UESPWiki talk:Skyrim Quest Redesign Project

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

How to[edit]

I'm not seeing how to add that a section has been completed. Do I add the category, or something else? The Silencer has spokenTalk 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Silencer. We had to launch the page a bit early, but the info on how to update the tag is coming up later today. --Krusty 19:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Project page is now updated with info on how to use the tag and the bot works hard to add the last info to all quest pages. Good luck! --Krusty 21:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


How about quests that are already fully written? I have verified the details of Forgotten Names, and would like to note that. Would I add my name to "CheckedBy" and leave "WrittenBy" blank, or add the name of the editor who filled out the majority of it? --Xyzzy 05:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you checked it, you can mark your name under checkedBy, but you should mark the main contributor to that page under writtenBy. • JATalk 05:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to do some work on some of the numerous pages marked with this project? Must I join this group to edit and work on these pages? Or can I just go freelance?

Although, I wouldn't mind joining either. Looks like a cool project to be in and I feel like I can be helpful. --SlyKhajiit 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to join to edit. And, to join, just add your name to the list like the others have :) Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 22:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


Might seem like a bit of a silly question, but what part of the page constitutes the objectives? —Daniellibus TalkEC 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think its checking the quest stages are correct. it mentions it here Quest Objectives. — Kimi the Elf (talk | contribs) 23:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Whoopsie! Didn't see that bit. I thought that part of the page was Quest Stages rather than Objectives. Thanks... again! —Daniellibus TalkEC 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I named it Objectives because it's really only the "Objective is assigned" part that we're concerned with, and they're referred to as "Objectives" in the CK and in-game. They appear under the Quest Stages heading, though, you're right. Krusty suggested that the name might be confusing and we tossed around a couple of ideas, but never came to any firm decision before the project was launched, so the name ended up just staying as it was. Robin Hoodtalk 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's not a big deal. In fact, if I had read the Creation Kit Work section, I'd have seen the answer to my question straight away! Thanks folks :) --—Daniellibus TalkEC 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Blessings of Nature[edit]

Hi again, I was looking through the walkthrough for Blessings of Nature and thought that it looked pretty well complete, ie it is easy to follow, it's in 2nd person and doesn't contain irrelevant detail. It seems to cover the quest quite thoroughly. However, I noted in the history that Krusty didn't put an author in the template because the walkthrough needed a dose of cleanup. So, if I'm going to be of any use in this project, I need to be sure that I understand the quality standards that are required. I have read the project guidelines but I would be very grateful if you could use this quest page as an example to help me better understand. I thank you for your patience in assisting a new editor, and i'm looking forward to working with you all on this project and throughout the wiki. Thanks :) --—Daniellibus TalkEC 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! I agree, it can be tricky to figure out exactly what is expected. The reason I never provided examples on the project page is the huge amount of different types of quests – one way of doing it is to check out the three quest pages we’ve had as Featured Articles; The Only Cure, The Black Star and Forbidden Legend. Note that all three provides a good and healthy amount of background story in the walkthroughs – it explains why you are supposed to do this and that, as part of the article. Bethesda put a gigantic amount of detail and superior script writing into the game, and it is basically our job to document that as well. This means – a walkthrough telling you to go from A to B is not up to standards, nor is it up to standards to add uninspired/bored writing – which is exactly what the Blessings of Nature article is now: uninspired. Before attempting an article like this, I’d go through the quest at least once and listen to every single bit of dialogue to get a good feel for the story – next up is to check for related lore (I can’t find any examples for this quest, so the dialogue is all you have).
The Blessing of Nature needs:
  • A much better Quick Walkthrough section – it is a mess, and the descriptins are too long.
  • Some background info on the Gildergreen, so people know what they’re supposed to do - and why they're doing it.
  • A complete rewrite, showing a bigger interest in the game and the details.
  • An easy-to-follow guide on the differences between traveling with or without Maurice Jondrelle, with a better layout (maybe like this?)
  • Cleanup of notes section (the first four bullets can easily be worked into the walkthrough).
Lastly, I’d do all of this in a sandbox. When I write a walkthrough, it takes between 3 and 10 playthroughs and I ask several people for opinions before I ever add it to the article. For the best results, make a few image requests here – that always helps the layout. Just remember to be specific about the image you want. Oh, and never hesitate to ask me – or the other project members – for help and/or opinions along the way. Good luck! --Krusty 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Krusty! I really appreciate you taking the time to help. I have set up a sandbox and copied the Blessings of Nature page into it to work on. I'll let you know when I could do with some honest critique! Thanks --—Daniellibus TalkEC 10:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bug Template[edit]

The redesign is greatly appreciate to bring higher quality and consistency to the wiki. However, I noticed the something missing from the bug template. I work in software QA and this template mimics a simplified bug report. The one thing missing are the possible workarounds. While it's helpful to have the bugs labeled, it's more important to the casual visitor to know workarounds. I'm only a casual wiki user so I can't suggest technical improvements to the bug template, but something allowing multiple workarounds to be listed is ideal. Thanks for the effort from everyone! — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 04:42 on 25 June 2012

Well you could use bullet points under the template to add a fix.
{{Bug|Kimi never leaves her house because the door is locked.|confirmed=1}}
**Unlocking the door will fix this.
The problem with workarounds is that they don't always work for some people and can sometimes make things worse.— Kimi the Elf (talk | contribs) 04:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the information; I noticed this used in the article for Skyrim:Alduin's Wall which I'm updating with a workaround. I agree not all workarounds work for everyone, but likewise bugs only occur with certain (pre)conditions. I guess I don't quite understand the need for the template if not all of the bug information is contained within -- thus this discussion point. I'll go with your suggestion until there is another, agreed upon solution. Thanks! — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 05:07 on 25 June 2012
You can actually add the solution inside the bug template, like so:
{{Bug|Jak Atackka can't come up with a creative example bug.
**The best solution is to have someone else come up with an example.|confirmed=1}}
Most people keep the bugs and their solutions separate, so that way people can confirm a bug without having to search for a solution, or the required conditions to trigger it. This also makes it easier when editing the page to differentiate between the bug and its solutions. • JATalk 05:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Formatting workarounds becomes a real nuisance inside a template, which is the main reason we don't include them as part of the template itself. It's also somewhat helpful for the people working on unofficial patches, so that when we produce bug lists for them, it's just the bug they're getting, not every last workaround that anybody has found. Robin Hoodtalk 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


I'm new to this and want to help but am not completely sure how. I decided to start with minor edits to this quest page, and after combing it and making a few changes that I believe improve the overall sound of the writing, I found that it was in a section that just needed a "final check" kind of thing to make it a complete page. I thought I was fairly thorough, but is that enough to make it ready as a full-fledged wiki page? If so, how do I indicate this? Am I even in the right place to ask this? Please help... -- 17:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)notloggedineditor

Details on reward "Leveled Gold"[edit]

Hi! I just want to ask when the reward of the quest is "Leveled Gold", is it necessary to add the table of leveled gold list (Example: 1-9 get 400, 10-19 get 800.....) ? Dickson916 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so people know this has been answered, I responded to the same question on my talk page. Robin Hoodtalk 17:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Keeping articles readable[edit]

Hey, as an experienced Wikipedia editor, when I'm taking special care to clean up an article there, I often move the "fix it" tags to near the bottom. Since most readers of a page are not editors, mostly what the tags do for casual users is get in the way. And it's not just once, it's over and over, when a number of pages are read, because it's hard not to at least skim the repetitive tag information to see if it's the same. So, say 90% of readers are inconvenienced by the "Redesign Project" page, and a good part of the remaining 10% already know about the project, then the tags high in the article are mostly intrusive. 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we are aware that the size of our tags tends to be a bit intrusive - on the other hand, it's either that or an unorganized cleanup-tag, so the projekt tags are preferable. We're using them all over the place, simply to invite people to participate in improving the articles - and to give them an idea of what needs to be done on each article. --Krusty 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think those tags are too distracting too. They are big, at the top in a flashy color and only useful for editors, not for the majority of readers. And as experience shows, they are there to stay for a very long time. Wikipedia has those cleanup project tags usually on the talk page of an article - experienced editors know to find them there. And editors who are working on those projects should have some experience anyway. --Alfwyn (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (GMT)
Not sure it’s that simple. Gamers looking for info needs to be aware that the article is a work-in-progress, especially if they can’t find what they’re looking for. I agree that it could be worded differently, thus making it smaller – but I think they’re important to have on incomplete articles. Back in the day, I joined this wiki because of such a tag, mainly because it’s an invite to help out. ☺ --Krusty (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2013 (GMT)
I tried to come up with something less obstrusive at User:Alfwyn/Sandbox, disregard the second version, that is for debugging the showhide template. --Alfwyn (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (GMT)

Specifying enemies encountered[edit]

In terms of rewriting the Detailed Walkthrough sections, the project page suggests that we should not go into too much detail with regards to what is in a location. Does this include the exact placement of all enemies? On the one hand, many locations have static enemies and therefore the exact placement of those enemies could be listed on the location page. On the other hand, if I'm reading a walkthrough outside of UESP I'd normally expect to be told exactly where every enemy was. It is, for example, useful to know when a Dwemer construct or a Falmer is about to drop on your head in the dark, or exactly how many Draugr are going to swamp you when you step into an area and shoot the first one you suspect is simply taking a nap.

The reason I ask is that I was quite specific with my listing of enemies on the Angarvunde and Extracting an Argonian quests that I re-wrote earlier in the year, and in the context of this project I do not want to have made things less rather than more consistent. — Unsigned comment by Threepwood87 (talkcontribs) at 00:44 on September 10, 2012

Unlisted Queststages[edit]

While checking the objectives for Unbound I encountered the two strange stages 261 and 262. They do not appear on CSList and are not displayed on the CK. Likewise they do not appear on the console with sqs MQ101. However they can be found in the associated fragment script (QF_MQ101_0003372B), the setobjectives appearing there. Starting a new game, the objective "Loot Gunjar's body" was assigned and appeared in my quest journal. I'm not sure how to deal with those quest stages and they will complicate the checking quite a bit, but for now I just gave them a lighter color to differentiate them. Trying to setstage them, fails too. Any thoughts or insights on this? --Alfwyn (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2012 (GMT)

In the CK, they're both associated with Stage 255 (click on the Advanced tab, then scroll down the various log entries). As for how to document them, if you can figure out what the different conditions are for each (in this case, the code comments give you some idea), copy all of the objectives to stage 255 and document when each one occurs. If you can't figure it out, just copy the objectives and we'll figure out the details later. Robin Hoodtalk 07:10, 16 September 2012 (GMT)
I see, I was confused. For some reason I supposed that the Fragment_xxx functions corrosponded to quest stages, which is clearly not the case. Conditionally given objectives complicate the matter a bit, but not as much as I feared. --Alfwyn (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2012 (GMT)

Externally called objectives[edit]

Sometimes the objectives of a quest are not directly displayed by the quest itself. For example objective 35 of Discerning the Transmundane is displayed when reading the Letter from Septimus Signus and objectives 21, 31 and 41 of Taking Care of Business are displayed, when talking to Brynjolf. Currently I just delete those objectives from the quest stage table, but maybe we should think about wether and if yes, how to document this. --Alfwyn (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2012 (GMT)

Yeah, I'm not always sure what to do with these either. I've considered separating out the objectives from the quest states, which would allow us to document the conditions they're assigned under a lot better, but I don't want to clutter up the articles with too many tables. In the ones I've done, I've just added the objectives at the main stages they'd occur at, even if it's a subquest that actually triggers them, but obviously that won't always work out well, as in your example. I'm open to suggestions. Robin Hoodtalk 19:59, 17 September 2012 (GMT)
I tried separating the objectives from quest stages at Skyrim:Battle for Whiterun (Stormcloaks). I don't think we should do that for the majority of quests. But in this case I see no other good way to document the quest stages that actually exist, without deleting all of the objectives. --Alfwyn (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2012 (GMT)
Now that sources for DB scripts have been released, I guess we can fold the objectives table into the quest stages for the majority of DB quests. This should be straightforward for most quests and is much clearer in such cases. --Alfwyn (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2013 (GMT)
Well, I did that as an example for Dragonborn:Served Cold, a quest of medium complexity. Unlike previously I mentioned the objective numbers, so that information doesn't get lost (useful if one wants to complete objectives via console). --Alfwyn (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2013 (GMT)
I don't really know which way I like better. I find the smaller, separate tables easier to read, but there's a big disadvantage in having the objectives separate from the quest stages. I don't know if we want to take this to CP or what, but I'll go with whatever others prefer on this one. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2013 (GMT)


It doesn't really concern the project (at the moment at least), but this is probably the best place to bring it up. I started to add disposition changes to quest headers a while ago. It looks like a more complex disposition scheme was planned initially, and simplified later on. Accordingly several different ways (see script Actor.psc) exist to change the relationship rank towards an NPC in a script, but the result doesn't vary much:

  • SetRelationshipRank(<NPC>, <rank>) This one sets the rank to a specific value, no matter what it was before. Usually the rank is 1. I documented this as "=1", not sure about the notation, but a simple "1" may be not clear enough.
  • MakePlayerFriend() Sets the relationship rank to 1, if it was 0 before. I documented this as "0→1".
  • ModFavorPoints(amount) If amount is greater than zero, the same as MakePlayerFriend(), the amount is ignored. It usually is called with a (positive) global constant (via quest alias).
  • ModFavorPointsWithGlobal(global) Same as above, only the global is passed directly this time.

There seem to be no incremental disposition rewards. With the console relationshiprank related things can be tested with getrelationshiprank and setrelationshiprank.

--Alfwyn (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2012 (GMT)

I think it would be useful to add "checking for disposition increases" to checking tasks, maybe under "checking rewards". We could then build a category of quests that raise NPC dispositions. It seems it would be useful to some players, especially those who are scraping by/trying to build-up gold early in the game. And I guess also to people who are interested in marrying someone. I'm just not sure if it makes sense as a priority at the moment. At some point, it would be nice, I think. For the time being, I'll at least try to do some console-based checking when I'm playing quests or working on walkthroughs. Maybe we can ask that "none" be entered if we're sure that a quest doesn't raise anyone's disposition? --JR (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (GMT)

Rewards: Include bestowals of titles, promotions in rank?[edit]

Dragon Rising's page includes "Thaneship of Whiterun Hold." I added "Induction into Imperial Legion" as a reward for the first quest in the line, and "Promotion to Tribune" in one of the quests that results in this. All good? --JR (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2012 (GMT)

I think it’s more than okay to list these as rewards, especially on the articles for ‘initiation’ quests. --Krusty (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2012 (GMT)
Ok. It seems so to me, also. Thanks. By the way, I told you before I had a question about quest standards/this project. I've had some trouble articulating in my own mind exactly what the question is, but I guess I'll try: I think there may be some information that is better added to quest pages now that might not belong there later when a related place page is better-developed. I think many of us still struggle with the exact lines here, despite the progress that's been made in recent discussions, and maybe we always should struggle with that line to a degree. But I get the general idea that a quest page should not describe everything about a related location that is trivial or irrelevant with respect to the walkthrough.
I'm prone to including more, rather than less detail about choices one can make in executing a quest, for example. Of course, if some aspects of my approach need to be modified, that's ok, but I'm hoping to reduce the possibility that I'll do extensive work and have it all cut out because it could have been put on a place page.
So, I might be inclined to provide, in a quest walkthrough, information on two or more approaches to a location, and describe where sentries are, where they can see/hear, what kinds of doors or "special" entrances there might be (a crumbling portion of a fort wall that can be jumped over, etc.). If there was already a decent place page established (especially that contained maps), I'd probably do that only on the place page. I guess in the end, my question is: Might we agree to a sort of two-phase project with respect to this issue? That some information might be left on quest pages until place pages are better-developed (or we've completed a Skyrim Place Redesign Project)? Am I making any sense? If not, I'll ask this again of several people once I've finished the revamp I'm working on for Pieces of the Past. --JR (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2012 (GMT)
Yeah, that discussion is as old as Skyrim itself, and I think you more or less nailed it yourself. Yes, you can add dungeon-specific info if you think it is warranted (I usually add stuff like Alchemy Labs, just to provide a pointer about where the player should be), so basically – if it fits within the story/walkthrough, don’t hesitate to include it. The place pages, on the other hand, when we get them up and running will provide EVERY little detail (like the potions on shelves), so you may as well cut those from your walkthroughs once and for all – still there’s nothing wrong with a sentence like ‘you will arrive in a room with some useful potions on some shelves’ – as long as you don’t start listing each and every potion. I hope that made sense. --Krusty (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2012 (GMT)
As old as Skyrim the game, or Skyrim the province? Thanks. Yeah, that's why I took so long in asking it: "I know there's no precise line, but can you tell me precisely what the line is?" Alright: We keep going, we keep getting better! --JR (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (GMT)


Back when Dawnguard was first released, we chose not to add the SRQRP tags to the plug-in's quest pages first because it was only out for Xbox, then later because the CK had not been completely updated with all relevant information (particularly quest script information). As far as I'm aware (after having asked three different editors who use the CK regularly), the CK is now up to date on all Dawnguard information. I mentioned the idea to Krusty briefly in IRC and he seemed to agree, so I'll go ahead and formally propose that we go ahead and add the SRQRP tags to Dawnguard pages. Most Dawnguard quest pages are, at the very least, not empty, so I think it's reasonable to add these quests to the project at this time. — ABCface 05:47, 18 December 2012 (GMT)

Ribbon template[edit]

Uh, came here by chance and saw that the template at the bottom... isn't working. I'm certainly not the person to fix it, but if bringing it to attention helps then I'm glad to. --Vulpa 03:04, 19 December 2012 (GMT)

What do you mean? It's not just {{Ribbon}} if that's what you mean. You've seen this page right? ~ Dwarfmp (talk)
When I scrolled down to the "Project Ribbon" section, I saw this:
Anyone taking an active part in the project may use the project {Ribbon}[with extra {}]:
[[File:{{{ribbon}}}|100px|link=UESPWiki:SRQRP|This user performed with distinction in the {{{name}}}]]
No pretty ribbon picture-- just that. Is that on my end? :P --Vulpa 03:15, 19 December 2012 (GMT)
Odd. Well I can't help you right now, I'm going to bed. Maybe someone else can help. Still a question though, do you see the ribbons on my userpage? here -> Dwarfmp (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2012 (GMT)
Yeah, they're there. But here (and I've reloaded and cached the page numerous times), there's just the 'file' link. (Yeah, I'm going to bed soon too :P)--Vulpa 03:21, 19 December 2012 (GMT)
The template itself is working fine, it's just one of the site extensions we have that's misbehaving a little and causes that problem from time to time. Often, just purging the page, or loading and saving it without making any changes, will fix the problem. Personally, I see it as fine at the moment. Do you? Robin Hoodtalk 04:22, 19 December 2012 (GMT)

I actually saw it fine a minute ago, but I checked again and it's back to being weird. No, wait, after the third purge (first two made no change) it's okay, and has been for a little while now. Okay, I'm done. If it's no big deal, I'll stop bothering people. One day, I will be smart enough to figure these things out on my own.... ;) --Vulpa 22:52, 19 December 2012 (GMT)


I know it's not exactly critical, but why is the acronym for this project SRQRP and not SQRP? Is it SkyRim Quest Redesign Project? DeltaOne (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2013 (GMT)

You got it. We use two-letter abbreviations for most of our namespaces, so you can write shortcut links like [[SR:Quests]], and we use those same abbreviations in templates like {{SR}}. That's also made its way into the naming of our project initialisms. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (GMT)

A pack of questions[edit]

Glad to join in the project, I've got three questions now.

  1. Many quest would have a speech check to get further progress, shall we list the detailed options down? Some finished Detailed Walkthrough didn't list them out. If necessary, I'd like to finish the work.
  2. I think a single page for every radiant A Few Words with You quest would be necessary. Unlike other radiant quests, these quests contains many unique plots and dialogue. They do deserve a single page.
  3. http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Skyrim%3ADragon%27s_Breath_Mead_%28quest%29&diff=1187811&oldid=1173278, take a look at this quest. I removed Horgeir from Quick Walkthrough, as I noted in the Detailed Walkthrough, if you choose to help Horgeir, you will fail this quest. It's not a proper way to COMPLETE this quest. For example, Dreamshadow asked you to send a rose to his beloved girl and you get the quest "Send a rose for Dreamshadow". However, you may choose to kill Dreamshadow and that girl will reward you. Then you will fail this quest. Can you list kill Dreamshadow and get your reward from the girl as a part of the Quick Walkthrough for quest "Send a rose for Dreamshadow"? Of course not.
  1. Shouldn't be too detailed, but yes, if a speech check is necessary, it should be noted.
  2. I don't think so. A detailed description should be written, and it could be put into sections, but it should all be kept on one page imo.
  3. It's a possible end for the quest. Usually quests end when NPCs die, yeah, but this is sort of unique. I believe it could also go on the quick walkthrough because you do get a reward out of it even if it's marked as failed. With Friends Like These... is another example of such a thing happening; you fail the quest if you kill Astrid, but it's still a valid option. Vely►t►e 01:02, 10 May 2013 (GMT)
  1. In my opinion, here is a good example, written by Krusty. I'd like to follow his example, if no one opposes.
  2. Yeah, I won't insist.
  3. I don't think With Friends Like These... is a good example. Regardless of your choices, they won't lead to the FAILURE of any quests. If our readers do wish to fulfill this quest, the older Quick Walkthrough would mislead them easily. A single section in Detailed Walkthrough would be enough for other unique results. Dreamshadow (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2013 (GMT)
How are the two quests different? If you kill Astrid, you actively fail With Friends Like These...--it is marked as failed. The other quests looks like it works in a similar fashion, so since it's an alternative path that rewards you, it sounds pretty useful. Vely►t►e 14:06, 10 May 2013 (GMT)
Okay, I see. I'll get it done soon. Dreamshadow (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2013 (GMT)

i have a question about the ribbon.[edit]

would you put the ribbon on your User-page as it says ,{Ribbon},because i did that and it didn't become a userboxe. Are u soposed 2 do that.is it a userboxe item even.How do u get it.im new 2 the project and would like it be on my userpage cause im a paert of this project,just like vely and krusty and all other members on the member list,i just wanna be reconized for our woork as a team and no one left out of getting a ribbon.it shows the dedication people put into UESPwiki projects,especialy SRQRP.Jwcway (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2013 (GMT)

Copy and paste this: {{Ribbon|SRQRP|width=100px}}
*WoahBro►talk 23:44, 20 June 2013 (GMT)

Rewards that don't exist[edit]

Is there a procedure for quests that don't have a reward (e.g. part of a longer questline) in terms of writing in the tags that there's no reward to write and to skip the step? Would "N/A" work? I'm asking because I'm guessing there are a lot of quests in the "rewards not written" category that don't have any to add. I'm going to leave the rewardless quests alone for now, but help would be greatly appreciated. Likelolwhat (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2013 (GMT)

Well, for the Quest Header template, you just leave off the reward, and it should autofill the field with "None". As a new person I don't really know about what to do with the "Cleanup" template, but I would guess that you should treat this case like any other reward; you've "written" the reward by leaving it as "none", and someone else has to check that there really is no reward.
That said, I think that there's another reason for a lot of quests having "rewards not written", which is that the reward *was* written, and nobody ever updated the Cleanup template to acknowledge this. I've seen at least a few of these, where there is a straightforward reward listed on the quest page, which is obviously the same every time and probably doesn't even need to be checked via CK, but the template says that the reward isn't written. Quantheory (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2013 (GMT)
Yeah, I meant the SRQRP template. Half the battle is figuring out how to say what I mean, haha. I am also going through and giving credit to those who wrote the info pre/sans SRQRP template, where I can, so people in the project can focus on what needs doing instead of going in blind and seeing it was already done. I've had that problem! Likelolwhat (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2013 (GMT)
Something needs to go in the Cleanup tag to move them from the "Rewards not written" category, to the "Rewards written" category, otherwise they will wrongly be considered not done. If there is no reward and there is no name by the "written" in the tag, just put your name in to get the ball rolling. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:02, 30 December 2013 (GMT)
OK, thanks Silencer. likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 20:31, 30 December 2013 (GMT)
I don't know how much we've been doing it, but if you feel "None" is more descriptive, that's an allowable "user" to enter. The {{Cleanup-srqrp}} template is coded to not link users whose names are "N/A", "None", or "Multiple". Robin Hood  (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2013 (GMT)

Do not add authors....[edit]

Even if a quest page is filled with text, it is not necessarily ‘written’ by anybody. At the beginning of the project, we went through each and every quest page and added the author to the ones that lived up to our standards. Unless you rewrite an article, do NOT look in the edit history and add the author. --Krusty (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for clarifying that, Krusty. I wasn't aware that anyone had done that. Also, back when the Oblivion version of this was going on, I was told to just patrol changes like this on sight, and that if there were any issues, they'd be caught by whomever did the final check, so I'd been patrolling Likelolwhat's (and others') additions. I'll be sure to have a closer look in the future. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2014 (GMT)
Hmm. I think the only time I've added an author other than myself to the walkthrough was for Black Book: The Winds of Change, which was a case where I rewrote it. Admittedly, it might've been a case where I should have added myself as the author rather than the checker, so maybe that's what Krusty's referring to.
But what I have been doing more is adding other people as reward authors (again, mostly when I've checked the reward). There seem to be many cases where the reward is written, but no one is listed as having written it. Quantheory (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2014 (GMT)
Absolutely no problem with crediting the rewards; I totally forgot that back in the day. The problem occurs when crediting the author as ‘multiple’ then check it. I simply wanted to point out that every walkthrough has been read - and that the ones not currently credited are those that need more work. ☺ --Krusty (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2014 (GMT)
Ah. I think we're on the same page now. ^_^ Quantheory (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2014 (GMT)

finished pages[edit]

How do you know when its all right to remove a page from the redesign project such as this one Skyrim:A Return To Your Roots? — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 07:00 on 21 May 2014

Normally what happens is that after all the various steps have taken place, the page will show up here. At that point, usually one of the senior project members would go over it and make sure that everything's good to go. If it is, then the reviewer would remove the template from the page.
The reason none of this has happened with A Return To Your Roots is that the page was flagged as having things checked without ever having the writtenBy and rewardBy filled in. When you spot pages like that, you can go back through the edit history for the page and see if there was a clear writer or reward-writer. If there was, fill in that information; if there wasn't, just list them as "Multiple". I'll go do that now, and you should see the page bump over to the final review category shortly. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (GMT)
That was what I thought usually happened in these cases, however, note the discussion directly above this one, "Do Not add authors"... specifically directing project members not to add authors. Do you, Robin Hood, as a senior project member, now advocate this practice? Cuz if so, there are A LOT I can finish up! :-)--Beezer1029 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (GMT)
Oops, my bad. I'd forgotten that Krusty had said that, and since he's in charge of the writing side, we should go with that. In that case, just add "Multiple" so that the template will function as it was intended to. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2014 (GMT)
Looks like the adding of the Multiple is the exact procedure Krusty did not want us to do, however. <sigh> Any way we can appeal? It would certainly clean up a lot...--Beezer1029 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2014 (GMT)
Hmmm...I'll direct him to this discussion and see what he thinks, but my feeling is that as long as the page is otherwise finished, we should fill in the written and reward parameters with Multiple. Otherwise, the templates will just sit there in limbo forever, which defeats their intended purpose. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (GMT)
Ok great - as I guess I don't understand the directive when Krusty says: "The problem occurs when crediting the author as ‘multiple’ then check it."--Beezer1029 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

() I wrote that older thread in an attempt to keep the quality of the pages consistent – since then, an awful lot of info has been added to the various “unwritten” pages, and some of them will inevitably be completed sooner or later – in other words, good enough to pass on as ‘written’. Beezer1029, I have watched your work, and you are definitely qualified to determine if an article is ‘as good as it gets’, so keep up the good work. ☺ --Krusty (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for the vote of confidence - hopefully I can get some of these moved on!--Beezer1029 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (GMT)
If there is any doubt, adding a name of someone who did some major work to the page to the template is a workaround (with a clear summary of what you are doing), then leave it for a while before moving to check a page if someone else hasn't got there already. It may take more time to get it 'finished' but it gets it moving in that direction. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:08, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

Final check?[edit]

Hi! Has The Forsworn Conspiracy page been through a final check? I did not see any info on it in the SRQRP template or the History. Thanks! --Beezer1029 (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2014 (GMT)

The project tag was removed when a WIP notice was put up, and then never got put back. I've restored it now. Thanks for bringing it up! — ABCface 12:17, 20 June 2014 (GMT)

Quest walkthrough vs place walkthrough[edit]

Going with the directive on emphasizing how to complete the quest rather than a comprehensive description of a quest-related location, I noted that Revealing the Unseen does include a nice table with step by step instructions on how to navigate Mzluft with much of the same information as the Mzulft page. While this section does include information on how to complete a quest objective, much of the info may be better suited to the place page, as per the Project Guidelines. So, the question: should I leave this piece be and just have redundant information in two places, streamline it to remove some of the non-quest related detail, or remove the piece completely?--Beezer1029 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (GMT)

Yes, these walkthroughs were generally written before the place pages had any attention, so as long as the place page has been written the walkthrough can be removed from the quest page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:33, 8 July 2014 (GMT)
Thanks - will keep any quest-relevant information and remove redundancy with place page.--Beezer1029 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2014 (GMT)

Revamps; who gets credit?[edit]

I'm going to work on revamping Skyrim:Taking Care of Business (sandbox here), however I have a question I might as well ask now before I forget. As you can see on the parent page, the walkthrough was originally written by SerCenKing. As I plan to make my version completely unrecognizable from his, do I just remove his "Written By" tag and add myself at launch, or put myself in "Checked By", or what? likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 04:11, 27 July 2014 (GMT)

You would add yourself. You can't use shortcut naming for that, so you would have to change it to writtenby=[[User:SerCenKing|SerCenKing]], [[User:Likelolwhat|Likelolwhat]]. I'd say that you shouldn't use the "Checked By" tag, since your new revamp, assuming it's a significant change, should itself be checked. Lastly, it's not really "credit" per se, at least not in the long run, since the tag should eventually be removed entirely once absolutely everything is checked. It's more about who to contact if there are concerns or questions about the article content. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2014 (GMT)
Lol, I didn't even realize I could put two authors. And yeah, I know it's not "credit"; that was a misappelation on my part. Thank you~ likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 05:31, 27 July 2014 (GMT)


I'm not trying to offend anyone, but the quest page for Unbound seems a bit weird compared to other quest pages. It's a bit impersonal and I wanted to ask if that's becuase mostly new players will be looking at it, or does it need to be worked on? Thanks, --Ferdar 08:33, 15 March 2015 (GMT)

As far as content, it was written to be a more comprehensive guide to initiate the new Skyrim player. It was also written, over time, by multiple users, so it might not have quite the narrative feel as the other quests. As far as the parameters of the SRQRP, the page does not need to be "worked on", as the content has been verified. But feel free to creatively edit if you like, being careful not to omit any of the relevant content from the quest, and do not change anything in the SRQRP template. Also remember that any edits done are subjected to review by patrollers! :-)--Beezer1029 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
There are also quite a few quest walkthroughs that are incomplete, or have not been written, if you would like to try your hand at those as well. See the complete list on the Walkthroughs not Written page. Happy editing! --Beezer1029 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
I will, thank you :)--Ferdar 14:37, 15 March 2015 (GMT)

Updated Questes? (Special Edition?)[edit]

I'm not sure if this is for Special Edition only. But it seems like Jarl Siddgeir's Quest Page for Kill the Bandit Leader is out of date. When I did it at level 38 I got sent to Bannermist Tower (which wasn't listed as a possible location on the Quest page) and got rewarded from the "large reward" list for leveled gold instead of the medium. Not sure if this is Special Edition Exclusive or if it's a bug/glitch. I updated the page but can anyone else confirm this? Should all the Quests be updated? -Kennie363 2:28 Am, 20 December 2016


Well it would certainly help if the data could be mined to find any discrepancies between the games. Other than that there is a related yet unrelated fix done by USKP that might be doing something if you are using that. The cslist as it is now is adamant that Bannermist Tower is not considered when the quest is given, as it is not a BanditCamp. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)