UESPWiki:Community Portal

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

Contents

This is the main discussion forum used for community-wide discussions about UESP's operations, policies, design, and improvement.

All members of the community are welcome to contribute to this page. Please sign and date your post by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar. If you would like to start a new inquiry, please place it at the bottom of the page with a two-tier (==) heading.

Before starting a discussion here, please review the list of other community pages below, as your question or suggestion may be more appropriate on another page.

Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:

Specific requests can be made on these pages:

  • Bot Requests — This page can be used to request that one of the wiki's bots take on a task.
  • Image Requests — You can request specific images for articles here.
  • Creation Kit Information Requests — You can request specific Creation Kit information for articles here.
  • New Page Requests — You can request a new page here if you were prevented from creating the page yourself.
  • Purge Requests — If you are having problems viewing an article on UESP, the page may need to be purged. New purge requests can be made here.

In addition, past discussions from the Community Portal can be found at:

  • CP Archives — Lists all of the past discussions from the Community Portal page, including major discussions and chronlogical archives.

[edit] Active Discussions

Many discussions of community-wide interest are held on pages other than the community portal. Discussions about specific policies belong on the policy talk pages, for example. The following table lists other discussions that are currently in progress on other talk pages. If you start a discussion on another talk page, please add it to this list. If a discussion listed here has been inactive (i.e., no comments of any type in at least a week), please remove it from the list.

Location Date started Topic Listed here by

[edit] Gender Parameter on ESO Creature Pages

There's been a lot of |gender= in the ESO creature summary boxes lately. Is there a reason for them? If not, is it okay to remove them for consistency? Creatures in the other namespaces don't have the parameter in their summary boxes. —<({Quill-Tail>> 19:38, 3 May 2014 (GMT)

Basically, they were all created without knowing what they were by a bot. So if it is a creature, they can have the gender param removed. The bot didn't know if it was a creature or an NPC when it created the pages. Jeancey (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Proposal: Splitting up easter eggs pages

A recent discussion on the Skyrim easter eggs page got me thinking about how difficult it is to distinguish pop culture references from easter eggs. The Skyrim eggs page probably won't see a lot more traffic, but over the last few years I've involved myself pretty heavily in the goings-on there, and one of the most frequent patterns I've noticed is that our criteria for inclusion are pretty vague. On the one hand, our definition of easter egg is a pretty stark contrast to traditional definitions, which has been a problem on several occasions. On the other, it creates the difficulty of forcing us to omit cultural inspirations (such as Sleipnir or Vegvisir in Skyrim) from the page because there's not enough to establish a clear reference.

On the Oblivion eggs page, cultural influences are kept separate from pop culture references, a practice which seems to have largely disappeared on the eggs pages for the more recent games. I feel that a return to the format of the Oblivion eggs page would solve a lot of the issues and vagueness we experienced with the Skyrim eggs page, which would make things much easier when dealing with eggs pages for future games. Since this affects multiple pages going forward, I would like to propose that we adopt a policy of distinguishing cultural influences from cultural references on all easter eggs pages. This would allow for clear distinctions between references and hidden gags or cultural influences while still keeping all the information in one article.

Of course, we'll continue to encounter issues with people proposing things without any clear connection, and we have to have standards to prevent the page from being filled with questionable suggestions (the guidelines for inclusion on the Skyrim page, while a bit idiosyncratic, have been enormously helpful in that regard). We would have to continue to judge references and potential cultural influences based on the strength of a connection (i.e., whether there's enough of an argument for a reasonable person to be certain beyond a doubt that the in-game event could only be referring to/influenced by a single real-world thing). As long as we can maintain those standards though, I think splitting up the page into sections would be easier for everyone. What does everyone think? ThuumofReason (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (GMT)

Having worked significantly on the Oblivion Easter Egg revamp, my opinion will probably come as no surprise: yes please! I also wouldn't be opposed to finding a more encompassing name. I sort of tried to do that with the Oblivion Easter Egg page split back in 2008, but the very broad definition of "Easter Egg" is still with us. The possibility exists that by finding a broader term, people will be inclined to put even more tangentially related info on the page, but I think if we have clear sections on the page (or separate pages, whichever), that can probably be minimized. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (GMT)
Easter Eggs for good or bad is what people invariably call things, even our "historical references". While a more accurate term may be found I don't think there is any point moving the pages because as we see for each game, the pages see a lot of traffic. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:07, 6 May 2014 (GMT)
I don't see a problem with adding sections. A bit of categorisation never hurts. —Legoless (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (GMT)
I agree with adding categories to existing pages rather than revamping into several distinct pages, as I would imagine most people go to the easter egg pages to see if something they spotted has been noted previously or to see how many easter eggs that others have noted they've picked up on. Either way most people won't want move between pages to achieve this. Biffa (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2014 (GMT)
I wouldn't oppose adding categories (splitting it into two pages would be too confusing and annoying, imo), but I don't see how that would clear up the difficulty of societal references. Unless our standards are going to change, we will have the same arguments over references, the references will simply be going in a different section. --AN|L (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (GMT)
To cite another example, one of the entries on the Dragonborn eggs page refers to a "love nest" in Benkongerike. Judging by the criteria used for the Skyrim eggs page (at the time of this post), this shouldn't have been added because it wasn't referring to anything in particular. It could be considered an easter egg in the more traditional sense, in that it's something funny that's hidden for people to find rather than a reference to something. Adding a section for traditional easter eggs would give this information a spot to be noted on the wiki without making it conflict with the judging criteria for reference-based suggestions. For the Skyrim eggs page, a section for cultural influences would give us a spot to list things like Vegvisir and the various names of NPCs based on Norse folk heroes, which would allow us to make note of the influences without requiring a clear reason for putting it there.
It's true that we might still encounter arguments about what influenced what, and as I said in my initial post, we would need to have a set of stringent criteria for inclusion in order to prevent the page from being flooded by nonsense. But separating the page into multiple sections would help us to evaluate what a proposal was classified as, and that would make it easier to determine whether or not it merited inclusion than if we were just lumping everything together. ThuumofReason (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (GMT)

() It would also allow for different levels of criteria to be required for differing classifications. Biffa (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2014 (GMT)

Right, that's the beauty of it. Different criteria would be put in place for the different classifications so they wouldn't be mixed up. ThuumofReason (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
So here's what I'm thinking for defining each of the three proposed sections (easter eggs, pop culture references, and cultural influences):
Easter eggs are secrets that the developers put in the game to give people a laugh when they find them; they differ from in-game references in that they have been intentionally hidden from the player and are unusual with regards to their surroundings.
Pop culture references are objects, characters, or events in the game that refer to a specific real-world event or work of fiction outside the Elder Scrolls series; they differ from easter eggs in that they are usually integrated into the game world, and strong parallels can be drawn between the in-game event and the specific work being referenced.
Cultural influences are objects or characters within the game that are inspired by specific elements of real-world culture. Unlike pop culture references, cultural influences are not usually integrated into the game world.
The idea is that references refer to a specific thing and that similarities exist between the in-game event and the object of reference to suggest a connection beyond a coincidental level, whereas influences are clearly inspired by the object of reference (such as the vegvisir or characters named after Norse folk heroes), but don't necessarily have any significance within the game's story other than just being there. Does anybody have any comments/suggestions on these definitions? ThuumofReason (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (GMT)
Seems sensible to me, but there would have to be detailed headers explaining what should be put in what category. and it would need close monitoring initially. Either that or it could be done as a proposal, with someone requesting it to be added to a category and then it being confirmed to that or a different category or declined if there are strong objections. Biffa (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2014 (GMT)
I agree, my intention was to put these at the top of each section. Proposals would operate the same as always, with people taking it to the talk page first and then adding it to the proper section if consensus for inclusion is reached. They could specify which section it was for if they wanted, but if it was more suited to another section, we could judge it for inclusion in the appropriate section rather than the proposed one. ThuumofReason (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2014 (GMT)
It's been a while since we've had any input, and since we all seem to be leaning towards separate sections, I'd like to put it to a formal vote. I'd be prepared to start work on this immediately if the consensus supports the change. ThuumofReason (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Separate Sections for Easter Eggs, Pop Culture References, and Cultural Influences

  • Support: As proposer. ThuumofReason (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: Definitely brings some needed clarity and definition to what we're included on the page. -- Hargrimm(T) 15:07, 18 May 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: As per my comments above, allows for a greater range of items to be included, not previously allowable due to existing rules. Biffa (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2014 (GMT)
  • Support: As long as I'm not the one doing it. :P •WoahBro►talk 22:37, 18 May 2014 (GMT)
  • Oppose: The different sections seem too confusing to me, and I think it will be too annoying to figure out what easter eggs belong in what sections. We can expand the definition of Easter Eggs without adding new sections. --AN|L (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2014 (GMT)
    • Comment: That's kind of why I asked for feedback on the definitions and/or categories. I'd be open to revising the definitions for clarity's sake (in fact, I fully expect that to happen), but expanding the definition without adding categories would be worse than doing nothing at all, as it would only make it more difficult to judge whether or not something belongs on the page. ThuumofReason (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2014 (GMT)
      • Comment: Okay. I think it might be better to get rid of the Cultural References category and just have Easter Eggs (funny things) and Pop Culture References (out of game references). Particularly since we want to continue keep out very broad cultural parallels (skyrim influenced by norse mythology, dragonborn influenced by the works of lovecraft, etc.) --AN|L (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2014 (GMT)
        • Comment: I think we should stick with the "Cultural References" section, and included pop culture in it as well. There are a few references in Skyrim to mythology, etc. —Legoless (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (GMT)
          • Comment: That's what I meant. Not deleting or ignoring cultural references, but simply combining the two. --AN|L (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2014 (GMT)
Consensus: Support. Supported by all but one participants, feel free to make the change when you want Thuum. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:24, 28 May 2014 (GMT)
So since we're (more or less) in agreement about this, I'll start working on the changes for the Skyrim page shortly. As I said, we may need some revisions to the definitions for clarity's sake, so everyone feel free to toss some ideas or suggestions around. ThuumofReason (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2014 (GMT)
I went ahead and split the pages into categories. Based on Anil's and Legoless's feedback, I came up with a definition of "references" that includes both pop culture references and cultural references. Does anybody have any concerns/suggestions about the phrasing of the definitions? ThuumofReason (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
Why not just split the 3 big categories like the Oblivion page (Easter Eggs, Pop Culture References and Societal References--Jimeee (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
That's doable, although it may or may not be necessary. Legoless and Anil brought up good points about the merits of combining the two into one section rather than making a third, less-comprehensible category. By expanding the definition of the second section to include allusions to elements of real world culture, rather than just references that have to make sense in the context of the game, we allow for the inclusion of clear references that may not otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion. We could organize them into sub-sections based on whether they're real or pop culture, but if the definition encompasses both, is it really necessary?
It's also worth considering that Skyrim is more heavily influenced by cultural elements than the other games, so a third section might create more problems than anything when trying to create a system of categorizing eggs pages for multiple games. Skyrim has a number of clear references to Norse mythology that could probably be noted in a single section. Something along the lines of "Several NPCs are named after Norse folk heroes", and then giving one or two examples. It wouldn't be necessary to list every single one of them, just as long as we note that it happens. ThuumofReason (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
Only issue I have is on the Easter Egg definition, you've amended it to: Easter Eggs are secrets that the developers put in the game to give people a laugh when they find them. I think this would be better written as: Easter Eggs are secrets that developers put in games to give people a laugh when they find them. as it isn't a phenomena exclusive to this game, The Elder Scrolls games or Beth. Biffa (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
I figured a singular tense would be more appropriate than plural, since each page refers specifically to the contents of one game. ThuumofReason (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (GMT)

() Looks good to me. My question now is, are we just going to have this rule going forward or do we want to go back and rehash some of the eggs we rejected before the rules were changed? Off the top of my head, I can think of several (aforementioned Nord names in Skyrim, man inside a mammoth, old salty in dragonborn) that would probably qualify under the new rules. I'd be in favor of reviewing a limited number that seem likely to be added. --AN|L (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2014 (GMT)

I was planning on doing that for a few of them myself. Now that we've got some new categories (and unless there are any more objections), I think the last step is to review selected proposals that would work under the new guidelines. ThuumofReason (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
One word: Vegvisir --Jimeee (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
I know each refers to a single game, however the definition refers to Easter Eggs in general, which is an industry wide name given for all games. It would be different if it wasn't the generic name used by everyone regardless of game for the same thing. Biffa (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
A similar argument was brought up with Skyrim:Game Jam. We included the term's general definition in the notes section. —Legoless (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2014 (GMT)
Which notes section? We now have some game's Easter egg pages showing "the game" and some still with the original "games" all in the same header format. The way it is phrased and as the first line of the page is resolutely defining Easter egg in general, but then applying it to a single game. Biffa (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Time to start thinking about SRPRP?

Just remembering the talk a few weeks ago about starting a Skyrim Places Redesign Project this summer, after the ESO rollout. Seems the ESO is going swimmingly after month? Or is more fallout expected? Should we begin thinking about thinking about this?--Beezer1029 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

Not even close. We haven't even gotten to the console release which is going to be an entire wave all over again. On top of that, summer is coming around (at least in the northern hemisphere and I believe the majority of our users) which will keep traffic up still. It probably won't be until late August-September before this project can begin to be organized. •WoahBro►talk 20:19, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) The ESO console release is potentially just a month away, and I think that will bring increased activity. And when Zenimax finally listens to reason and makes it free to play (likely before the holidays, if not sooner), that will bring a new flood, I'm sure. And due to the nature of the game, our data collecting and thus our editing has proven to be much less efficient, meaning it's going to take us a lot longer to bring the ESO namespace up to UESP standards. I wouldn't start a new project on an older namespace for a while. I'd reassess in the fall. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:27, 7 May 2014 (GMT)
Will do - Thanks for the input!--Beezer1029 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Loremaster's Archive

With the new lore post on the ESO website, I think we need to consider how we want to handle official out-of-game content. The new book, Unhallowed Legions, already has a lore entry. Should we categorise these somehow? Perhaps make a small page in the General namespace to use as a source, where we explain the book's origins? From the looks of it, there will be more to come. This discussion should also apply to the texts found on the ESO website's map, which I'm not sure if we currently host yet. This isn't the first time we've archived website info. —Legoless (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2014 (GMT)

I think a non-book note on the lore page would suffice, unless there's something I'm missing. Although this issue does highlight that we should probably amend the lore guidelines to speak in terms of official and unofficial lore rather than in-game and out-of-game lore, since the former is the distinction we've been applying in practice. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 17:52, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
Pretty much all the notes and such from the interactive map were uploaded as soon as they became available into the Online namespace with no notation (example, see history for origin from the map). I'm not really sure about the namespace issue since those texts don't in any way appear within the game Elder Scrolls Online, but I do agree they should be included on the site since they were posted officially by Zenimax and intended as canon. Also agreed that the real differentiator is official/unofficial from the perspective of Zeni/Bethesda, rather than in/out of game per say. -- Hargrimm(T) 19:57, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
So we do have them, great. I think we should definitely move them out of the ESO namespace if they don't appear in the game. A general page dedicated to the online map's contents might be nice. —Legoless (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
I agree, they shouldn't really be in the namespace if they don't appear in game. Jeancey (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Makes sense. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:41, 11 May 2014 (GMT)
Yes I agree that these types of pages should live in the lore namespace. @Legoless - its funny you mention a dedicated page for online map's contents as just the other day I was working on a sandbox to organize the interactive map stuff and I was planning on bringing this up at some point. My main concern was making the origins of each text clear. I think an effective way to do this would be to have a new field in the Book Summary temple that describes this (something like "ESO Interactive Map" or "ESO Loremaster's Archive" and link it to an overview page (like ESO collections has). Thoughts? --Jimeee (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2014 (GMT)

() An option for 'other' as to where it appeared would seem like a solution, then manually adding a link to either where it appeared or just the general site name. The books are meant to be taken as canon so they belong in lore, and there are some other things that are used as sources but not included on the site, such as the eso background story on facebook. These sources have the potential to be unsupported at some point and I'd like to see more of them copied somewhere here. While we're at it there are some other changes I'd like to see to book categorization. The overview or compilation book pages (e.g. 2920, The Last Year of the First Era aren't 'books' per se and I'd like to see them moved out of that category somehow. And an idea for those would that like to see the books by game lists, an auto-cat per game entry; so SR=Yes would add a link and a cat under the Category:Lore-Books-by-Debut. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 11:30, 12 May 2014 (GMT)

That overview page looks great. Having one for the Loremaster's Archive might be a good idea too, but I think we should wait and see if it becomes a regular thing first. —Legoless (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (GMT)
So, just to be clear, how are we cataloging the website stuff? My first instinct is to add them to the book lists, but it seems like you're talking about listing them on an overview page instead and, what linking to it at Lore:Library? Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 19:29, 21 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Etymology

Velyanthe user is currently inactive and user WoahBro does not give me to edit etymology because it is in sandbox, so could we transfer etymology somewhere else with notice that everyone could edit it? — Unsigned comment by 94.253.182.250 (talk) at 05:39 on 12 May 2014‎

No current user showed any sign of wanting to take over this page when it was brought up recently, and the main reason it got deleted was because everyone added every etymology under the sun, so that idea doesn't work. If you wish to make an account and make your own sandbox I'm sure Velyanthe will agree, and he's only just gone inactive so he may still be around to reply to a talk page message. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 11:12, 12 May 2014 (GMT)
I will take over the project, so can I transfer it to my sandbox because Velyanthe is not active anymore? Xand (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2014 (GMT)
Leave Vely a message on his talk page and wait for his response before you copy anything over. There's been issues in the past of users copying other users' work from sandboxes in an apparent race to finish before the other. So just make sure that it's all good before you begin! P.S. if you cannot get ahold of Vely via his talk page, try shooting him an e-mail (it should be somewhere around his user page). •WoahBro►talk 12:27, 12 May 2014 (GMT)
Since Vely has declared himself as inactive, I don't see any reason to ask permission before taking over a project he has abandoned. The needs of the wiki outweigh the needs of the one. --Xyzzy Talk 14:08, 12 May 2014 (GMT)
The wikidiction is very strong here, and as he's only declared it 10 days ago there's a good chance of a response. A few days wait won't do any harm. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 14:14, 12 May 2014 (GMT)
I asked Velyanthe on his talk page for permission to copy but I also plan to be inactive user except for adding etymology.I made first etymology on this wiki as anonymous user and on UESP forums as Xand but I didn't decide to register because I only made few edits since then.
http://forums.uesp.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16608
http://forums.uesp.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16628 Xand (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2014 (GMT)
Velyanthe answered yes on his talk page talk page. Xand (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2014 (GMT)
I was unsuccessful at creating sandbox etymology with notice that it is spamming and action is blocked, it says to contact administrator.Note that first large post is spamming and adding many links is spamming, so please help. Xand (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2014 (GMT)
Taken care of (per reply on Vely's talk page). Robin Hood  (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] For whoever is more comfortable writing wiki news than I am

A Craglorn release has been announced. It will be live tomorrow following downtime to perform the update to incorporate Craglorn and Update 1. I've updated Twitter and Facebook to reflect this aready. -damon  talkcontribs 18:56, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

Done with aplomb (if I say so myself). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:14, 21 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Weird Skyrim Map Icon Issue

I happened across Skyrim:Arcane Enchanters and was immediately drawn to a few red links for map icons. It appears that for whatever reason, the icons are named Skyrim-mapicon-Nordic Ruins.png instead of SR-mapicon-Nordic Ruins.png, hence the red links. Frankly, I really don't know how/where to fix it to where the icon is using the correct file name, so I wanted to bring this to the attention of someone who might be able to. Oh, and I also noticed that this same red link appears on Skyrim:Nordic Ruins, so it might be elsewhere too. •WoahBro►talk 04:31, 22 May 2014 (GMT)

Well, that's just bizarre! Purging alone got a few of them, but in some cases, I had to edit, preview (but not actually save), then purge to get it to pick up the correct name. I'll have a quick look around, but I suspect that's just some weird caching anomaly or something along those lines. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2014 (GMT)
Just for the record, this has been happening occasionally with ON- files as well, particularly those in the Place Link template. --Enodoc (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Skyrim Online Maps

Just a bit of an opinion poll, a while back I was going to add a small version of our proper online maps to each page, I really only finished Auridons map. Now, I am a fan of the idea but it looks overly cluttered. I included Skyshards and Lorebook (and planned to add Treasure Maps as well) but are they really needed. Or should I keep it as just places on them, Wayshrines, Caves and the like so it can be used as a quick reference for people? --Kiz(email - talk) 15:58, 23 May 2014 (GMT)

I don't mind all the locations, but reducing them all to a simple pog would vastly reduced the cluttered feel imo. Is this meant to apply to Online space or Skyrim too? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:29, 23 May 2014 (GMT)
That looks great! I don't mind the icons at all actually, you can still make out the outlines of the map - and at a glance it really helps if you are looking for something specific, like all lorebooks. --Jimeee (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (GMT)


It was mainly about Online Maps, but I had been looking back to see what we'd done for the Skyrim maps, and we only actually labelled doors for the city maps, and there aren't many (or if there are I can't find any) Skyrim dungeon map images that are tagged up. I like the Icons over pogs as it can be used with the in game map/compass without looking for names and the like. I'll add them all in then, unless someone objects between now and Sunday (work 6 - 6 tomorrow so free time is at a zero again) unless someone else wants to tackle one? ;) --Kiz(email - talk) 20:12, 23 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Combine Guard Pages

I was thinking that we should combine the pages on guards. All of them are stubs and I feel that we couldn't find enough information about guards from each hold. If it doesn't work, I would try my best to find more information on guards. Please voice your opinions. Tandil, Master of Restoration (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2014 (GMT)

That makes sense. There's not really much to say about them, the only difference is the color of their armor and the designs on their shields, so I would be okay with that. ThuumofReason (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
I agree with thuumofreason not much difference between the guards. Lorenut (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
Lack of a lot of information isn't a reason to not have a page. A page can be complete and have very little information. Each hold has an independent crime system, and the guards have different dialogue (especially for marking out locations to you). I vote no to this merge as it is not in the interests of having complete information for each guard type. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:24, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
Each hold may have a different crime system, but couldn't we just add all that info to one page? Lorenut (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
It is true that some of the guards' dialogue differs, but they share from a pretty large pool of common responses, don't they? There's dialogue that differs by region, sure, but we probably could document all their dialogue in one big honkin' table if we had to. ThuumofReason (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
I thought we could. They do share a lot of common dialogue with a few unique to each hold. Tandil, Master of Restoration (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2014 (GMT)

() Maybe when someone gets around completing the info for each hold's guards, there can be a section detailing any guards info that is true across all holds linked in someway (I don't know the correct name for this, maybe transcluded?) so that if additional info is found or required then only a single source needs to be updated for it to show on each individual guard page. With the unique info being be shown separately on the same pages. Biffa (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2014 (GMT)

Since you mention holds, I assume you're talking about Skyrim. Looking at Whiterun Guard, there seems to be enough there that a page of its own is good. If every guard page could be extended to this length, they wouldn't need to be combined. Also, we already have a big honkin' table of guard dialogue. --Enodoc (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
I was looking at Enodoc and Silencers responses and I'm actually going to change my stance partially on this subject. If we can get close to the whiterun example, I think it would be fine to have separate pages, but if whiterun is going to continue to be the only guard page with that amount of info, then I think it would be better to just put them all together. Lorenut (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
Looking at the history for the other guard pages, it's not a case of that's all the info there is, it's purely a case that these pages haven't yet received the attention that the Whiterun Guards page has received, until they've been worked on surely they need to stay as they are with the stub category, like all other pages that also need fleshing out? I don't see that a case for merging can be made on pages until the relevant info has been gathered. Once that has happened if there appears to be mostly identical info on each page then an argument can be made to merge them and have subheadings with the differences laid out, I'm in no way advocating merging even then though. Biffa (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2014 (GMT)
I can see how we should probably keep them separate at least for now. I want to start looking for the rest of the information needed on the pages. Tandil, Master of Restoration (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Blog's "News" posting category

Can we review the use of the "News" category on UESP's blog? While I am all for sharing of news-type items on the blog, I am noticing that over the last good while SMP followers and people in IRC channels, like the forums (I remember their IRC having this opinion, that the way the "News" category is used -with another M.E. post), for instance with Minor Edits' recent blog postings about ESO, give the impression to our viewers that these opinions are indicative of the opinion of UESP as a whole, rather than the individual users, and this is clearly viewed as an issue. (the feedback from UESP's twitter post from the blog, for instance)

While I have no problem with Minor Edits tagging his posts as he fancies -within reason - the users on IRC and on Twitter, for instance, do have a fair point, and I'd like to review our process (or lack of) that covers what is or isn't "news" in an official or unofficial sense, and then find a way to reaffirm that blog posts are the opinions of editor writing them and not official for the site as a whole, with the "official" news being located on the main page? Or, as an easy fix, scrap the "News" category and note somewhere on the blog that the posts from the blog are the opinions of the editor and not of the site? -damon  talkcontribs 18:58, 10 June 2014 (GMT)

Maybe have every opinion blog post have a little disclaimer at the bottom that the opinions belong only to the writer? That seems like an easy solution to me that the readers would see and wouldn't require realigning or changing anything else. --AN|L (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2014 (GMT)
Sorry, didn't mean to cause of fuss. If we want the News tags limited to "just the facts", that's easily done. I had felt no need to write like an automaton on a blog, but I'm perfectly fine with doing that moving forward. The posts until now I can recategorize as "rants". But let's be real; the issue isn't really tag categorization. That's incidental. Now, I can refrain from expressing my own opinion in any "News" blog posts, but I can't change the news itself. I had thought that the UESP Blog would be a place for any newsworthy items related to TES, but it seems at least some people would prefer that we filter out anything which has negative implications for the games. Is this the majority opinion? Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 05:52, 14 June 2014 (GMT)
I guess I didn't mean don't say bad news, but rather don't post your own personal opinion in the news section. I wasn't really clear and I apologize. You can simply state the facts and not take a side, if it is truly a negative news piece, and let the viewers decide what that means, if it is categorized as news. Jeancey (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Daggerfall Pages on Elder Scrolls Wikia

I was doing some searching through Google, and I noticed something interesting about the Elder Scrolls Wiki's article on the Thieves Guild in Daggerfall. Specifically, while the article itself is pretty bare-bones, most of the content that the page does have is directly copied from our own article. A brief look at the edit histories of the two pages (see here and here) makes it pretty obvious that the article was copied from our own site.

How should we go about this? I want to place a notice on the page asking them to either attribute it to us or remove the content, but I'm hesitant to rush into this, since the last time a major plagiarism issue arose, one of our admins had his rights removed. Any suggestions as to how we should approach this? ThuumofReason (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

I would say just contact an administrator over there privately and inform them of the plagiarism. That is normal for dealing with any kind of copyright issues. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2014 (GMT)
Yep, the wikia admins have usually been helpful in removing plagiarised content in the past. —Legoless (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (GMT)
And that's where I come in. I'll deal with this. --Jimeee (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2014 (GMT)
Thanks, Jimeee! Robin Hood  (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2014 (GMT)
I hate to hijack this topic, but plagiarism is such a frequent issue that we should create a policy page on it, instead of just mentioning it on UESPWiki:Common Mistakes. I can draft this and present it here for community feedback if we want this. It will certainly make dealing with this issue easier since we'll have a clear page to point to in the future. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:58, 14 June 2014 (GMT)
It's not a common issue here, but it would allow somewhere to lay out a process for dealing with it. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:01, 14 June 2014 (GMT)

() We should make a guideline on dealing with pages that plagiarise from us as well. I think contacting an admin would be enough (once they copied Fildgor's page, somebody tagged the issue, and it was taken care of), but a clear guideline would prevent confusion on what action we should take. —<({Quill-Tail>> 01:21, 15 June 2014 (GMT)

^And we get to avoid the same CP conversations again and again in the future. •WoahBro►talk 01:47, 15 June 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, that works. And thanks, Jimeee, I forgot you were an admin over there. ThuumofReason (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Necroposting Guideline/Policy

For reference, the current necroposting policy can be found at the bottom of this section.

As per the differing opinions on DimeCadmium's page, I am moving this here to get a resolution. The current necroposting guideline is very vague and opinionated which has led to conflicting edits. I propose that we create a new guideline/policy that is less vague in order to stop more discussions like this one. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

To provide some context here, I noticed that an editor had on several occasions marked necroposts as unsigned, and I told him that in the future it would be okay to just remove them if they didn't provide important new information on an unresolved issue. From there, it kind of got into me continually trying to explain the policy on why we remove posts that don't provide important new information on a particularly pressing issue that hasn't been resolved. It was never intended to be a discussion, but several people took issue with how I explained it, and it got a bit messy from there. I would support adding this information to the policy page to prevent further confusion on the issue. ThuumofReason (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) To be honest, I see no reason to allow necroposting at all. 99% of the necroposts I see are entirely irrelevant to the wiki and simply create more work for patrollers. The few necroposts that have actually brought new information to light could have just as easily been posted as a new discussion under a new header. -- RNM|T 16:40, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) I'm the editor in question. I completely understand the policy as Thuum sees it, and need no explanation, nor have I needed explanation. That is not at issue here (for me, anyway). My thoughts on this are that the comment should not be simply deleted. My thoughts:
  • If it adds no new information at all (i.e. only confirms what has been stated previously), it should be deleted. This is regardless of the "worth" of new information, except that it should be fit for inclusion in UESP under normal guidelines.
  • If it adds information, questions, etc. it should be kept. Where "kept" means either leave it as it is, or move it to a new section.
I also think that if necroposting is deleted "on sight", whoever deletes it should be responsible for integrating the substance of it into other material (if needed). Also, I'm not saying necroposting should be allowed. Disallowing something, however, does not stop it from happening, and ignoring any information provided by a necropost degrades the content of UESP as a whole. Guiding new editors is one thing; ignoring their content because the submitted it improperly is another. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 16:44, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Sounds good, it'll settle the issue. I still support reposting helpful/new info necroposts under a new section, though I guess it's rare enough that our general response should be to just undo it. —<({Quill-Tail>> 16:46, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I have to agree with DimeCadmium here. If we delete improperly submitted information on sight, we are just harming the wiki. Perfection isn't required and yet, we are expecting new editors to perfectly submit their information when the guideline that governs their submission is difficult to find. I do not think that makes sense. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

() I think if it adds something important to the discussion it warrants its own section. if it doesn't I have no problem with it being deleted. I think a new policy is in order, this isn't just a black or white issue. It needs to be examined on a case by case basis like Jimeee said on Dimes talk page.Lorenut (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

To give some context to my comments, here's the removal that got me to bring this up. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 17:00, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I'm not sure I understand why this is such a big deal. This isn't an issue of the policy as I understand it; this is how it has always been. Editors shouldn't be forced to take on extra responsibilities for doing what they're supposed to do. We have a policy against necroposting for several reasons: First, this isn't a forum. Talk pages are intended for formal discussion of things that improve the article; that's why we delete forumlike posts, they add nothing to improving the article. Second, if we allow finished discussions to be revived at any time, the whole process of consensus is undermined. That's why we create NEW discussions. It's true that nobody's perfect, but that isn't an excuse to lower the standards that people have come to expect from us. ThuumofReason (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I agree that if a user post under a solved issue on a talk page, then I see no problem in deleting it only if nothing new is learned. Nobody is defending forum-like posts either. However (under the current system) I have seen older open and unanswered questions get replies that are somewhat relevant, only for them to be deleted as necroposts. For example, a user might suggest an improvement to a page under an older suggestion. Had they made a new section on the talk page with the exact same text, it would have not been deleted. In this case it's not an issue of never reaching a consensus. Don't forget that some people visit talk pages months and even years after the initial question is asked and they might have some insight on the matter that no one else did at the time. To delete a relevant but belated reply is a waste.
I'm not a huge fan of the term "necropost" either, as it's wiki jargon that isn't widely known. When its solely given as a summary for the deletion of their post, most people won't understand what they did wrong - and this I fear is what might drive people away from contributing. At the very least, a link to the policy should be in the summary so people can know what they did wrong. Often anons don't know the policies of talk pages and are just doing what they can to help - we don't want to drive them away with policy mumbo jumbo. When faced with deletion just because they posted it in the wrong section is off to me.
Secondly I mentioned responsibility of updating the page if new info is presented in a "necropost". I agree with Dime - whoever deletes it should be responsible for integrating the substance of it into other material (if needed). People's relevant contributions can't just be deleted on a policy technicality. --Jimeee (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
Thuum that's why I said if it adds something important to the discussion just make it a new section, that way it wont be reviving a dead conversation. I agree that forum like posts should be deleted but not everything is a forum like post.Lorenut (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
The thing is, just deleting content is lowering the quality far more than re-integrating the content would. And it's not any "extra responsibilities"; editors on a wiki (especially patrollers) are generally encouraged to fix other editors' mistakes. If they had posted the info in a new section on the talkpage, who would've ended up integrating it to the article? A patroller. (Or someone else who stalks RC.) Why is it different because they posted it on an old section? ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 17:17, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I really don't want to get too involved in this, but I think you need to learn what a patroller does and doesn't do. It isn't our responsibility in the least to integrate talk page information from another editor into articles. That's the job of anyone and everyone. And yes, taking the time to determine if a post is relevant, moving it to the bottom of a talk page, and (if necessary) adding an unsigned template is extra work for the patrollers. •WoahBro►talk 17:38, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

() I think he was saying that patrollers integrate the information because most if not all watch the RC. While it does take more time and is slightly more difficult, it also has the upside of getting more information into the wiki. If we deleted every improperly formatted edit, we would have a handful of pages. Thus, we need to, rather than delete on sight, review the "necropost" and determine if it could have any relevancy. If it does, we can either leave it or move it, whichever the reviewer decides is appropriate. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

Woahbro I agree with you that moving things like that is the job of everyone. I think Dime is right whoever removes it should add it somewere else if its important. I would also say that removing peoples edits because its in the wrong section, could make them not want to help out in the future. I don't think everyone in this site wants that to happen.Lorenut (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
Necroposting is never useful, that's what it means. Contributing useful information to an old discussion is not in and itself a necropost. This makes it almost impossible to create a workable policy as what is useful cannot be defined to any reasonable degree. All this nonsense seems to be concluding is that Patrollers should do there job, so what don't we just leave things for at least a few hours before anything regrettable is said. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:57, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
WoahBro, as the policy you linked states, "Patrollers are a subset of editors who regularly monitor the Recent Changes page to ensure that new edits meet the site's style guidelines.". So do you just revert any changes made improperly? Or do you correct the mistakes and guide the editors so it doesn't happen again. I would assume it's the latter, which means that's a responsibility you already have. (By the way, I never said that it was ONLY the patrollers' responsibilities. In fact, I said: "(Or someone else who stalks RC.)". I stalk RC for a good 7 hours a day, if not more. But patrollers have explicitly volunteered for the duty of patrolling, while other editors have not.)
My entire point with this was that the policy needs to be clarified one way or the other, because multiple times I've seen edited be reverted because they were "necroposts" when in fact they added new content to a discussion. The new content was simply ignored, simply because it was posted on an old section. See, for example, the diff I provided for context. (And it has been done by other people than Thuum, I'm not saying this is "all his/her fault" by any means). And because multiple people have differing viewpoints, we need to decide what it means before we can clarify it. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 18:09, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
As Silencer says, it's not a necropost if new and useful information is provided. On several occasions, I've seen people posting in old discussions, but I've decided to let them stay because their comments weren't so lacking in substance that it justified removing them outright. On other occasions, such as the one that seems to have sparked all of this, the comment was added to a three-year old discussion, and was already listed on the appropriate page anyway, meaning it was not providing new or useful information, and was therefore a necropost, which I removed. ThuumofReason (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) I haven't reviewed the events leading up to this conversation, but the fundamental question when judging a talk page contribution is "Will this help the page?" The talk pages are all about utility, and that's what the policy should illustrate. Yeah, we should be amenable to helping contributors with legitimate issues present their concerns in the proper format. Merit should always trump procedure, and we should give conversations appropriate lee-way. But I think that removing a contribution for "necroposting" is oftentimes just a politer euphemism for removing for irrelevancy. It's saying, "This conversation ended a while ago" instead of "You're not helping." This is something we've had previous conversations about. You let a forum topic fester on the talk page, it will just draw more forum-like posts, and give contributors the wrong idea about what the talk page is for, which will just end up aggravating more people.
Ninja'd. Useful information is what we're looking for, not new information. There are plenty of situations where someone could add new information to a talk page topic and yet not help the page itself at all. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 18:17, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
And that's fine, but there's also something to be said for the people who might be reading it. The current status of "is Arch-Mage's Quarters safe" is this:
  • The talkpage for College of Winterhold says something that is incorrect.
  • No reference at all to the issue in the article related to the talk page.
  • A page which the casual reader would likely not see (from the article and talkpage) is correct.
Thus I'd say that the information added by the anonymous user was useful: it changed the status of that page for anyone who might view that page without going to a completely different article. But in either case, that's not my primary concern; the exact policy is not the big issue here.
Again, the wording of the policy is my main concern. I also have an opinion as to what the policy should be, but that is an opinion, rather than the objective fact that the policy should be clarified (judging from the amount of confusion over it's meaning). The policy never says "it must be useful", nor "it must be new", only "if it's not of concern to anyone" it can be deleted. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 19:03, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
It also allows removal when something is "completely off-topic". This equates to an addition which is of no utility. I could tolerate changes which may better elucidate these topics, so long as those changes really are only to the words, and not to the meaning. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 21:41, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Necroposting Edit Break 1

() What does everyone think of this:
Deletion of all or part of another editor's contribution is only acceptable when the contribution is completely off-topic, responds to a post so old it's unlikely to be read by the poster and does not provide any new information to the wiki (a necropost), or clearly violates the wiki's Etiquette standards.
(Change "or of concern to anyone else" to "and does not provide any new information to the wiki".)
I think that's accurate to the understanding of the policy expressed above, and does not change the substance of the written policy (other than clarifying). Thoughts? ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 18:05, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

"it's unlikely to be read by the poster" I don't think that should be relevant, as someone else at a later date could benefit from an answer provided to an open section. --Jimeee (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I agree, the poster isn't relevant to article talk pages. —Legoless (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I don't like the way this is worded. The way it is written makes it seem like most necroposts should not be deleted, when in fact it's the majority of them that should be and only a few that shouldn't. I think it should be more "A post so old should not be deleted on under XYZ" circumstances. --AN|L (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I think the new wording sounds good. As far as the bit about the poster, I see that as more of a judgement call. If a post is fairly specific to that person's game and a response comes two years later, it's probably not doing anybody any good. If it's more generic and someone else could benefit from the response, I see no problem with leaving it. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
Disagree. As Anil points out, most necroposts should be deleted as they only very rarely add anything constructive. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:26, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I don't understand the desire to delete by default. It's more effort for patrollers to revert than to simply leave a necropost be, and more often than not the comments are harmless. This isn't a forum; we're not concerned with bumps. I like DimeCadmium's wording, since it emphasises good faith and deters arbitrary deletions of possibly helpful content. —Legoless (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I also have to disagree for the reasons Silencer and Anil pointed out. If we remove the "old" part of the definition, we're changing the definition of a necropost altogether. Necroposts need to be deleted unless they provide some new information that couldn't have been added elsewhere, otherwise we'll just keep getting closed discussions re-opened. If a contribution has some worthwhile substance, it can be added to a new discussion. As Legoless said, this isn't a forum. Posts on talk pages are meant to be for discussing improvements to articles, so they're meant to be meaningful. I like Minor's suggestion of changing the wording to make the policy more clear without changing the content, but even so, it's impossible to create a catch-all definition because, as Silencer said, relevance depends on the situation. At some point we're going to have to accept that there are intricacies to our policies that can only be understood with experience. We can't list rules for EVERY conceivable situation, after all. ThuumofReason (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I don't mean this to change the policy in any way. While I believe the policy should be changed, I also believe it would be better to get a concise, clear statement of the current policy, before discussing any changes to it. My "rewrite" is only meant to meet that goal, from what people have stated above as their understanding of the current policy. IMO, the most important part of a discussion about a policy change is "why should it be changed" - you can't do that without being able to delineate changes between current & proposed policy. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 19:09, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Because one necropost leads to another which leads to another. I've seen topics with 3/4 posts each spaced years apart that don't add anything useful or constructive to the discussion. The default position has to be to not necropost because otherwise we would be leaving posts added to discussions that aren't even relevant to the current state of the page. Delete on sight is not the default position anyway, it is to evaluate each on it's own merits while taking into consideration the age of the topic. Anyone with a stance of delete on sight isn't following the proper procedures. You might also notice that our take on necroposts is a lot more lenient than wikipedia, where anything over 90 days since the last post is considered an archive, which cannot/should not be added to at all. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:13, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Namespace Books vs. Lore Books

Okay, I'll admit it: I'm confused. What's our current procedure in regards to books that only appear in one namespace? To the best of my knowledge, we only put those books in the namespace itself and not in Lore. But I see examples like Cicero's Journal, where the body appears in Lore and is then transcluded to Skyrim, whereas Agrius's Journal has the body entirely in Skyrim and there is no corresponding Lore page. Whu? Robin Hood  (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

All books go in lore. We usually only exclude scraps of paper, etc. that has no relevance to lore. —Legoless (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
My recent work is based on this discussion where the website texts don't actually appear in ESO, so the lore namespace would be better suited to put them in. If in-game books (like Cicero's Journal) are "loreworthy", they appear in both the Lore and Skyrim namespaces. If they are not loreworthy (like letters/notes etc) then they only belong in the game namespace. Hope that helps.--Jimeee (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I was also of the opinion that all lore-worthy books go into lore, and that anything not loreworthy is out. There are occasionally books that aren't loreworthy, and sometimes determining what is a note and what is a book can be tough. A Journal that is only a few lines long isn't technically a note, but it isn't really loreworthy either. Jeancey (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
Okay. I think my plan as far as deleting Online/Lore pages is going to be "shut up and do as I'm told", then, trusting the Lore people to know what they're doing. :)
Jimeee: I'm assuming you'll re-create appropriate Online versions of the books you've moved to Lore after the redirect is deleted? Robin Hood  (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
No, all the texts (listed in my sandbox8) are only to exist in the Lore namespace. These texts are somewhat an exception to the regular lore books which usually have game namespace counterparts. These texts are not in-game, as they are from the ESO website. The redirects should be deleted, and that's all.
I was actually going to ask someone with template knowledge to modify/add a field in Book Summary template so we can show the source of these website texts. Maybe you can help? Please see here for the full details of what I mean. --Jimeee (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
I think that's a mistaken foundation to all of this. It's true they aren't "in-game" in the strictest sense, but they were released as "part" of an ES game with the intention of becoming part of that game's universe (as well as the overall series). Would material included with physical copies of a game (for example) not be included in that game's namespace? (To clarify: I think they should be treated like "loreworthy" in-game books.) ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 17:45, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
This discussion might be of interest when it comes to current practices. —Legoless (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
Also of note is the entire set of Pocket Guide to the Empire 1 and 3, that were released with Redguard and Oblivion. They exist in the Lore namespace. --Jimeee (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

() Thanks for the clarification, Jimeee. Template changes have been made. At the moment, Source precludes having a "Seen in" section, since that's how I understand what's going on. If we need both, though, let me know and I can change it. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

I believe the source would no longer be needed if it appeared in a game. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:01, 19 June 2014 (GMT)
There is zero reason to include the interactive map books in the gamespace as none of the gamespace info would apply. They don't appear in-game in any way. There would ONLY be a link to the lore page, and that's it. That's why we decided to move them to lore entirely. There just isn't a reason to have them in the gamespace. Jeancey (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] ESO Neutral Territory

There are several areas in ESO, quest-specific or otherwise, which are common to all three alliances. We currently list these as 'Neutral' in the place summaries, but they are otherwise poorly/incorrectly categorized. Cheesemonger's Hollow is listed as a grove, Eyevea as a crafting site, Stirk as a zone, etc. etc. Several of the Main Quest areas a currently categorized as 'Strongholds'. I don't know where the name comes from, but I like the idea. I think we should group all of these miscellaneous areas into the one section, so they can be removed from inappropriate categories and easily listed here. —Legoless (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2014 (GMT)

"Strongholds" as a name for the Main Quest locations was me, following a suggestion on IRC which nobody could improve upon, and was based on the loading screen of the Castle of the Worm and the fact that they don't fit neatly into any other type. I've got an (incomplete) list of unzoned locations which fall under this problem. What I've been doing so far (I think it's mainly just me) is assigning these locations the most-relevant of the existing types, which is why Cheesemonger's Hollow is a Grove (location with no buildings, or could equally call it a Ruin) and Glade of the Divines is an Estate (a building with a walled yard). (I didn't do Eyevea or Stirk, so I can't comment on those.) Currently I cannot think of any better types for these places, but what it may be worth doing is creating some categories which fudge the Zone parameter, say for example setting zone=Mages Guild and zoneheader=Questline or zoneheader=Faction so that they end up in an Online-Places-Mages Guild category. --Enodoc (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2014 (GMT)
I don't think assigning these places existing types is a good idea. Those pages should be reserved for zoned places that use the actual icon. —Legoless (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (GMT)
Fair 'nuff. That's unfortunate for Abagarlas and Mzeneldt though, which are definitely Ayleid and Dwemer ruins, respectively. But could we extend it to any zoned places, including unmarked locations (ie, no icon)? Farwatch Tower is definitely a fort/tower/keep, Newgate and Oldgate are definitely gates, and Cave of Sorrows is definitely a cave, and assigning them something else I think would be inaccurate. --Enodoc (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2014 (GMT)
Well, the primary origin of those categories is the map icons in the first place. Inner Sea Armature is also unmistakably a Dwarven Ruin, but we categorise it as a Delve. Unmarked locations are a whole other issue and probably warrant a separate discussion, but I don't think we should be marking them with icon-based categories either. ESO places don't really fit with the style we've used for the previous three TES games, and I think accuracy in regards to game mechanics is preferable to common sense lumping. —Legoless (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Site crashes make me sad

Why has the site been crashing so much lately, and so severely? Last week it was down for over twenty-four hours, and yesterday I couldn't get on all day. I had to sully myself by visiting another wiki to look something up. Should we expect this to keep happening? Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:46, 15 July 2014 (GMT)

I had the same issue I couldn't login at all either. It happened to me last week as well. Lorenut (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, its happening to everyone. --AN|L (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2014 (GMT)
It has something to do with the Squid servers (I think), but I really hope Dave can fix it. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2014 (GMT)
That's my guess as well, though the symptoms are rather confusing. Unfortunately, this is beyond my ability to diagnose, much less fix, so only Dave can give us any idea. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Abandoned Sandboxes (take 2)

The previous discussion on this was archived with no ruling on it. In the absence of a decision, I've gone ahead and ruled on my own proposal (which I really dislike doing), since most users supported it in principle. To that end, I've created {{Sandbox blanked}}, which I think sufficiently covers the need to politely notify the user about what's happened. I used Wikipedia's Inactive userpage blanked template as a guideline, but made ours sound less formal. Since there was no proposal to actually delete sandboxes, our policy doesn't quite match Wikipedia's stale draft policy, but I think it's close enough that we don't need our own specific policy. If anyone feels differently, say so and I'll be happy to write something up. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Daggerfall Notes

During the course of this discussion, the user brought to my attention that some information about the Numidium, used in the Numidium lore article, is contained on the Daggerfall:Mantella Revealed page in the form of the notes you receive. I was thinking that the notes should recieve their own book pages so that they can be cited into the article. While the first and third notes don't contain any useful information, the second note talks about Tiber Septim's purges with the Numidium, which doesn't appear anywhere else. --AN|L (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

Absolutely. If the letters have unique names that you can find I'd say go ahead and create pages for each of them. Otherwise we could just make a Lore page for 'Numidum Letters' or something and list them all there. -- Hargrimm(T) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
I don't think that's necessary. These notes are comparable to dialogue from more recent games. They contain important lore information, but they're not documents. —Legoless (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (GMT)
That's true. Notes/Letters in Daggerfall are essentially text boxes, and many of them disappear once the related quest is complete, so I don't think they're in the same class as books. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:38, 18 July 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Daedric Font

In theory, Daedric (O) is now available as a webfont, just like the Dragon font (D) already is. There should be no need to change anything, though if you have the Oblivion font installed locally, you can remove it now if you want. If anybody has any issues getting it to show up, please let me know. You may have to do a hard refresh to get it to display properly. I'll be removing the old {{DaedricNotice}} from the pages it's on shortly.

For the technically oriented, unlike with the Dragon font, I didn't add the SVG font support for Daedric, as it seemed to only work in Opera and in my Googling, I found a couple of things that said SVG font support is non-standard. All other browsers I tried supported one of the other recommended fonts, so it seemed redundant to have an SVG version in any event. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2014 (GMT)

Great! —Legoless (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (GMT)
Hmmm...it seems that in some cases, the Daedric font (both the webfont and the one we have available for download, since they're the same thing) use alternate letters instead of the ones used in the games. (See Lore:Daedric Alphabet for details.) Do we want to keep the various /Daedric pages that I just put up for deletion, just to offer versions that are as true to the games as possible, or is this something people consider minor enough not to worry about it? Robin Hood  (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2014 (GMT)

Personal tools
 What is this Ad?
Report Ad