition is fully functioning?

Personally, I believe that a namespace change, if it must happen (I personally am against that), really needs to wait. General conversation on the internet puts favour over UESP for our professional appearance and our higher quality control. We have a lot of loyal TES fans here on our side, and I'm confident that if we hold out with the namespace and don't bother putting up a fuss over what Google thinks of us, we'll get along just fine, because in the long-term, we've won. Look at TESWiki and Skyrim, for instance. They are part of the Wiki-Monopoly, and were a competitor for Google searches, but we came out on top because we strive for such high quality. I believe that this is no different. -damon  talkcontribs 04:46, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

I think that it's likely the other sites are getting the top results right now because they beat us to the punch adding content. I do find that a lot of the content out there is inaccurate, outdated, or inconsistent however, and it does seem like they may have published prematurely. I'm not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of this stuff was put out there before the NDA was lifted, in which case they were in violation. Don't know how aggressively Zenimax was going after that sort of thing. I specifically avoided posting on this and all other sites while I was on the beta for that reason (not that I ever post anywhere else). Once the game is fully released, I suspect we'll catch up and likely surpass the competition because we're just better organized and easier to navigate than most other sites I've seen. As for Online vs. ESO, I could go either way. ESO is certainly less typing, but I've just been using the "ON" shortcut most of the time anyhow. If there's someway to make both work and redirect to the same page, it should alleviate the Google search issues. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
It really depends on who will be looking up info on this game - new players or seasoned Elder Scrolls fans. If it is the latter, then yes, our reputation precedes us and we will have plenty of stable traffic regardless of the current Google search results. If, however, there are a significant number of fans new to the series (or people who use other sites, like the wikia) we will certainly lose traffic due to our naming scheme. Because ESO is an MMO, a lot of new sites have cropped up to cover this game exclusively, so we will have stiffer competition than with previous games, since few successful sites documented Skyrim and not the rest of the series.
The question becomes, would it be worth going through the work to move the namespace for an unknown increase in traffic? I would say yes, because anything to increase site traffic will help us out. The change itself would be very basic, and even if we had to remove the old namespace and move everything manually, it would take my bot (which is slower that Robin Hood's) less than an hour to move all of the pages. The biggest impact would be on the editors who are by now used to the "Online" and "ON" terminology. We can leave both terms and have them redirect to "ESO", which I don't think would be a major issue. I think it would be wise to make this change sooner rather than later, but I'm okay with whatever the community decides. • JAT 05:48, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
There will undoubtedly be a lot of new editors who are here because it's an MMO and are new to the series, yes, but it's still a bad idea to go changing the namespace name, and I vehemently oppose it. It's a lot of work for an unknown gain, and we've spent weeks optimising everything for this name. We are on the eve of a mess, and I firmly believe that changing things last minute just to prostitute ourselves out, for lack of a better term, in an attempt to gain prominence on a search engine is too much risk for an unknown reward. We have pages, templates, images, categories, redirects, etc all set up, and that's far too much chance for error if we start proposing drastic changes hours before launch. I can't say any more passionately how much I don't want this change to happen. I just can't see any reward that's large enough to justify such a risk and operation at this point in the game. We're a few weeks too late to discuss something like this. -damon  talkcontribs 05:57, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I wholeheartedly agree with Damon on this one. There is just no reason to believe that this actually would increase our search results, especially since the Wikia is normally the top-ranked site for these results and is using the exact same system as us, Online, to disambiguate their pages. There just isn't a real benefit, especially since it'll take a while for google to recache the new pages (of which there are thousands) and then rerank the results. If we simply wait, we will eventually be the dominant source of info, as we are now for skyrim. In fact, 90% of the searches for NPCs and quests ALREADY rank us in the top 5 results, which means we really aren't gaining all that much by moving the namespace at all. There are a handful of pages that aren't ranked highly and they aren't the pages that anyone who is playing the game is going to search for. You don't search "eso aldmeri dominion" you search "eso The Dresan Index" or "eso Alverine" because those are the things you are really looking for and you get us in the top 5. I don't think our search rankings are as dire as everyone is making them out to be. Jeancey (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
I agree that it should remain as "Online", for the reasons stated above. - Alarra (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Just to comment on the technical side of things: if we decided to do so, I believe the change in namespace name would be simplicity itself. Internally, all the namespaces are actually numbers, so changing the name makes no difference to most of the wiki at all (provided we keep "Online" as an alternate, anyway). A "move" wouldn't be necessary per se. As far as I know, the moment the new name was put in place as the primary, it would start showing up in page titles automatically. After that, a community and/or bot effort to update links and templates would be all that we need to do, and we could do that at our leisure, since all the existing links would continue to work.
Now, as to whether this is a good idea, that I'm more ambivalent on. I remember someone noticing and commenting on this same sort of issue with Skyrim, so it's not entirely due to our choice of name, but it's possible that it's playing a part, at least. I seem to recall Nephele saying that Wikia was manipulating their pages in some way to encourage higher rankings in Google, but I don't remember the specifics. It's probably in our archives somewhere if anybody feels like digging, but right now, I'm on my way to bed, so I'm not about to go hunting for it myself.
Oh and Jeancey, yes, we do have namespaces with spaces in their names, just not in the way you meant: Oblivion talk, Skyrim talk, Lore talk, etc. :Þ As far as I know, there's no restriction on having spaces in the name of the base namespace as well, though. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

() This discussion is clearly unhealthy at this point in time. We’ve never cared about Google before, or the fact that Wikia always gets the better position, so why start panicking now – on release day? The reason people choose us over other sites is that we’re the best, and word-of-mouth is much more powerful than what the Google engine has to offer. Additionally, this will all even out as we get more content on the pages – and believe me, there is a storm coming so we need all the muscle and strength we can muster. So please, to quote a very wise man, keep your eyes on the prize, not the horizon. --Krusty (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2014 (GMT)

Just as a side note, the Wikia doesn't use "ESO" as the standard for Online. They are using "Online" or "The Elder Scrolls Online" for all references to it. I'm not an SEO expert, but its obvious that google's algorithm auto-translates "ESO" as "Elder Scrolls Online" - which is why a google search of "ESO Ebonheart" pushes the wikia up the rankings (you may notice the words "Elder Scrolls Online" are bolded on the search results, despite ESO being used) - even though the wikia doesnt use ESO at all. "Online" used by uesp is not as specific. If you are looking to push for google rankings, then either "ESO" or "Elder Scrolls Online" needs to be somewhere on every ESO page. Alternatively, you can disregard google as Krusty mentioned, beacuse the quality of the site speaks for itself, and people will find/know of uesp anyway.--Jimeee (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Totally opposed to using ESO or anything with Elder Scrolls in the namespace. Online is the unique signifier of the game, Elder Scrolls is in every other game, and should not be used in one namespace name and not others. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 09:52, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Good comments on both sides...note that "ESO", "TESO" and "ON" are currently aliases for Online. It would be trivial for me to switch "Online" and "ESO" without breaking anything...I think. I wouldn't suggest doing anything in the near future (next week or two) simply due to the amount of other work and the risk of messing something up. I'm not particularly worried about Google indexing with Online. -- Daveh (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2014 (GMT)
Indeed, there have been good points on both sides of the argument. I brought this up to gauge the community response to see if there was any consensus, and if so whether we should act on it or not. As it is the community is divided on the issue, so for now I say we drop the discussion and bring it up again in a few months time, after we've had more first-hand experience with documenting this game on the wiki. • JAT 05:58, 31 March 2014 (GMT)

Prev: Archive 41 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 43