Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 48

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.

ESO Skill Browser

I've been working on the ESO Skills Browser the past week and its finally in a mostly workable state and ready for whatever testing/feedback people can give it.

  • There are a few incomplete skill lines (Vampire, Werewolf, Provisioning, Legerdemain) due to those lines not being max rank on the PTS.
  • The tooltip values are without any CP, passives or active skills in your action bar. Testing on the PTS the spell values seem to match very well, at most a difference of +/-2. If you notice any bad or irregular values let me know.
  • Adding CP effects is not too hard but am wondering if it is necessary.
  • Adding effects from passive/active skills is much more complex and is probably not necessary for this sort of page (I hope).
  • Skill tooltips (like the ESO item tooltips) are coming soon. Just wanted to get the bugs worked out of the given page before starting on that.
  • Should work fine in most browsers. Is probably not very mobile friendly however. Let me know if it breaks horribly and what browser/OS you are using.

Feel free to comment on bugs or other related features desired for the skills browser. -- Daveh (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks great, thanks for doing this! I had a quick look around and things seem to be generally as expected. A few comments:
  • Magicka/Stamina cost is based on player level. Could we have a slider for level so we can see how the cost changes?
  • Would there be any provision for getting Active Skills ranks I/II/III to display? At the moment, it only seems to do Rank IV.
  • One of the skills I looked at was Volley (Bow), which has a Range and a Radius, but only the Radius is showing up.
  • CP and Passive effects are probably not necessary, as we can easily see on their own pages what their effects are. The unmodified "base values" that we have are more useful than numerous combinations.
Thanks again! --Enodoc (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Initially I thought we needed a "level" field as well but it seems the tooltips are not directly based on the character level at all. You do get more Magicka/Stamina when you level from attribute points and equipment so it only affects the tooltip indirectly. In theory you would have the same tooltip at level 1 as at v16 if your stats were identical (which is essentially impossible). If I'm mistaken in this assumption/theory let me know. We could do a fake level field for the skill tooltip that gives "typical" stat values for characters at that level.
You can get all skills to display by adding the showall parameter like this. I just thought it was better for the default page to have just the Rank IV base skills and two morphs. Once I finish the page I'll document any parameters like this.
There are a few skills/lines that need tweaking and I'll be fixing things as I find them this week. If you find or note anything else just let me know. -- Daveh (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So I just checked the skill tooltips against my level 6 Dragonknight bank mule and the numbers match up fine with just the stat values. The error in the tooltips is definitely higher, but not terrible, than my v16 characters likely due to the fit being done at v16 stat values. -- Daveh (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, yeah, all the $1-, $2-based numbers match up, but I don't see how cost could. Based on the Update 6 patch notes, "you now get 156 health per level and 122 health per stat pick", which implies that you get more Health (and presumably Magicka/Stamina as well) just based on your level, in addition to what you get from spending the new attribute points. But cost doesn't change no matter what you set H/M/S/sd/wd to, so I assume it isn't based on any of those parameters. Take Fiery Grip, for example; that costs 3410 Magicka based on your V16 character, but I don't see how it could cost that much for your Lvl 6, as I don't think a Lvl 6 character even has that much Magicka. I checked with a Level 1 in the Wailing Prison in June 2015 (which was after the rebalancing in Update 6), and I'm pretty sure the cost of Fiery Grip was 393 Magicka. We'd need to check other levels (say, 20 and VR1), but if that was a linear relationship not based on H/M/S/sd/wd, then there's only a few things left that it could be based on. One of those things could be character level, while another could be skill line level. I think skill line level is less likely, as you could theoretically max a skill line at Level 3, and then you'd end up with the same problem as before (costing more Magicka than you have). If it was linear and based on character level, then the cost of Fiery Grip would be y=mx+c, with y=cost, x=level, m=46.41538, c=346.5846.
Something else that looks slightly off is Stamina morphs; take Unstable Flame vs Burning Embers, and Burning Breath vs Engulfing Flames -- with all things equal, shouldn't they have the same cost in Stamina as they do in Magicka, as shown in this screenshot? We have the stamina cost being less, which I think is only possible with passives and gear.
Finally, would it be possible to get the "New Effect" green text into the tooltip for morphs? This shows up under the effectLines field, but only appears for the first rank of the morph (like Unstable Flame I), when it would be useful in the tooltip for all of them.
Thanks! --Enodoc (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yah, I had the same thought last night in regards to cost. I don't know how it works on level but I'll figure it out. In regards to the Magicka/Stamina cost differences...I checked a few skills on PTS and those are the exact values when naked with no CP/skills so they appear to be correct. I haven't played Stamina characters very much so I've never really noticed the difference before. Since we have the effectLines field it should be relatively easy to get it to show up in the skill morphs. -- Daveh (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I did a little digging and found a tentative relationship between character level and spell cost. It seems to be split into two linear parts, one from levels 1-50 and another from v1-16.
                   MaxCost = Tooltip cost of spell at v16
                   Level = Character level 1-66 (v1 == 51)
                   Cost Level 1-50 = MaxCost * Level / 65.5367 + MaxCost / 10.7466 
                   Cost v1-16      = MaxCost * Level / 110.942 + MaxCost / 2.46882
I don't have a lot of data points to say this works for all Magicka/Stamina spells but it seems to match the ones I do have within +/-5 at most. I'll try that for now and if a better equation is found I can easily fix it.
Update: The cost/level features is now in and working if you reload the skills browser. -- Daveh (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thanks! Those numbers look a lot more reasonable. I asked on the forums about the stamina/magicka discrepancy and it does seem to be the case. It was suggested that it's possibly due to the ease of stacking magicka, and the fact that stamina is also used for other things, like blocking, sneaking and bashing, while magicka is just used for skills.
Typo: The Magicka entries are now saying "Magica". --Enodoc (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

() The first version of skill popup tooltips have been added along with moving the Skills Browser into the wiki. Basic tooltip usage is as follows:

Full format currently is (only skillid is required):

    <esoskill skillid="#" level="#" health="#" magicka="#" stamina="#" spelldamage="#" weapondamage="#" showall="[1/0]">Text</esoskill>

Some notes and caveats:

  • It currently links to the wiki skills browser for the skill in question (showall is now true by default).
  • Add the showall parameter to the skill browser to list all skill ranks (for example).
  • The "New Effect" section is only shown for rank 1 of the two morphs at the moment.
  • When linking to the skills page the level/magicka/health/... values are lost.
  • Would linking by skill name instead of id be useful at all?
  • Done...I was thinking that the level parameter could automatically choose appropriate values for the rest of the statistics. If this might be useful let me know.

I don't know the exact desired usage for the skill tooltips so let me know if you need more or different features/functionality. Bug reports are always needed too. -- Daveh (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is awesome, thanks for getting it all set up!
  • Regarding ranks other than the "top rank", I would have expected a direct link to a lower rank would work regardless, but it actually doesn't. The tooltip does, Crystal Shard II, but the link goes to Dragonknight Standard IV (the default landing page), albeit with Crystal Shard ostensibly selected in the navigator, just not visible. However, the link with showall at the end does work; Would it be possible to force showall into the tooltip link, so the links will always work?
  • Skill names probably aren't necessary. We've managed fine with using the ids for items, so using id here as well makes sense. It's probably easier to account for by id anyway, in the event of a skill having its name changed, or there being multiple skills with the same name.
  • Having level set a value for the other stats sounds like a great idea. If we can get it so the values aren't lost when linking, that could be invaluable. (Imagine theorycrafters being able to link directly to the exact values they want... . If they were able to do that without having to say "set your health/magicka/stamina to...", this could be an invaluable resource for them.)
In general, this is the exact functionality I was hoping for. Thanks again! --Enodoc (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
A few tweaks already to fix and improve things:
  • The showall parameter defaults to true when clicking on a skill tooltip link. You can override it with the showall attribute in the <esoskill> tag.
  • Stat values are remembered when clicking on a skill link. There is also the "Link to Skill" link in the upper right corner of the skills browser that links to the current stat numbers and focused skill.
  • Fixed the new effect only showing up for rank 1 morphs. It now should show up for all morph ranks.
  • If you include the level attribute but omit any stat it will be auto-calculated based on the level (linear scale from 1000-20000 for stats and 100-2000 for damage). So you should be able to do things like Crystal Frags @ level 1 and get the approximate tooltip for characters of that level.
Besides any bug fixes and minor tweaks here/there that should be it for the skill browser/tooltip. -- Daveh (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've wrapped this into a template for ease of use: {{Skill Link}}. Here's Crystal Shard II @ Level 20 {{Skill Link|Crystal Shard II @ Level 20|id=47548|level=20}}. --Enodoc (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Just fixed a small bug with the skill tooltip which was not adding the showall parameter for your templated skill link. -- Daveh (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Added basic documentation to User:Daveh/ESO_Log_Collector (nothing new from here). -- Daveh (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

False alarm

Update 2: Sorry for the fuss all. Was just a misunderstanding. Ignore both notes, they're fake. :P Contraptions (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

First Look at Dark Brotherhood

The first look at Dark Brotherhood is available on the website here:

Some interesting points:

  • Anvil and Kvatch are in this zone
  • Some old trials are getting scaled
  • VR rank removal
  • Poison crafting
  • IC district capture (Enodoc your dreams have come true)

etc. Go take a look guys! Contraptions (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty hyped, maybe we'll finally be able to have something other than empty stubs for the Craglorn trials. VR removal will be a big upset though - it might be worth changing {{ESO Veteran}}'s "veteran" param so that it displays the new CP system instead. Guess we'll have to wait and see how it's implemented first. —Legoless (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I just saw it as well! So I think beta must be a month away then? I wonder if any UESP editors will be there, maybe we could test things that require a group (Both EU-US players). Tib (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. DB is going on the PTS this Monday, so perhaps we could get something going on the servers. Contraptions (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What! We are not prepared... :D Tib (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Imperial City: Assistance Required (Time-Dependent)

Update 10 is adding capture points to the Imperial Districts which will change the layout of the areas near the Palace District gate in each of the six districts. Previously when the landscape of an area has changed significantly, we have managed to get before and after shots of the area, showing the change. Now this may not be a "significant" change, but it still affects the layout of the area, so I'd like to do the same again. But since I currently don't have access to Imperial City, and may not do before Dark Brotherhood goes live, I would like to ask for assistance in getting the "before" shots, as I am unlikely to be able to myself. Each screenshot should include the Palace District gate and the whole of the bridge leading up to it, with focus being on any enemies in the area, any Daedric portals on the steps (if they exist), and if neither of those are present, the structural layout of objects, debris, and clutter. (Of course it may turn out that these areas are actually completely void of anything interesting, in which case a before/after comparison is probably not necessary for every district, and could just be used illustratively with one.) I'll also be posting this in Image Requests.

Note that this request is time-dependent, and will expire after 30th May. Thanks for any help you can provide! --Enodoc (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done! Nice to see that page in use again. —Legoless (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! If you fancy getting the equivalent shots from PTS, feel free, but equally that may change before launch anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If I get the chance, but probably less urgency with that. —Legoless (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you've been in to Imperial City yet on PTS, but these locations are even more different than I thought they'd be. There is now access up to the gates from either side, and even the moats have been altered. The railings on the bridges have gone, and I think the main steps have even been moved slightly. Maybe the changes there are significant after all! --Enodoc (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There's ramps on either side? Wonder how they've handled the quest area underneath in Elven Gardens. —Legoless (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

UESP Legends Tier Lists

Hey folks. I've been out of the loop for a while, so I don't know if any of this has been discussed yet. I don't see anything currently in the CP, so here it goes: ranking cards and decks is a form of editorializing which the UESP normally doesn't engage in. But Legends is a different type of game, and requires different considerations. I think the best way to frame the matter is, how can our coverage best benefit the readers?

This game is substantially similar to Magic and Hearthstone. I've played a bit of Hearthstone, and when I'm looking for online resources, I'm rarely if ever looking for pages summarizing the characteristics of individual cards (which, I think, would be our default approach?). What I'm looking for when I go online is tier lists and sometimes deck builds. The best Hearthstone sites have the card summaries, but they're also providing all that information in a more useful format, complete with at least some idea of a card or deck's relative utility.

For an idea of what I'm talking about, here are a couple examples of Hearthstone tier lists: heartharena, Icy Veins. Icy Veins and similar sites also provide deck builds with acknowledged creators.

I believe the ideal would be for the UESP to maintain tier lists and allow users to add deck builds for the various situations the game offers. The meta would be determined by allowing (at least some) registered users to thumb decks up and down, and rate the merit of cards (probably on a 1-100 scale) for use by different characters in Arena, and then aggregate the results. But there are resource and back-end considerations here which I don't comprehend at all. I imagine admins would need the editorial power to put their thumbs on the scales if they think the situation calls for it. And perhaps, sooner or later, we would have to be altogether more elitist with the valuation process. And I'd imagine that we'd have to give some thought to how outdated rankings or other info may be expunged. I obviously don't know what's feasible, so I'm asking: what can the UESP do? What's the plan here? Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 19:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a rating system is the way to go, but the UESP hasn't shied away from guides and subjective articles in the past - there's a reason we have the {{quality}} tag. Oblivion:Useful Spells and Oblivion:Roleplaying Ideas provide two different potential models for how we could handle the meta game in Legends. I think we could also allow some leniency when it comes to adding strategies and tips to the individual card pages. However, I'm not entirely convinced deck builds will be a viable option for the wiki. We haven't received any requests for a place to document ESO builds, partially because that game changes so frequently and partially because the wiki format doesn't suit that kind of stuff very well, but mostly, I feel, because of a simple lack of interest from both readers and editors. —Legoless (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that's really comparing apples to apples, both because Legends is a very different game than ESO, and because the UESP was pretty late to the party in adding any sort of ESO character build functionality. Sites like Tamriel Foundry were well established long before that - and such sites became established because the extant TES fan sites at the time were not performing the services fans were seeking.
So long as we provide the structure for deck builds - Arena decks, decks for specific fights and what-not - as well as appropriate, easy-to-use page templates, I think we'd draw adequate contribution. I doubt we would draw much participation or traffic without some kind of tier list, because that's what I think most fans will be looking for. And it's certainly something other sites will be providing, in addition to pages about the individual cards. By doing so, they will draw more support for themselves over time.
Adding any sort of strategy or tips to the individual card pages will require some sort of agreement on the meta. That's all rankings would be aimed at doing: providing a mechanism to aggregate users' opinions on the meta, in a less messy and somewhat objective fashion which will be more accessible and useful to readers than hunting through the card pages for nuggets of wisdom.
But regardless, we seem to be in agreement that readers will be primarily looking for insights into the meta, and we should be seeking to provide it. If we're in agreement on that, it's just a question of how we would go about doing so in a way that's efficient and helpful. We can provide lists of anecdotal, situational advice on individual card pages, sure. But if we want fans to read and add to such things in the first place, we should first provide an aggregator of some kind. Because I think it is far more likely that fans will be googling "Elder Scrolls Legends tier list" when looking for guidance than "Elder Scrolls Legends [insert individual card name here]." That's just what strategy card gamers are looking for. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
A tier list certainly seems like a good thing to have, although I feel like one could reasonably be put together using traditional consensus. —Legoless (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's hoping. Anyway, any thoughts on formatting? Like, do you prefer inter-tier ranking, like Heartharena, or ranking cards only by putting them in tiers, like Icy Veins? Number of tiers? Their names? Table style?
I know the NDA makes all this tricky, but I hope people in the beta (please do not identify yourselves) come prepared on launch day so we can hash it out quickly. Any notes, significant combos, maybe even tier drafts if you have the time. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No real preference as long as we get to use "trash tier". That Heartharena layout looks good, but my HS card knowledge isn't deep enough to comment any more than that. —Legoless (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


So, let's talk about how we want to do for card lists. I like the idea of doing a full, sortable list - I've found a similar feature on a wiki for another card game really useful. Do we want to include thumbnails in this? That's going to be hundreds of images. In addition to that, I think it would help to have pages just for the different attributes: whether we want to do a separate sortable list on that page, or just link to a "Legends-Cards-Strength" category? Before we go putting in a bunch of work I thought I'd get some other opinions.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Name Class/Attribute Type Race Magicka Cost Rarity Attack Defense Abilities
Abecean Navigator Intelligence Creature High Elf 2 Grey 3 2 Summon: If the top card of your deck is an action, draw it. Otherwise, put it on the bottom.
Ageless Automaton Neutral Creature Dwemer 4 Blue 2 5 When Ageless Automaton attacks a Guard, it gains +3/+0 and Breakthrough this turn.
Ahnassi Monk Creature Khajiit 5 Gold 5 5 Summon: Ahnassi steals all keywords from enemy creatures.

— Unsigned comment by Alarra (talkcontribs) at 19:30 on 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thumbnails seem like a bad idea on any significantly long list. I wonder if it would be possible to transclude the data from the individual card pages? Otherwise we'd end up with some serious info duplication, which would be a problem if/when the values are changed. Also, we changed "Race" to "Type" (see above). —Legoless (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
That would definitely be nice if we'd be able to transclude it somehow. The wiki I mentioned for the other card game does something like that, but that's way beyond what I know how to do on a wiki, lol. Thought I'd link it anyway in case it's helpful to anyone. As far as "Type", was anything ever decided for creature/action/support? ~ Alarra (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been following how they're presented in-game and treating all the Creature categories as separate "Types". See Legends:Card Types and Legends:Creatures. So something like:
Name Class/Attribute Type Cost Rarity Attack Defense Abilities
Abecean Navigator Intelligence High Elf 2 Grey 3 2 Summon: If the top card of your deck is an action, draw it. Otherwise, put it on the bottom.
Apprentice's Potion Willpower Action 1 Grey N/A N/A Gain 5 health.
We might also wanna consider adding separate columns for other factors like ongoing/uses. —Legoless (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Transclusion would definitely be possible. The setup would be similar to {{Book Normal}} (or, at a more involved level, {{Online Skill Link}}). --Enodoc (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Log Data Viewer

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. I really don't know how many thins work. Is there a way of searching for books by area? Thanks. --Rhynchelma (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ESO Skills: Values for Calculation

I've asked if it was possible to have a bot run to update the ESO skills for each new update, and things are looking good so far. With these updates, I thought it was a good idea to ask for any input if we should change the values for the calculation of effect cost and damage (currently we use level 4 and Max Magicka/Stamina 1000, Weapon/Spell Damage 0, what I think produces too low numbers to do any good job for comparison). I would propose Veteran16 (or 160 champion poins with the comming update), Max Health 8744, Max Magicka/Stamina 7958, Weapon/Spell Damage 1037 (Base values of the CP500 PTS Template and a CP 160 Staff). -- SarthesArai Talk 16:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable (I think I also said those numbers weren't very useful). I'm not sure how {{Skill Link}} will work once VRs are removed, but I assume Dave has something planned for altering that for CPs. It may be better for calculation purposes to use Level 50 and 0 CPs, so that we don't have to keep changing the base values when the CP progression cap is raised. We may also want to use some rounder values, since everyone's setup will be different, so maybe Max H/M/S 10000 and W/S Damage 1000? --Enodoc (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this...for this nothing has changed for the item levels. Now instead of level 51-66 being VR1-16 it is just CP10-160. The only things that would be affected by the VR-CP switch are things that take a specific VR as input. Some of these have already been updated but it will be a work in progress for the next few weeks. -- Daveh (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ESO Skill/Morph Descriptions

So, just for fun, ESO Patch 10 seems to have introduced a number of cases where skill/morph descriptions vary in more than just the numbers between one rank of the skill and the next. In Patch 9, there were 3 such skills/morphs; in Patch 10, we're up to 25! (Currently, I'm looking at Active and Ultimate skills only, as per the discussion on the bot requests page.)

In most of these, they're very minor mistakes/discrepancies that I expect will be fixed either in interim patches or behind the scenes. How do we want to deal with them in the meantime? Do we want to simply correct the problems and pretend they don't exist? Note them in a Notes section? Other options?

Here's the full list of discrepancies so you can check them out either in our data or in the game. For those that I've put at the end under "Pluralization issues", those are things like "1 second, 2 seconds". The only real question there is whether to document them as "[1 / 2 / 3 / 4] seconds" or "[1 / 2 / 3 / 4] second(s)".

Robin Hood  (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say, for each, take the one which makes most sense and ignore the others. For the most part (but not always), the one that makes most sense is likely to be the one which occurs most. --Enodoc (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
What about Remembrance? That one's a little more weird than the rest. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The effect would probably need to be checked in-game, but I think it's bad writing for the same effect, and they just forgot to update the wording for IV. Firstly, it would be illogical for a higher rank of a skill to suddenly stop working on yourself. But I'm pretty sure I remember seeing from a long time ago something which said that anything referring to "allies" includes you as well, as you are technically an ally of yourself. So I would stick with the I-III description.
Also, looking at Remembrance there reminded me that there is a specific isChanneled field and a separate channelTime. We should probably try to incorporate those factors as well. (and is Channel Time always equal to Duration?) --Enodoc (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Grand Healing also heals yourself if you are in the area, so yes, you are an ally of yourself ;-)
I believe chanelTime is used instead of duration, if it is a channeled spell. -- SarthesArai Talk 18:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
At least according to what's in the database, channelTime is not always equal to duration. Of the Active/Ultimate skills, Drain Essence, Puncturing Strikes, and Radiant Destruction all had durations different from their channel times for the base skill and both morphs in each case.
Now that Dave's updated the skills, the list of skills that have channelTime not equal to their duration is: Flurry, Puncturing Strikes, Radiant Destruction, and Soul Strike. Can anyone confirm whether duration is used for these at all in the game? Once we know that, it'll be easier to figure out how we want to change the template. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
All except Soul Strike have duration 0, right? That leaves Soul Strike as the main one to test. Since the channel time is longer than the duration, we'd need to check when the damage effect starts in relation to the channelling. --Enodoc (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

() D'oh! You're right. I made sure channelTime was > 0, but didn't think to make sure duration > 0. So yeah, I think Soul Strike is probably the only one that's particularly of concern then. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the writings of Michael Kirkbride

Hey guys, i'm new here and I was wondering what the community's feelings were regarding Michael Kirkbride's writings and his presence on the wiki pages. Should all of his work be considered canon or just some of it? I feel that the only work to be considered canon is work that is accepted by Bethesda and absorbed into their lore. Those are the only circumstances. In addition, what are your thoughts on CHIM? --S0LMaverick (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)S0LMaverick

The only part of his work that is considered canon is the part of the work that is actually present in the games. If it isn't present in the games, it isn't canon. He has absolutely zero authority over the creative direction of the series. It just simply isn't reasonable to defer to someone who hasn't worked for the company full time in over a decade. If I were to write a story which expanded on, for instance, the current state of the continent of Akavir, that would hold exactly the same amount of weight as anything being currently written by Kirkbride. Jeancey (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See our guidelines on unofficial material. Kirkbride is not canon, although our articles may sometimes reference his texts for the purposes of clarifying official in-game lore, usually established by consensus on a case-by-case basis. We have an article on CHIM, but you're probably better off going to TIL if you want Kirkbride's post-KotN works. —Legoless (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You guys made my day. Over at the Elder Scrolls Wiki, I debated them about this and they claimed Kirkbride is canon. Their wiki is terrible and has many cases of Kirkbride's writing being put into otherwise canon lore articles. What are your feelings on the Elder Scrolls wiki?--S0LMaverick (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)S0LMaverick
It's best that we not get into discussions about the Wikia here. Suffice it to say, there is a reason we all edit here instead of there. Jeancey (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, it occurred to me after I was banned for talking ill of the almighty Michael Kirkbride.--S0LMaverick (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)S0LMaverick

ESO: Notes and Books

There are over 1,500 things that we have called "Books" and over 1,200 things that we have called "Notes". Are they all supposed to be listed on the Books and Notes pages, respectively? How do we determine what is a Note and what is a Book? --Enodoc (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Good question! I've sometimes avoided filling out that field because I'm unsure. I'm usually adding "book" if it is very clear it's a book :p Anything shorter seems to be listed as notes. For example, in the latest Gold Coast Tomes, I would say the historical writings are the ones I'd categorize as books, e.g. Knightsgrave: Legend or Legacy? or The Primate: Finding Faith. Investigator Vale: Shadow Fellows is in my opinion a book in the series of detective stories :P But these are obvious, several other writings are not.
I also think books are possibly such works that appear in several games and have a bit more hm, importance?
Having two long list seems possibly unnecessary, because we already have collection pages, and we already have categories for books/notes. I'm not sure where the usefulness of these lists lies. Tib (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This is another distinction from older namespaces which doesn't apply to ESO. In my opinion they should all be books, to avoid such cases of arbitrary categorisation. —Legoless (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 19:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
So what should we do regarding this? That sounds like a very good job for a bot, if we are to remove the "note" parts and category and make everything books instead, doesn't it? Tib (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One Tamriel

It's early days yet, but I thought it would be good to brainstorm ideas for how to handle One Tamriel. A lot of our templates will have to be adjusted. That probably includes the removal of the beautiful Silver and Gold params from {{Online Place Summary}}, as well as the level param from {{Online NPC Summary}}. Specifying soul size will also probably need to go, which means gender shouldn't be displayed by default. All in all, this update will see a lot of data become obsolete, so we need to decide what we want to do with ESO level info: keep some of it, or just delete? —Legoless (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I gathered from the announcement, it sounded more like the levels remain, but the players effective level is changed to match the level of the zone or area you are in. So each NPC has a level still, you just get leveled to it. I don't see that big a change from a data standpoint, this change is more about the player's power than the NPCs changing at all. Even in the article on the subject, they specifically mention battle leveling and that the players level will be scaled to the content. Jeancey (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering it says we're bringing the same auto-leveling system (called “battle leveling") that has been so successful in our DLCs to the entire game and Characters will have their level scaled the same way that we currently scale players to the level of DLC zones, I was assuming that meant it would be the same as it is in the DLC zones. That is, all the content is Level 50 CP 150 and players are scaled up to match. --Enodoc (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting, because I assumed that the level of the zones would stay the same, but the players would be leveled up or down to match the level of the zone. That way, zones still have that sort of progression you need in this sort of game, but everyone can play in any zone. Jeancey (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Battle leveling currently involves scaling up, not down. The article even says it will be the same system as the DLC zones. That means all content will be max level (currently CP160 but due to change in future), so levels will definitely need to be removed from articles. —Legoless (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If it actually works like that, I would possibly agree. But something tells me they aren't going to do that, because then the players level becomes kinda worthless. Jeancey (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I hope you're right. I would much prefer if downscaling was a thing as it would keep the zone levels as "what they should be" for progression. That's not "the same way" to how battle-levelling currently works though, as battle-levelling always levels you up, and there has been no mention of downscaling becoming part of it. --Enodoc (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Jeancey, that certainly seems to be the plan: In general, higher level players will be the same “level" as lower level players, but they will have far more tools in their arsenal: better gear, more abilities, and of course more Champion points. I don't think we realistically need to plan for the possibility of a downscaling model. —Legoless (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

() I felt that just the fact that they are saying higher level and lower level still implies that downscaling will be a thing. Jeancey (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it implies that *levels* will still be a thing, i.e. you will still need to reach level 50 to unlock Veteran dungeons and you'll still receive attribute points as you complete content. But in the game world, all characters will be on an even playing field, just like in the current DLC zones. —Legoless (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully Bara can find out more about it at the next GM moot thingy. Jeancey (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the weight of the current evidence, it would still be good to decide what we're doing with level data. —Legoless (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We can't decide to do away with levels before finding out if levels are going away. I still think that the whole 'same way it works now' simply means that the player is leveled to the level of the zone, not that the player is leveled to max. If that was the case, they wouldn't even use the term level, they would just say, everyone is the same. It isn't coming out for 4 months or so. We have time to wait and get more information. Jeancey (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Gut feeling doesn't really cut it IMO, but here you go, some developer clarification. —Legoless (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
See, that's the type of clarification I was looking for :P I still think we need to know more about it from a gameplay perspective. If they still have levels attached to them in the data, we may still want to put that in the summary, even if it doesn't really mean much from a gameplay perspective. Maybe just have it auto attached. This also completely messes with the soul gem system and gear level. How can the same creature fill a grand soul gem for a max level player but only fill a petty soul gem for a level 5 character. does this mean all neutral mobs like frogs are max level? we still don't know enough to start changing templates all around. Jeancey (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick template help

I'd like to modify some of the icon templates: ESO Active Icon, ESO Passive Icon, and ESO Achievement Icon (possibly also Image Overlay and Image Sandwich) such that they can be used within a block of text without adding a new line before and after the icon. Does anyone know how to do this? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't even realize you'd posted in here; already done. Let me know if I broke anything (since I usually do)     :)    --Enodoc (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool, random CSS tag fixed it, yay. Seems to work. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No, wait, I take it back. While it worked on Synergy, I tried to do the same thing on Blood Altar, and it doesn't work there. Not sure what the difference is, other than maybe the other image on the page breaking things? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, don't know. I agree though, it probably has something to do with the position parameter not playing nicely with the image. --Enodoc (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The difference is that on Synergy, you're inside of a list; on Blood Altar, you're not. I won't say I have a firm grasp of these things, but I gather that brings block formatting vs inline formatting within the paragraph into play somehow. I've tried a number of different approaches, and Googled far and wide, and the best I can come up with is to use spans instead of divs. That has the disadvantage that the image is always vertically centered with the text and can't be moved away from that (except with the use of line-height, which causes other problems). So, for example, the paragraph from Blood Altar would look like this:
Blood Altar creates a field which increases the Health Recovery of yourself and your allies. It also allows allies to activate the ON-icon-synergy-Blood Funnel.png (edited to use real template so sandbox can be cleared) Blood Funnel synergy, which gives them additional healing, though it also decreases the duration of the spell unless you have the Overflowing Altar morph, which also allows multiple allies to use the synergy. Alternatively, the Sanguine Altar morph increases the amount of Health Recovery for all allies.
The way I see it, we have three choices: change the existing Image Overlay template to spans; create a second template for inline vs. other uses; or the really yucky option is to wrap any unadorned paragraph inside a plain <div>, which also seems to resolve the issue, but then requires that people know they need to do that. Robin Hood  (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
D'oh! Just noticed that's how they align on Synergy anyway. In testing, they were aligning higher. Maybe it's back to the block vs inline thing again. I'm on my way to bed, so I don't wanna make the change and then disappear without confirming it works well. If someone else wants to try it and see that it looks okay everywhere, go nuts! Robin Hood  (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Changing to spans was something else I considered. I tried to adjust the div first before trying that in case there was a particular reason divs were used instead of spans in the first place, but if there isn't, and if it works, then changing to spans will certainly be the way to go. --Enodoc (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed to spans. Hopefully, that won't break anything. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so it almost works everywhere. However, I've noticed a slight problem that can still occur at certain browser widths. Go to Synergy, and look at Hidden Refresh, in the first of the Nightblade entries. Now resize your browser until the icon is at the far right side. Move it around a little bit, and you'll eventually end up with the icon on one line and the border on the next. Ran into this by chance. It's admittedly a bit of an edge case. We can probably get around it by simply enclosing the icon and the text into a {{nowrap|}}, forcing the whole thing to be on one line. I might do that anyhow and even make a template for it so we can format it consistently on each of the skill pages. Not sure how many other places that may cause a problem, however, so just letting you know in case there's an easy fix. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

() Your idea of nowrapping it worked perfectly. I added the code directly to the templates rather than nesting templates on something that's in fairly frequent use, just to be nice to our servers. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm still able to get the icon and border to split on separate lines. Not sure if it's just a matter of the template changes not being propagated or what. Tried hard-refresh, purge, null-edit, still experiencing the same issue on the main Synergy page. I was planning on replacing all of those with the ESO Synergy Link, but I'm leaving it as-is for now so you can still see the problem. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Bah! It's browser-specific. Nowrap fixed it in Firefox, but apparently not in Chrome. I'm out of ideas for the moment. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This looks good on everything I have (Chrome, FF, IE, Edge, all in Windows) when I resize it. How is it for you (and anybody else who wants to chip in)? Robin Hood  (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Errors Accessing Pages

For unknown reasons, it seems that some pages are returning HTTP 500 errors whenever they're accessed. So far, I've noticed this on subpages of Online:Contraband, such as Online:Contraband/Drinkware, but there may be others. This may appear to be intermittent, since it only seems to be affecting Content1 (compare: Content1, Content2). I've informed Dave of the problem. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed with a recent change Dave made to our server configuration. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of the Empty template

A conversation on The Silencer's talk page has brought up an interesting point about our use of the {{Empty}} template. As mentioned in that discussion, we frequently use the Empty template on pages where the content is simply a template or purely bot-generated framework, not a full-fledged page. The Silencer is absolutely correct, however, that the template states clearly that it is for "blank" pages, and the description in the Empty Pages category agrees. Looking at several random pages, it is clearly wrong in most cases to say that the pages are blank. Just as clearly, however, some are, or close enough to make no difference. What's the best approach here? Do we want to change the template wording to indicate that such a page may be bot-generated and have only minimal content, or do we want to change non-empty pages to use the {{Stub}} template instead. (And on a side note, several pages use both, which we probably shouldn't.)

Personally, I'm slightly in favour of changing Empty to Stub, where appropriate, though I don't feel all that strongly about it. There are, however, over 4000 pages that have the Empty template on them. While the bot could perhaps help out a bit here (e.g., change/remove Empty if a template has at least X parameters filled in), a large number of pages are probably going to require human judgement. What does everyone else think? Robin Hood  (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The way I have always looked at it is that if the page has no actual prose (i.e. It only has data in the template or placeholder headers) then it should have the empty tag. If it is actually blank aside from the empty template, why even have a page? It is then no better than a red link. My question would be, what is the issue with the way it is now? Jeancey (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the idea of having a page with just an empty template rather than a red link is to set up a framework for later editing, so all the right things are on the page in the right order (e.g., templates, relevant headers, categories, etc.). Robin Hood  (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Jeancey and Rob both have a few good thoughts. I'm with Jeancey that "Empty" is good for pages that only have the templates in place but no actual text. I see a "Stub" template as for pages that have a rudimentary description in place, but it's lacking enough information to be considered full enough to give an accurate description of the contents of the page. And, I like Rob's thinking of having the pages already created with the templates waiting to be filled, so that the basic framework is in place for those (like me or a new person who isn't comfortable making templates) who want to work on the page but don't want to or don't know how to go from scratch. And, if we have the pages and templates created, we know they're named right and the templates are right, then it's just a matter of users plugging in appropriate information to create the article. -damon  talkcontribs 20:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A page should be marked if it has only had minimal human input, and we currently use the Empty tag for that function. We could make a new "bot-created" category or we could stick with the Empty tag, but simply removing it without adding even basic prose seems counterproductive. —Legoless (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the empty tag should be used for the pages totally without human input, as anything else is not actually empty, even if almost empty. A kind of tag indicating it has been edited a bit while still lack enough to even be called a stub, could a good idea, but stub would still be well enough for me. —MortenOSlash (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
On pages where the only content is bot-generated framework or a template, there really shouldn't be the empty template if the framework or template provides information about the subject of the page. That content on the page alone disqualifies the page from being required to have the empty template. --Dragon Guard (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I still don't see how this would change how we deal with pages. Either we remove the template from hundreds, if not thousands of pages with no other actual benefit to the page, or we just rewrite the description of the template to reflect its actual use, namely for pages that are created with simply template or template data, but not actual prose or body of the article. This is why the empty template gets removed when a description of the NPC, or a walkthrough of the quest is added. Personally, I feel the reason the Stub template is also present is simply because if the editor removing the empty template had to add the stub template themselves, it is likely they might forget and we wouldn't have stub templates on the correct pages. The current system has been in place for years, and while I'm not one to simply say we shouldn't fix it, I honestly think the way we have now works quite well. I believe that rewriting the description of the empty template is the best way to go. Jeancey (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

() Using the empty template suggests there is no information on the page it is on. Technically speaking, should we consider the bot-generated framework and templates information or not, and why? --Dragon Guard (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry we're having to waste the editors' additional and valuable time, but for some reason, Silencer demands that pages utilize both the empty and stub templates, which is just silly. Legoless has requested we establish a consensus to sort this out. The empty template purports to denote a page with no content except the template, whereas the stub template denotes a page with minimal content that relates to the name of the page. --Dragon Guard (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jeancey's position to change the wording. Having both tags on the page is correct and useful, but it's best to avoid confusion. —Legoless (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Er ...How is it correct? We've got three solutions: create a new template, alter templates/a template, or remove the empty template from all pages that are blank except for the empty template. Needless to say, with the third solution, which is my idea, we would need to change every other page on the site around. If we didn't, the person/people doing so would be creating inconsistency' therefore breaking the rules. --Dragon Guard (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I just want to point out that, from a cursory glance, there are no pages at all that are entirely empty with the exception of the Empty template... There MAY be one or two pages for which this is true, but basically non-existent. Why bother creating a new template (lets say, minimal) that functions the exact same to how empty works now? It just creates more busywork for the exact same result. If the pages involved are the same, just leave the template as is and change how we describe it. It just doesn't make any sense to me to change something that works. Jeancey (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to have both the empty and stub template on a page at the same time. One will do. An empty page has the empty template, and a non-empty page will have the stub tag. This reflects the meanings of the templates. --Dragon Guard (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As has already been said above, the stub tag usually needs to be added anyway so putting it on bot-created pages is helpful. Repeatedly insisting that we should inexplicably only use one isn't helpful. —Legoless (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point about the reason to use both a Stub and an Empty template on the same page. I hadn't thought of that (even though, in many cases, it was my bot that put both on the page in the first place). So, given that, I think I'm with Jeancey as well, that we should reword the template to be a bit more liberal in the definition of "empty". If we want to get away from the name "Empty" for the template, there's no reason we couldn't just move it to "Minimal" or "Bot-generated" or whatever, and leave the redirect in place. The template calls themselves wouldn't really need to be changed because it's not like a single redirected template on any given page will significantly impact performance. I don't think there's any great need to do that, but if people find the word "Empty" confusing, given the wording change, it could be done easily enough, and the new naming could just be used as new pages are created or editors are making other edits (much like the File vs Image change some editors do, or changing underscores in file links to spaces). Robin Hood  (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

() Do we really need TWO templates on a page to suggest it will undergo later development? I hardly think so. It's overkill. --Dragon Guard (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Emptiness does not preclude minimality. By which I mean, something that is empty is also a stub (ie, minimal) by definition. The way I have always assumed it worked, which is what prompted my question on Silencer's talk page, is that an empty page has absolutely no content outside of a template, primarily but not exclusively therefore being a page which is lacking the required first sentence saying This thing is a thing. Without that sentence or an equivalently-useful, non-templated entity, regardless of whether the page was bot-created or created manually, it would be considered "empty". A stub, on the other hand, is any page that requires expanding because it's too short. Empty pages, by virtue of being empty, are certainly too short, and so qualify to be stubs, but most stub pages do not require immediate attention to give them a first sentence like empty pages do. I agree that the wording may need to be changed due to things not actually being "blank", but the general reasoning behind the two different templates to indicate priority of editing I think needs to be maintained. --Enodoc (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Almost - the definition of a stub however is not merely a page which is short - many pages will be short but not stubs simply because there is not much to say on a given subject. A stub implies that there is relevant information which could be added to the page but hasn't yet, and also that this information is more than simple numerical data and the like. (Otherwise it would simply have the "Pages Missing Information" category, which is added by some templates. So there's a hierarchy of completeness that goes something like: Blank (not sure if we still have many of these), Empty (blank except for template), Stub (minimal text outside of template), Missing Information, Needs Verification, Complete. With a few assorted sub-types in there like Needs Image or Needs Map. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
"The way I have always assumed it worked [...]". I'm pretty sure we don't use people's imaginations on things like this. And, in retrospect, removing the empty templates from pages without prior consultation was a stupid move to make.
Why do people insist on pages with templates that contain information relevant to the pagename worthy of the empty template? That is just a way to wind people up. We know what "empty" means, so why keep it on pages that don't conform to the definition of the word? Who is going to change them all? Me? A bot? Keeping the empty template on certain pages is just going to provide a discombobulating experience. WDYT? --Dragon Guard (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The "assumption" was not based on my imagination. It was based on continued observation of the existing practice of usage surrounding the template, and as soon as my assumption was challenged, I questioned it. I would prefer however you not criticise my wording and instead focus on the discussion.
"Why do people insist on pages with templates that contain information relevant to the pagename worthy of the empty template?" Right. That's why I said the wording of the template needs to be changed, but the purpose of the template needs to be maintained. A page without its introductory sentence is as good as empty, but it's not technically empty. Take this random NPC page, for example. This page remains ostensibly "empty" (or whatever word we'd like to use instead) until the time that the sentence "Isabeau Jend is a Breton smith residing in Daggerfall Castle." is added. But even after that, it remains a stub as there is more information that can be added in the future. Under the same guideline, I would posit that this page remains ostensibly empty until such a time that the sentence "Purge is an Alliance War Support skill which removes negative skill effects from yourself and allies." is added to it. Silencer clearly did not have the same position on what qualifies for "empty", hence the discussion. --Enodoc (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Jeancey and Robin, a simple re-definition (to something like “Contains no human input”) and re-naming (to “Minimal” or the ilk) would easily take care of the situation. No need to replace 1000+ templates, just a quick rewrite and we're done. -- MetaCthulhu (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so from my read (and correct me if I've missed something), with the exception of DG, we're all agreed that the wording of the template should be changed to reflect current usage and the template calls can be left as they are. Do we want to rename it to "Minimal" or "Bot-generated", at least for future use, or just leave it as "Empty"? Also, it's currently dumping all empty pages into a single category per namespace. Since the template already has a type parameter, do we want to use that to divide up results into categories (e.g., Category:Online Empty Skill Pages)? That would allow someone who wants to fill in empty skill pages, for example, to concentrate specifically on them. Currently, defined types include: Creature, NPC, Place, Quest, and Skill. If no parameter is specified, I'd just categorize it into the parent namespace category. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Dividing by namespace would be useful since Online is full of them and probably blocking out others. I don't see the need for a template name change personally. —Legoless (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

() I'd prefer a name change (because I'm pedantic), but I'm not going to fight anybody for it. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this has been done now, and the template moved to {{Minimal}}. Also, for now, I haven't changed the category name itself. We didn't really discuss that, and I wasn't sure whether it really made sense to do so or not. That's an easy change if needed. Legoless: the template was already splitting by namespace, I was just suggesting it be split further by type. I've done that for now, but if it's not as helpful as we hope, it's easy to put back. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 47 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 49