UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 5

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


Anyone else notice this?

I was looking at the MediaWiki website tonight and noticed this: [1]. It looks as though, excluding the 100 largest wikis in the world (mostly Wikimedia, number 1 is English Wikipedia, 2 is German Wikipedia, etc.), we are the 5th largest user of MediaWiki software. I found this interesting and decided to post it. You may also notice the CS wiki as 13th on the list. --Dylnuge 23:35, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

We need over 8,700 articles to even get on the top 120 list. [2] --Aristeo | Talk 10:32, 30 October 2006 (EST)
Basing on article count alone is not a good method of determining the largest Wiki. For example, www.gamerwiki.com has 4x the number of good articles (11000 to our 2900) but we have over 10x the number of users (5900 to 560) and over 60x the number of page views (29 million to 500,000). Or consider the English Chainki which has a ridiculus 477,000 article count but a low page view and almost no users. I've looked at a number of Wikis and found there is huge variation in the article count to actual content. The UESP has a low good article count I think because each good article is relatively large. We could artifically inflate our article by a few factors simply by splitting any page with a 2 or 3 level header, although just doing so to get on a 'largest Wiki list' is not a good reason to do so.
Actually looking at that list and not just looking at article count we're higher rated than I would of guessed. By users we're 54th, by views we're 5th (if you trust the page view values), and by edits we're 106th. While it doesn't really matter whether we're near the top or near the bottom, its interesting at any rate. -- DaveH 19:34, 3 November 2006 (EST)
We might not have the largest wiki, but we sure do have the best! --Aristeo | Talk 17:48, 9 November 2006 (EST)
Being interesting is the only real reason I mentioned this, I know a lot of factors contribute to a 'good' wiki. I found this interesting, and notice it says it excludes wikis in the top 123 available at meta. Dylnuge 16:53, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Vandals, Main Page

I pulled the Vandals warning from the main page for several reasons. The main reason is that the warning was too prominent and seemed a bit insulting to the bulk of users/editors (remember that most people visiting the site are simply readers, not editors). It seemed to be talking down to users/viewers. (I'm sure Aristeo didn't intent such, but that's the way it came across to me as reader.) It also seemed a bit unwiki-like. (I would say that wiki assumes that users will act like adults, though it is quite willing to wipe their edits out (without fanfare) when they don't.) I'm also a bit concerned about counter-productivity -- it seemed a bit likely to act as a waving red flag to some people.)

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the policy, I'm disagreeing with where and how it was presented. In part, it doesn't belong in the news section. But more than that, I think that it probably doesn't belong on the main page at all. Rather, it should be in our equivalent of wikipedia's "anyone can edit" page, but it should be a shorter note. Which leads me to... The main page lead into editing is a bit complicated and dated and probably should be updated. (E.g., logins are no longer required.) There really should be one fairly simple and short page to get people started. The link to that page should be easy to find (e.g., like Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" link), and any warnings which we have to give (e.g., vandal warning) should be on that page. --Wrye 01:48, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I talked to Lurlock, Hoggwild, and Nephele before posting the news article up, but I do think you give some valid points. How about I replace that news article with one about how the wiki was upgraded to version 1.8.2? --Aristeo | Talk 12:08, 1 November 2006 (EST)
Wiki upgrade news: Just put yourself in the shoes of Joe Blow, non-editor, or Jane Blow, occasional editor. Would he or she care? Don't post unless one of them would care. If only heavy editors and/or sysops would care, then post it here. (I assume that all heavy editors have this page watched.) --Wrye 12:33, 1 November 2006 (EST)
More good points. Will do. :) --Aristeo | Talk 13:39, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Advertising, Nonsense

I'm sorry, I'm something of a new user here. I apologize for advertising a page on Wikipedia, I'd just like you good folk to take a look at it. It's a small little article, but I think it generally meets with what you people look for on your site. I wouldn't really have come here, but for suggestions that I "Send [the article on Black Marsh] to an Elder Scrolls wiki where they actually want to see a massive deconstruction of every piece of information ever put to pixel regarding the area." So, here it is, at Black Marsh, and I'd like you to take a look at it and see if it suits your tastes, so that maybe I could receive some helpful commentary from those of a like mind. SulfurousDesign 18:31, 1 November 2006 (EST)

If you would like to add to our page on the Black Marsh, we'd love the input, since it is admittedly pretty minimal at this time. We prefer to not have wikipedia articles copied in their entirety to our site, but if you would like to rewrite some of the content it would be a welcome addition. Let me know if you have any questions. --Nephele 18:51, 1 November 2006 (EST)
Your Black Marsh article looks pretty nice. You sure do know how to write good articles, and lucky for us you also know a lot about the Elder Scrolls. Perhaps you could wander around and add content to articles or revise articles so that they are better. Also, you can reuse any of the content that you submitted to Wikipedia, because you ultimately own the copyright for it. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make your flight more comfortable. --Aristeo | Talk 12:10, 2 November 2006 (EST)

Advertising the Reference Desk

As you can see, I have made an advertisement to the reference desk in the top right corner of the screen by modifying the MediaWiki:Sitenotice page. I figured that it wouldn't be controversial, but just in case, I left an opening for discussion about my modification here. --Aristeo | Talk 12:10, 2 November 2006 (EST)

You put the ad on the top-right of what page? The first thing I looked for when I found this Wiki was the reference desk. I couldn't find it and assumed there wasn't one here. But then I saw this post. How do people normally find the Reference Desk? What pages have links to it? Why isn't it listed under the "Community" menu on the left side? Unless I am growing increasingly clueless with age, it appears to be very hard to find.... 66.188.6.131 16:22, 7 December 2006 (EST)
UPDATE: The reference Desk does not appear to be linked from very many high-traffic pages: http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=UESPWiki%3AReference_Desk 66.188.6.131 16:24, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Morrowind Redesign Project

I've created the Morrowind Redesign Project page for the different project participants to use as a resource for managing the flow and progress of this project. This page is designed to be temporary in nature; once the project is completed, this page will be proposed for Deletion Review. In the meantime, let's make use of it to identify the different facets of the project, let others know you are working on a section, and to discuss facets and and issues for community consensus.

I've listed the major portions of this project, but if you are working on another facet, please feel free to add a section (Morrowind Houses, Alchemy pages, etc.) In addition, if you are working on the Tribunal or Bloodmoon pages, please add that in parenthesis next to your USER ID under the Project Contributors subheadings.

The project contributors involved with this project welcome all contributions, but we do ask that if you intent to participate in an ongoing manner, please refrain from making anonymous contributions and establish a USER ID so we can identify you as a participant, include you in discussions as needed, etc. --Hoggwild5 13:45, 8 November 2006 (EST)

I know this is not the main focus of this discussion/notice, but I recommend that we don't put that up for the deletion review because it will have historical reference. Other than that, I think this project is working pretty well and I want to congratulate everyone involved in the project for your excellent work. --Aristeo | Talk 21:52, 11 November 2006 (EST)

IRC Meeting

It has been suggested that I schedule a moderated meeting in our IRC channel. The meeting will probably be opened for everyone to watch, but only Nephele, TheRealLurlock, Hoggwild5, Ratwar, and myself will be given voice permissions during the duration of the meeting. Although the meeting will strive to be public, please don't be offended if I asked you to leave. We will schedule this meeting at whatever time the previously mentioned people are avaliable, so expect to be notified at the last minute. --Aristeo | Talk 19:25, 11 November 2006 (EST)

It has been suggested that the meeting be held on Wednesday. We will start the meeting when the above people are present in the room unless we agree on a set time. --Aristeo | Talk 13:55, 13 November 2006 (EST)

I just want to remind everyone that the meeting is scheduled for today, and that it's probably going to be this afternoon when everyone can get off of work. Also, the entire meeting will probably not be moderated, the moderation (+m) will just be turned on during hot spots. Let me know if you have any questions. --Aristeo | Talk 15:11, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Everyone is in the room right now. The meeting will begin shortly. --Aristeo | Talk 18:50, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Vibrant Book Skin

Some of you may know by now that I have been working on enhancing the current default skin. The results have exceeded my expectations, which is somewhat surprising considering how few modifications I have made to the actual css. I consider this skin to be finished for the most part, so I would like you all to test it out to see what you think. If enough people like it, I could make this modification global.

Setup Instructions
You must be logged in to be able to set up the skin. Create the page User:Username/monobook.css, case sensitive, and while replacing "Username" with your account name. When creating the page, you will want to type in the following line of code in the edit box:
{{subst:User:Aristeo/monobook.css}}
This will copy the contents of my css file and paste it onto yours. To revert this change, simply blank the contents of the page and optionally place the line /* {{speedydeletion|My personal sub page, requesting speedy deletion}} */ onto your css file.

As an administrator, I can edit other people's css and js files. For this purpose, this allows me to update other people's skin when I update my code. For social limitations, however, I will only update your skin file if you give me permission to do so. At this moment, only Daveh, Hoggwild5, Nephele, and DrPhoton have given me permission to update their skins for this purpose.

As always, comments, criticism, and other suggestions are appreciated. --Aristeo | Talk 13:50, 13 November 2006 (EST)

After making some adjustments, I feel that the skin is now in the release candidate stage. If no one is seeing any white boxes of doom in the next couple of days, and if no one objects, I can make the changes global. --Aristeo | Talk 13:24, 17 November 2006 (EST)

I just made the change global. Let me know what you think about the skin. --Aristeo | Talk 13:41, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Amazing. I just logged off for five minutes, I come back, anc I see this amazing skin. While I like it, I am wonsering if the old MonoBook skin is still available, as some users may not love the change. --Dylnuge(talk · edits) 17:16, 22 November 2006 (EST)

I'll be working on some css code that will allow people to revert to the previous look. --Aristeo | Talk 15:37, 22 November 2006 (EST)
Why not move the skin to one of the other selectable in the user preferences (like e.g. MySkin)? It would allow users to select the one they like best. --DrPhoton 03:47, 23 November 2006 (EST)

I like the parchment background, but why was the UESP logo changed back to the old version? No offense to the guy who made it, but the new one that Booyah Boy made was much better. -- Xbolt 15:54, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Just an issue with the image transparency which should be fixed in the near future (assuming Booyah Boy is around). -- DaveH 16:46, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Very nice! --Wrye 19:58, 22 November 2006 (EST)

New Flags for the Morrowind Redesign Project

We've set up new article flags for the Morrowind Redesign project to flag the following:

These flags are for the Morrowind Redesign Project articles only; we have flags in place for use for other pages on the wiki. There is also a subheading at the top of the Morrowind Redesign Project page with links to these categories to make it easier for project participants to find pages that need attention. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Hoggwild5 13:33, 14 November 2006 (EST)

I made some modifications to them, most notably the colors of the notices and the categories they were hooked to. --Aristeo | Talk 14:28, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Tamriel Dictionary

Hello, I looked at the Tamriel Dictionary and find structure of these articles quite strange. After some investigations, I found out that it is directly imported the old site. It creates several problems

  • It's not easy to link to something in the dictionary, here is an example : Tamriel:Dictionary_H#High_Elves
  • It's not easy to keep track of changes
  • It creates duplication (with the above example : Tamriel:Altmer)

There are certainly other problems, but it can be sum up like this : it needs to be wikified :). So each word should have his own article. This involves creating several articles, and merging existing ones (for example the definition of Moon Sugar is richer [[Lore:Dictionary_M#Moon_Sugar|in the dictionnary]] than in his article).

All in all, I think it would improve the quality of the wiki.

If you want to keep a track of the former structure, you can place the articles in the category "Tamriel_Dictionary" (and then it would be alphabetically sorted automatically in the category page). Shamaz 04:44, 21 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with some of you points, and a lot of what you've said applies to the entire Tamriel section. The problem is that a single dictionary page is going to be long, very long, and that giving each article it's own page is going to create a lot of new pages. Of course, there is also the problem of resources. We just don't have that many editors, and the number of them that have extensive knowledge in lore (which helps a lot in the Tamriel Section) is even smaller. With the huge Morrowind Redesign Project going on, a lot of time is being spent on that, as well as maintaining the Oblivion sections. Hopefully the Tamriel Section and the dictionary will get wikified eventually, but right now, I'm not sure there is much that's going to be done. --Ratwar 09:33, 21 November 2006 (EST)
I think the ultimate goal of the dictionary is to look like the [[Lore:Dictionary_A]] page. A short definition of the word with links to larger articles if needed. This also helps with disambiguation with some words having multiple definitions. This dictionary update is a work in progress and I think only a few pages have been changed so far.
As to linking to the dictionary I'm not sure what the best method would be: linking to the dictionary article or linking directly to the main article (as in you moon sugar example). Perhaps the template wizards can make a template which easily links to a definition in the dictionary, something like:
                  {{tamword|Moon Sugar}}
    Expands to => [[Lore:Dictionary_M#Moon Sugar|Moon Sugar]]
I couldn't find any other discussion on the dictionary pages, but I think Booyah_boy has been slowly doing the updates to it. -- DaveH 10:17, 21 November 2006 (EST)
That wouldn't be too difficult to set up. I'm going to have a lot of time to play with this Thanksgiving weekend, so I'll see if I can help some with this project. --Aristeo | Talk 14:21, 22 November 2006 (EST)
I've decided I really want to help with the whole Dictionary thing, and I'm pretty much new to wikis, but I have pretty big visions for it. My thinking is that it should (1)include 'everything' either unique to the Elder Scrolls world or having a special meaning in it, and (2) be inclusive to the best of the editors' abilities.
1) The entries don't have to be all that long- in fact, they will probably be short and concise, as they should only be a description of 'what' it is, nothing more. It's a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
2) All of the references to other words inside definitions should point to another part of the dictionary as opposed to another part of the wiki. For some things this would be unavoidable, the things I've run into so far are skills, classes, and alchemical ingredients- having pages in multiple games, being solved somewhat like [[Lore:Dictionary_B#Barbarian|this]] or [[Lore:Dictionary_B#Block|this]]. Words with longer definitions or backgrounds, such as under Geography, Gods, or the Bestiary, entries would be linked in the entry title, like [[Lore:Dictionary_B#Bosmer|Bosmer]].
Any other input would be greatly appreciated (read: I'm assuming I'm either doing something completely wrong or missing something entirely. Please tell me). Nicho.Krown 00:57, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Well, only thing I disagree with is that there SHOULD be references to other parts of the wiki. So in the Bosmer entry, there'd also be referenes to Lore:Bosmer, Morrowind:Bosmer and Oblivion:Bosmer, so as to have all the info readily at hand. (Also avoids duplicating content.) Additionally, I'd see references to Lore:Valenwood and Lore:A Dance in Fire would be appropriate there, for example. --TheRealLurlock Talk 15:22, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Vvardenfell Google map

I am amazed by the Oblivion interactive map, powered by google map. I'm interested to know if you're planning to make the same thing for Vvardenfell. I tested the hires interactive map (from here) but in my opinion, it's less usable and gorgeous :). I found a more detailed map on the Imperial Library. It could be used to make a "Vvardenfell Google map"

On a related note, pointing to the interactive map from articles would be an incredible feature. I saw it's discussed here, but I just want to underline the fact that I'd really like to see this for Morrowind articles :). Shamaz 05:58, 21 November 2006 (EST)

I've thought about it and its certainly possible the only issue is time (i.e. my time which is stretched lately). Most of the base map code can be reused but the most time consuming thing is actually generating the map images and creating the location database. The map images have to be generated from Morrowind or the CS (I forget the command, I think its a game console command). These images then have to be combined, renamed, and resized to form all the tile images. Since editors are getting into updating the Morrowind section of the Wiki perhaps I can spare a few days and put it together.
Actually, looking at that hi-res map it might help sped up image creation although I'd have to redo the image tiling scripts I have. -- DaveH 10:00, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Morrowind Redesign Project -- data dumps and project page flags

I just wanted to make everyone aware that we have project specific article flags for the Morrowind Redesign project that will allow you to flag articles for cleanup, as stubs, as needing images and as works in progress. Also, I've created a couple of data dumps from the construction set to provide information not easily obtainable by those project members who don't have access to the construction set, and also to aid in tracking our progress on various parts of the project. You can read more about these on the project page and the project talk page at Morrowind Redesign Project and Morrowind Redesign Project talk page, as well as find links to the data dumps and the categorization pages for the flagged articles.--Hoggwild5 05:02, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Wiki Server Speed?

Recently, I have been noticing some slow page loads on UESP. I have a page load timer, and the community portal took 179 seconds (about 3 minutes) to load. Is/are the server/servers overloaded? Just wondering what can be done to help reduce page load time (or if anyone else except me is experianceing it). --Dylnuge(talk · edits) 23:37, 4 December 2006 (EST)

PS I use Firefox 1.5.0.8 --Dylnuge(talk · edits) 23:37, 4 December 2006 (EST)
The server does slowly get clogged up over time with dead connections, and Daveh has to periodically restart it. He last restarted it about 4 hours ago; before that I had definitely been noticing some problems occasionally with slow responses (over the last three days or so). Also at this particular moment Aristeo is doing a major batch edit, so expect slowness for another hour or so. So, basically, yes, the server has been slow over the last few days but hopefully once Aristeo's batch job clears out of the system, things should hopefully be normal. --Nephele 23:55, 4 December 2006 (EST)
For those wondering about the worsened server speed and about the current issues the wiki faces, please read below. --Dylnuge(talk · edits) 14:20, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Inputbox Plugin

I am thinking of adding a type in page and click add button like they have over at Wikipedia, but I would like to add a drop down for the namespaces, since its usefulness is eliminated if it does not have this (people who would use the feature-don't know much about wikis-would not think to put the namespace in). The problem is, the feature is added as a plugin([3]). The inputbox plugin could be useful, but would require installation by Daveh. I am wondering what other people's thoughs are on this. Thanks. --Dylnuge(talk · edits) 21:36, 7 December 2006 (EST)

We already have the inputbox plugin installed. --Aristeo | Talk 22:01, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Nath Dyer

I recieved an e-mail from one of our readers about something wrong with one of the unfinished quest pages:

In the unfinished quest section of the page you make a reference to Nath Dyer. Nath Dyer is actually Nathan McDyer, one of the employees of Bethsoft. In the French version of the game they kept his original name. In all other versions it was changed to Nath Dyer. You can see his name in the game credits.

I'm not 100% sure what he's talking about. Could someone who's more knowledgeable about this than I fix the problem? Thanks! --Aristeo | Talk 23:35, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Done (see Oblivion:Easter Eggs), although I didn't bother to mention anything about the French version of the game, since you can get the info from the construction set even in the English version. --Nephele 10:43, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Subpaging

Collected here are several topics concerned with the practice of subpaging. --Wrye 15:21, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Wiki Values: Open Discussion and Consensus Action

This topic was originally created as pointer to the Principles Controvery topic, but quickly switched to Hoggwild5's suggestion that the discussion be subpaged, and so is included here.--Wrye 15:21, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Two of the core values (if not the two core values) of wiki are Open Discussion and Consensus action. I feel that we've been drifting away from that in recent months, and discuss that trend at length above under Aristeo vs. Wrye Edit War. These values are a basic issue and determine in a fundamental way what this "place" will be now, and in the future. I hope you'll take the time to wade through the verbiage.

(Note: I'm placing this pointer here for those might notice this topic, but not the seemingly smaller topic of "Edit War". However, to avoid confusion, if you have comments to make please add them there, rather than here.) --Wrye 03:28, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I'd like to make a suggestion here -- this discussion is probably important enough that it needs to have it's own set of pages on the Wiki -- perhaps a page similar to the user sandbox pages under the Community Portal, with a link on the Community Portal page. The reason I'm suggesting this is that:
  1. There are currently two subheadings that involve this discussion; this makes it easier for commentary to get overlooked by those trying to follow and input on the discussion.
  2. I expect that there will be a great deal of commentary made on this subject, and there is a risk of this subject taking over the Community Portal page and other issues getting overlooked. In addition, the discussion can be left up for however much time the Community decides is appropriate without having it take up an inordinate amount of space on the Community Portal page.
A short paragraph introducing the discussion can be left on the Community Portal page, with a link to the discussion pages for this subject.
Just my thoughts on the matter. --Hoggwild5 04:56, 2 December 2006 (EST)
I suggest moving this under a sub page of this page, and I suggest that we name the page [[/The Principle Controversy|/The Principle Controversy]]. It's important, it's about principles, it's princple. It's a "prolonged public dispute, debate", it's about controversial matters, it's a controversy. Artistic wordsmithing at it's best. :) --Aristeo | Talk 05:21, 2 December 2006 (EST)
There are pros and cons to moving the content to a different page. The size and importance argue for a separate page. OTOH, moving would result in loss of the page history and a bit less advertising. (The community portal is watched by many, and subpage would be watched by few, and so a lot less people would notice an argument going on.)
Weighing those arguments, I was actually about to approve a move to different page when I noticed that Aristeo, having disregarded the basic principle of dispute resolution, had blanked my comments on the spammers talk page again. While my trust in Aristeo was low before, it's pretty close to zero now. So...
No. Do not move the discussion to another page. This is an important community discussion. It should stay here. --Wrye 20:18, 3 December 2006 (EST)
I also feel that this discussion should not be moved elsewhere, at least not yet. Once some sort of conclusion has been reached it should be moved, but until then I feel it's important enough to remain on this page. — EndarethTalk 21:26, 3 December 2006 (EST)
The suggestion to move this topic to a separate page was not to trivialize the importance of the topic -- it was exactly the opposite. When this topic started, I could clearly see that there was going to be an incredible amount of discussion on the issue. My suggestion that the topic be given its own space was to prevent this topic from overwhelming the Community Portal page and causing other issues that came up while this topic was active to be overlooked. Any implication that there was any intention to the contrary is a misunderstanding on your part, and I'm somewhat offended that my words have been twisted in such a manner. If you'll refer back to my opening statement you'll see exactly that. I was very clear in my suggestion. In addition, I suggested that a short summary of the discussion topic be left on the community portal with links to the primary discussion page. That way, anyone interested in following the discussion could easily find the pages; plus this lends itself to actually printing off the discussion pages without getting additional topics not germaine to the discussions, making it easier for responders to refer back to previous comments by other editors while they are compiling their commentary without having to constantly toggle back and forth.
Since there are contributors here that are demanding that other readers take the time to read the sometimes long winded diatribes that are taking place on this topic where the same statement is made over and over and over again, I think that turnabout is fair play and you can take the time to read a concise, bulletpoint discussion of why the suggestion was made in the first place. By asking you to take the time to read it, I'm not implying that you should agree, just simply asking that you provide the same level of courtesy that you are demanding from others.
I'm not going to repeat everything that I stated previously in support of the argument to provide the discussion with its own space, even though that seems to be commonplace in this discussion. I find that behavior implicitly insulting to those of us taking the time to read through the discussions; repeatedly stating the same thing over and over again is not going to change the way the information is interpreted by the reader, nor is it going to cause the reader to change their opinions on the matter just because the author feels it is necessary to subject the reader to the same verbiage over and over again. --Hoggwild5 05:10, 4 December 2006 (EST)
I agree with Hoggwild5. Yes, it is an important issue to a few people here. But this is the community portal for UESP, not Wiki philosophy. UESP, content and community, is formed around the Elder Scrolls series of games from Bethesda. UESP existed before this Wiki. Wiki was implemented because it met some of the design criteria Daveh wanted when he redesigned the site. We may move away from wiki in the future. The content and community will go with it. It is not the methodology of presentation of the content that matters as much as the content itself. By all means, come to an agreement. And people will want to follow your thoughts, and maybe weigh in as you resolve it. You are the administrators after all, and it is your responsibility to work through it. But from the perspective of the Elder Scrolls Series of games, I don't see justification for this to take the majority of attention and space in the community portal. Maybe at a Wiki-centered site, yes. Or a site on the philosophy of management, but at UESP? It should be separate. --Sstasino 11:17, 4 December 2006 (EST)
Actually, given the last few posts here by various people, there does seem to be at least the beginnings of a conclusion–or at least we might be in a position to agree upon a bullet-point summary. If this is the case and a summary can be agreed on I withdraw my objections to the content in question being shifted. — EndarethTalk 00:18, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Summaries would probably be made in the formal form of policy and guideline pages such as UESPWiki:Consensus. Anyone making a summary of the actual discussion is asking for trouble because different people have different opinions about different situations, and we all have the evidence to prove it. --Aristeo | Talk 19:06, 7 December 2006 (EST)
Looks like we're all okay with the discussion being moved. Actually, I've proposed below that subpaging be done more generally and consistently. Also, bending Aristeo's suggestion slightly (I try to avoid using "The" in article titles when possible) "Principles Controversy" is fine with me.
As for the summary, How's this?
Principles Controversy: Controversy over basic UESP Wiki principles and practices, including: Archiving (what and when), Civility (nature and enforcement on talk pages), Consensus, Irc Usage (limits as a decision making forum).
For the move, if it's done pretty much as a straight cut and paste (with minor header releveling), then it shouldn't matter too much who does it. However, it would be best if someone relatively neutral did it (e.g., Endareth, Ratwar, Dynluge).
In related note, I suspect that the discussion is about to slow down after this first heated exchange. I'd like Nephele's continued input, but I understand she's going to be busy for a couple of weeks. And we're all entering the Christmas season -- which of course, means: shopping, family visits, vacations, and of course -- new games under the tree! --Wrye 20:15, 7 December 2006 (EST)
That's fine. :) I might make come polishing-related revisions if you make the change. --Aristeo | Talk 00:11, 8 December 2006 (EST)
I'll see how much time (and energy) I have for this over the weekend, and perhaps try to chip in on a couple of the policy pages. As for moving the discussion to a subpage, that's fine with me. --Nephele 11:07, 8 December 2006 (EST)

In order to keep the Community Page from becoming too long, this section may be moved to a subpage in the near future. For more info, see: Community Portal Subpaging. --Wrye 18:50, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Community Portal Subpaging

I propose that we start subpaging individual topics on the Community Portal page as they promise/threaten to become quite long. (Here, I am largely expanding Hoggwild5's suggestion under Open Values above.)

Aside from the Aristeo vs. Wrye Edit war, there are probably several other topics which are long enough and yet still live and so could benefit from subpaging. In particular (after some renaming):

  • Anonymous Editing
  • Bread Crumb Change
  • Curing Stupidity
  • Morrowind Quest Pages
  • Patrollers (not long yet, but probably will be)
  • Principles Controversy (instead of Aristeo vs. Wrye Edit War)
  • Tamriel:Books Copyrights

I would suggest a navbar similar to the Archive links be added at top (Just below the archives links, if possible) with links to these subpages. And/or (perhaps better) add a level two section at the top of the page, titled "Major Discussions", which would have links to the subpages along with brief descriptions of each, and indication of status (Active, Resolved).

Wikipedia Comparison: I'm not sure what qualifies as a good comparison at Wikipedia. At first, Village Pump, seems reasonable, but the turnover on that page is huge (anything older than 5 days is archived, and anything in archive is deleted after 14 days). We're not that active, so that doesn't seem relevant to me.

Note that for the Aristeo vs. Wrye (nee Principles Controversy?), I think that we're heading towards making our policies more explicit, which will result in new pages that won't be subpages of the community portal, but would be regular article pages (i.e., with separate article and discussion areas). However, that won't happen until after further debate/discussion. --Wrye 19:42, 7 December 2006 (EST)

I haven't heard any objections to this yet, so I'm planning on doing it within several days -- maybe late this weekend. --Wrye 23:37, 14 December 2006 (EST)
I think it would be a very good idea. Just my 2 cents. Isak 12:51, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Done. Plus, new Major Discussion sidebar: In order to keep even the TOC from being too crowded, I've removed the old headers -- hopefully the new sideboard does the job well enough. Note that with the new design, I've tried to remove clutter, but still keep the major discussions section very obvious. If this design doesn't work, we can revert or try something else.

The only thing I didn't move was the community values section, which maybe should be merged into this section? Not sure. Anyway, I'm busy with several new mod-integration features in Bash (leveled list merging! Yeah!), so I'm leaving it until later. --Wrye 23:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Prev: Archive 4 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 6