UESPWiki:Community Portal

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


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.
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
Online talk:People September 21 Use of "Radiant" in ESO Articles Hargrimm (talk · contribs · email)

[edit] Emperor's Guide to Tamriel

The Imperial Library has recently completed its transcription of the Emperor's Guide to Tamriel, and I've obtained permission from both the guys over at TIL and Bethesda to host it on the wiki. It likely won't be going up for a while, as work on the transcript isn't totally complete yet (typo fixes and a couple publicly released images), but I figured I'd post the news here in case anyone wants to comment. Credit goes to The Imperial Library, Lady Nerevar, the nighthawker and laurelanthalasa for the transcription. Official permission to host came from gstaff. —Legoless (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

I've slowly begun to copy the texts over. I'm only planning on doing the basic layouts, so link insertion and proof-reading is required if anyone wants to help. A template similar to {{PGE}} would also be nice. —Legoless (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2014 (GMT)
Template? Did someone say template? Let me know if you need any changes. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
That's awesome, thanks. :) —Legoless (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
I'm more than willing to help, just let me know what you need me to do Legoless. Biffa (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (GMT)
Proof-reading is probably the most important part. Also feel free to add more links. Beyond that, integrating the information into our lore articles is the next step. —Legoless (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2014 (GMT)
I actually read through the Guide when it was first published on TIL and added most major things I saw. I'm sure there's more to be integrated though. But everything I or anyone else added as a citation to the old Books page will need to be updated for the new section-specific version. I was going to do that as soon as all the sections are up, but if anyone beats me to the punch, I wouldn't be too disappointed to not have to do that work. -- Hargrimm(T) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (GMT)

() As far as adding links, if a character or location appears in ESO that's not important enough for a lore page, (for example, it names an innkeeper and an inn that appears in ESO), should we link to their page in the Online namespace? - Alarra (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (GMT)

I think based on our past practices the answer would be no. Obviously feel free to {{Lore Link}} anything that could conceivably one day have a Lore page, but otherwise I think the idea is that a game-specific page doesn't really add much value from an overall Lore perspective. I personally wouldn't have a huge problem with it, but I'm just not aware of anywhere that we do link to game namespaces in articles outside of metadata (Appears In, references, etc.). -- Hargrimm(T) 09:34, 28 December 2014 (GMT)
We usually don't include links to game namespaces in lore articles, but since the EGtT is a supplementary material to ESO (at least from what I've heard), I think this could be worth an exception. -- SarthesArai Talk 10:55, 28 December 2014 (GMT)

() Now that all the sections are up and proofed (thanks Legoless, Jimeee, and Alarra!), can {{Cite book}} be modified to accept EGT values in the same way as it currently does for PGE? -- Hargrimm(T) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (GMT)

Done. The second parameter is the chapter, since there's no need for an edition. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (GMT)
I just noticed in the example that the "Foreword" page has a couple of instances of "Foreward" instead. Can someone confirm what's used in the actual EGT and either fix it or add appropriate {{Sic}}s. Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (GMT)
Well, it's not fully proofed yet, so it's still got some work to go; I'm only up through Hammerfell. ;) I'm also just skimming over our transcription as I read the book itself: I've caught a lot, but some still might slip through. I'll double-check the "Foreword" tonight. - Alarra (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Skyrim NPC Redesign Project?

So, in response to this discussion and these reverts (and because I need busy work), I did some investigating, and on spells alone, we are incredibly inconsistent. We have at least a handful of different styles floating around (1, 2, 3), we have articles where spells are incorporated in as an afterthought behind the inventory in the paragraphs, and who knows what else is inconsistent inside of our articles.

I know we got sidetracked on Skyrim projects because we had to quickly shift gears to begin all the prep work that comes with the creation of a new namespace pre-release and the confusion that comes with post-release, so design projects for Skyrim had to be set down for a brief while. It's been seven or eight months, and the Online namespace, while still barren in places, is at least stable and is running somewhat self-sufficiently in terms of content being added. I think that it's a fair time to assess who we have and what we can reasonably accomplish in terms of projects for various games.

I don't have the game anymore, so I am limited in terms of what I can do with data mining, etc, but I'm willing to put my name down as someone willing to dedicate my time to the Skyrim namespace (just please find someone who is a competent leader to lead) Do we have enough manpower that's free to take on a new project, discuss projects, etc? Do we have ideas in mind to discuss and share for working on the namespace? Should we let things just flow as they are? Or, should we prioritise the handful of veteran editors who actually have ESO and are wanting to focus on that? Ideas? -damon  talkcontribs 03:57, 31 October 2014 (GMT)

There hasn't been much activity on content lately, I think, but a project may change that. Though if you're asking what the editors should best focus on, it's definitely ESO (for those who have it, naturally), but editors are always free to focus on what they want. I think a project leader should be an experienced and active editor, and I would look at Krusty for Skyrim NPCs (leader or not), but he's been inactive as of late (compared to his usual activity that is). Myself, I would jump aboard, but I haven't had an urge to work on those for a very long time, unfortunately, my contributions follow a pattern of serious activity for a certain duration and then I get bored or lose attention and do something else (the last burst of edits was oblivion images a few weeks ago).
Though in any case, perhaps we could discuss what we would do beforehand. I have some comments on Rainer1's additions, namely: I think the colors for Alteration and Destruction should be at least swapped (I know the colors are on the magic effects page already, I don't know who picked those, and if they follow some sort of official color scheme); and filling in perks as "None" is I think considered futile and kept empty on purpose, like the "Essential" flag and whatnot. I also have some concerns on layout on NPC articles considering the scene dialogue, well namely that I think that it should be revised, and the fact that Krusty still probably doesn't think they should ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
I would try to be involved in a project if one was made, for sure. But regardless of whether or not a project is made, the new spell format being added is definitely not one I prefer. For one thing, unless an NPC has a significant number of spells, a separate section is unnecessary. It should be incorporated into the main NPC description as text, just like what was done in Oblivion and as has been done as part of the (relatively-newer) Morrowind project. For Oblivion, we typically didn't even document full spell lists on individual NPC pages, instead linking to the relevant leveled spell lists, which were quite convenient (the exception was for spell merchants, and then only the spells they sold were listed). In Morrowind, we list each spell an NPC has, even if they only have the standard set of racial spells (examples of specific wording is given in Jeancey's sandbox here for consistency).
If a separate spell section is to be made on an NPC page (which should only happen if they have a significant number of spells), it should look clean and simple, not be made into a page-wide, half-empty table with distracting colors which may invade the space where an image or TOC should be. Unfortunately, we do not have the convenience of leveled spell lists like in Oblivion, or any sort of standard spell lists for NPCs in Skyrim. This makes for a variety of different spells for NPCs, and no simple way to just supply a link or copy/paste information. Regardless of whether or not a new project is started, the format should be something agreed upon by multiple editors, rather than something one person decided they like the look of. The fact is, not a single NPC page had anything like this newly-added spell format. The closest would be Neloth which had a concise, unobtrusive colored table which fit into the layout of the rest of the page, which itself was an exception to most NPC page layouts in many ways. Being a clear exception, it shouldn't be what we look at as a standard. (And as with all guidelines and rules, there will always be exceptions.)
As for a Skyrim NPC Project, I would be interested to know who is currently active that would actually be interested in being involved (and has the time/dedication for it). As has been brought up several times already (such as the section directly above this one), a Skyrim Places project is also something the wiki could benefit from, and I'd be interested to know which active editors would be up for that project as well. I realize that ESO is the focus for many, but there are still editors around who don't have ESO, so I think one or two Skyrim projects would be a good idea if we have enough active editors interested in getting involved. Krusty would be the person that first comes to mind as project leader (for either project), but as Dwarfmp noted, he has not been as active as he has been in the past. I wouldn't mind stepping up, since I've been looking for something to "pull me back" into editing again, but of course that's only if 1) the community decides we should start the project(s) and 2) others would accept me as a project leader (I haven't exactly been as active as I used to be, though I am getting back into it recently). Typically, projects have two leaders, so other willing, active and experienced editors would be needed as well. — ABCface 15:15, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
Many interesting points from you two. I agree Krusty or someone of his calibre would be an awesome and desirable leader. For spell layout, I like Neloth's table and example 1 from my set. A small, table. It's easy to organise, and I like how everything is sorted. I'm not a fan of how spells get lost within the walls of text on the articles we have. The colours for them, I'm ambivalent about. They are a nice touch, but they can also be lived without. -damon  talkcontribs 17:27, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
My only problem with starting a new project is that it seems like a ton of our pages (not including ESO pages) have an incomplete project tag on them. I'm just worried that the entire site may look like a construction site. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, just a concern of mine. Regardless, there really should be some degree of consistency for Skyrim NPCs. Like a few of us talked about last night on the IRC and as ABC said above, the tables that a user has been adding are unnecessarily taking up a large portion of the page and are largely empty--something I'm not in favor of.
That being said, I may be able to help out some, although I'm not sure how much time and/or knowledge I'd be able to put towards the project (I don't have Skyrim for PC and haven't played in awhile; I'm also a full-time college student and as some may have noticed, I haven't been super active/productive lately...it's been a busy semester). I think ABC and Krusty if he wanders back would both be excellent leaders for this project. •WoahBro►talk 18:10, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
Due to the general dissatisfaction with my attempts organizing the spells of followers I shall refrain from converting anymore pages until given a guideline. However even if a Skyrim NPC Project is started I would argue a format even a temporary one should be adopted and applied to the followers NPCs pages first. Unlike most NPCs what spells a follower has is key information due to the interactions with the player and as Damon pointed out can become somewhat lost in a page with a lot of text or turned into a long string of links. See example.
In regards to Dwarfmp's comment about adding "None" to perks; I would suggest this is necessary due to the totally random nature of assignment of perks to NPCs versus the fairly uniform usage of flags like "Essential" where if the flag isn’t set that means not Essential. One or several random NPC in a group of like NPCs may or may not have perks. For example two of the three College of Winterhold Followers have perks where as only one of the seven housecarls has perks. This randomness makes it so that absent fields can’t be assumed to be “None” and not missing data. Rainer1 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
I believe few NPCs have perks to begin with, we'd end up having about 95% of pages having "None", not that that's a bad thing necessarily, but still... Maybe if the visibility can be changed, as in, not showing when there are none ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2014 (GMT)

() I still have some of the same views on this the last time (to the best of my recollection) this was brought up. Specifically, I agree with Krusty's comment about the difficulty to have a checking parameter for such a project. This is due to the fact that many pages have already been "completed" (some even featured), which was not the case when the OBNPCRP started or for the NPC pages associated with the MWOP. A project would lead to many pages that really don't need much work being marked as both lacking information and needing checked, when really such a process in unneeded for the page. However, a project would be useful for getting a nice standardized layout for what Skyrim NPC pages should look like to avoid the types of issues that initiated this conversation. I just think that it may be difficult to organize such a project when some pages still are lacking the great majority of information, some have most of the information, and others are fully complete and of the highest quality the site has to offer. All this being said, I would support such a project as it would ultimately improve and standardize Skyrim NPC pages from here on out along with providing more ways for editors to contribute to the wiki, even if there may be some unavoidable redundancy. Forfeit (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2014 (GMT)

Just on the subject of spell tables, I agree with ABCface that page-wide, half-empty table aren't the best looking style that can be done. When I was working on the Neloth page, the spell table went through several iterations before I was happy with how it visually looked and fit into the page. It started off as a standard boring list, then I tried adding a table and colors but a lone table looked out of place as its own section. I had a "Combat" section, so it sorta made sense to place it side-by-side, which I think worked very well. Something was still off, so I tried some different table styles until I settled on one. When the combat section was given an image, the whole thing came together, and I think it worked overall. I liked how the combat and spells sections complimented each other, so I repeated it on the Skyrim:Lord Harkon page.
My point is, all these decisions were made based on the number of spells and other content available. It might not have worked the same if he had many more or much less spells - you will notice the table on the Harkon page is slightly different. He only has 3 spells, so the Neloth style table would look bad. If they only know 1 spell, I would just add it to the lead.
The main thing is its okay to have the styles that slightly vary on a case-by-case basis. Looking at the recent tables on Skyrim:Onmund etc, I think they are a bit big and can use some tweaking, but I'm a fan of using the colors. My personal preference for standardization: Having a "Combat" section on all Followers pages describing their fighting style and spells (in the style of Neloth page), and then a narrow spells table next to it (only if they have more than x spells). --Jimeee (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2014 (GMT)
Somehow missed this discusion at the time, but just wish to offer my services to assist with this. I don't have access to the CK, but if it possible for someone to data mine which spells each NPC has similar to displayed merchandise, I'm willing to take the time adding it to the pages in whatever format has been agreed. Obviously as and when the Skyrim Place Page Redesign Project gets started I'm keen to be involved, but am more than willing to get involved in any other projects I can be of help with. — Unsigned comment by Biffa (talkcontribs) at 02:43 on 19 January 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Comments on Nomination Votes

It's a small matter, but I'd like to see this trend change on the nominations for FA/FI. Currently, when people comment, they use *'''Comment''': with every comment that is placed. Not only does this make the votes harder to discern, but I think this is an incorrect usage of the header (if that's what you call it). I think it should be used only for an independent comment in place of an actual vote, and any comments following these should simply be posted with indentations as on any other talk page ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2015 (GMT)

I would think that the indentation serves to distinguish additional comments from actual votes. —Legoless (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
While the indentation helps make it clear, I find that the repeated Comments just clutter up the whole page. For the most part, Wikipedians seem to simply respond with standard indents, sometimes bulleted, sometimes not, depending on the editor's preferences. (Some places, like their AFD, recommend bulleted, but most people seem to ignore that and use a mix of standard indents or bullets, according to their preference or what the previous poster used.) With few, if any, exceptions, everywhere I looked on WP, the only time Comment appears in bold is if it's a "first-level" comment, where it's not in reply to anything except the nomination itself.
That said, we don't have to do it the same way, but I do find their voting pages much easier to read than ours. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
That's exactly what I mean, Robinhood70 ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
I don't see a problem with only the parent comment in a section being marked as such and the sub-comments being merely indented, and I find that the most preferable way to do things, but I wouldn't see a problem with them being marked Comment, Comment, Comment, either. -damon  talkcontribs 00:03, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
I am inclined to agree that Comment should be used only as a first-level header. --Enodoc (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
Comment: I'm inclined to agree with this as well. :P Jeancey (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

[edit] MWOP dialogue query

For my own clarification, since I'm considering helping Dragon Guard tackle the monumental task of giving NPCs their dialogue and checking it, something I can do faster and more efficiently with the CS, I want to bring up a section of the MWOP page.

  • Dialogue: Most dialogue in Morrowind is general and shared across a large number of NPCs, so dialogue is not a large component of the Wiki. However, dialogue that is unique to a particular NPC should be duly included. For example, Vivec offers much unique dialogue that can be mentioned in his article.

It says general, generic dialogue, which presumably includes the generic, "Hi, I'm %Name of the %Faction, and of the %Class", and generic, "I'm %Name, a caravaner who can take you to any destination you please", the generic voiced "Move along, citizen", etc appear unnecessary. And, I'm tending to find the things like "latest rumors", "little advice", and things like that, which is for the most part conditioned not by specific NPCs, but by specific classes, locations, etc, to be called as a conversation topic, to be unnecessary to the article as a whole, and I'm inclined to think dialogue is most effective when it's restricted to quest-giving NPCs and is related specifically to quests, rather than just including any particular thing that's located, such as this and these.

At what point does dialogue stop being supplemental to an article and just starts to bloat it unnecessarily? What kinds of dialogue are acceptable to add, and what would the community consider extraneous? And, in terms of NPCs who have unique dialogue, what dialogue is actually important? Or, is even a mundane rumour that just happens to be unique to a given NPC important, even if it doesn't necessarily supplement the content of the article as a whole worth adding? That last question might be a difficult one to answer definitively in discussion, and it might have to be a case-by-case examination when such dialogue comes up. -damon  talkcontribs 22:47, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

First, I would be happy to hook you up with a little Python script I've hacked together that processes dialogue that I scraped out of the CS (seen here in Excel form). It's what I used to generate tables like this for class-specific or other general dialogue, and also to generate the NPC dialogue on my sporadic editing sprints. For a while, I've wanted to do something like having all faction-specific dialogue included on their page; same with NPC classes, etc.
As far as how much to include, I've just been using everything, since for the majority of NPCs there's not a whole lot unique to them, and I don't see what it really hurts to include it. Text doesn't take up much server space and it's very easy to skip over any dialogue you're not interested in with the way it's laid out. -- Hargrimm(T) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (GMT)
I would support including all unique dialogue. If the only thing an NPC has to say is something like "I am <name>, <class>", then it doesn't really deserve its own section/page, but I don't see a problem with including it along with the rest of the dialogue. As for 'bloating', very little of the information we include on NPC pages is necessary for an encyclopaedia (direct quotes, inventories, detailed AI descriptions). We include it solely for completeness. I agree with excluding things like latest rumours that aren't NPC-specific, but Hargrimm's suggestion to include this generic dialogue somewhere else is an idea I've toyed with in the past for both Morrowind and Oblivion, and I would fully support it if someone wants to put in the work. —Legoless (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (GMT)
It would be cumbersome, but a generic dialogue page sorted by topic MW:Dialogue, which headers and tables sorting dialogue and sharing information on what classes, NPCs, factions, locations, etc will trigger that dialogue being an option (and the % chance of it appearing even when all conditions are met)? Or, a subpage to things such as the factions, places, etc, which is dedicated to dialogue related to it that wouldn't fit elsewhere? For instance, a MW:House_Redoran/Dialogue page, or a MW:Latest_Rumors page, or something? I'm not the biggest fan of either idea, but that's really the best I can think of if generic dialogue really needed a place here, and a dedicated page or arrangement that didn't overfill content articles. -damon  talkcontribs 00:12, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
I'd also support the inclusion of all unique dialogue, aside from the standard background responses. The Oblivion and Skyrim pages typically include all the unique dialogue a character has, sometimes even including lines that can't be heard in-game, so it seems appropriate to include anything unique. A generic dialogue page would be nice as it would allow us to document a large amount of dialogue that would otherwise not be found on the site. I'd probably lean toward having it all on one page in the style of Skyrim:Guard Dialogue or this but multiple pages could work since there is a lot of generic dialogue in Morrowind. Forfeit (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (GMT)

() This, this, and the line ripped from MWOP's page that I have pasted into the opening posting to this thread. This is one of the case-by-case discussions over whether dialogue is supplementing a page or "bloating" one, to use my wording the other day, or unnecessarily creating one that I mentioned we'd inevitably have to have at some point. The unique dialogue is arguably valid simply on the basis that it's unique, but on the other hand, it offers no specific unique information, so it's questionable, at least in my opinion.

Do we need to give articles to unimportant NPCs simply to document three unique dialogues? Three dialogues... The generic "You want some advice, outlander?" greeting and a "Oh, you're House Telvanni? I have a little advice for you." (paraphrased) greeting that is a successful SameFaction check, plus the "This is a Telvanni affair" advice. The NPC otherwise offers no service, additional dialogue, carries nothing particularly unique, and is only a part of a quest as a hostile to kill immediately upon engaging Trerayna Dalen. Are a few lines of dismissive attitude worth noting when there is nothing else going for the NPC according to the other criteria employed in terms of creating pages? Or, is this effectively a generic goon who is acting tough and has been given a line to say purely on the off-chance that you decide not to talk directly to Trerayna Dalen first? -damon  talkcontribs 19:41, 16 January 2015 (GMT)

I started a generic dialogue sandbox for Morrowind, but it took AGES and I thought: "That's it. I've had enough." Maybe we could get an individual project created dedicated to what Morrowind's generic dialogue has to offer (maybe me, Damon, Legoless, Jeancey can start it)? We could make it fun and have ranks (project leader, co-leader (they add dialogue), supervisor/verifier/checker (check dialogue — both in-game and in CS/CSList)? Dragon Guard  (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
Planning and creating a whole project when the subject matter in question is covered in the broad scope of another one is very wasteful as far as productivity goes. It's far easier to clarify the MWOP guidelines and do everything as an MWOP project. -damon  talkcontribs 21:45, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
It doesn't even need to be a project. It seems like there's consensus enough here to start right now , if anyone's interested. —Legoless (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
Then let's get busy! Dragon Guard  (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
No need to clutter up the CP with project-specific discussion, so I've spun of the shared dialogue topic here. -- Hargrimm(T) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (GMT)

[edit] ESO Provisioning Ingredients

Update 6 is going to be deleting many of the different provisioning ingredients. It seems like a good time to compile a list of the current ones before they're removed from the game. I imagine all the information can be found in our mined data, but personally I have no idea how to work with the list. This page and this page seem to have them all listed, but it could be outdated and it doesn't contain item values. Anyone interested in setting up {{Item Link}}s and a table? —Legoless (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2015 (GMT)

Why do we need a list of things that are being removed? To me that serves no useful purpose, unless they are ever going to bring them back (which is unlikely). --Enodoc (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
For one, I'm guessing the items are going to be converted into one of the new general ingredients (Juniper -> Seasoning?), so a conversion table would be useful. Secondly, the various ingredient names are interesting from a lore perspective. And lastly, the wiki aims to record all information on the TES series (even the most obscure), so recording things for posterity falls into that scope. —Legoless (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
(edit conflict) In theory, such information could remain on their own pages with their own information for historical purposes. If a bunch of ESO stuff was depreciated, would we delete the pages as they are no longer relevant, or would we keep them for historical/informative purposes? It seems like the latter would be most feasible, and for the sake of completion, as far as our lore and in-game knowledge reserves go, such information would be advantageous to have. That said, if we did lose information and we just couldn't get it into the ESO NS, it wouldn't be a loss either, since it's not relevant information for the patched-up clients and servers. -damon  talkcontribs 21:42, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
Per Damon, I agree with keeping old information on a separate page. There's obviously no benefit to keeping deleted recipes on the main recipe page or whatever. —Legoless (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
I'm confused... I never suggested deleting recipes from the main page, nor did I suggest a second page (or make any suggestion in terms of what to do with the information). I merely said that information that was past its sell-by date could be of use to us and also that it wasn't lost information if we couldn't acquire and use it for whatever reason. -damon  talkcontribs 21:57, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
Guess I misinterpreted "such information could remain on their own pages". Anyway, ON:Provisioning Ingredients/Old is what I had in mind. —Legoless (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
I think keeping them for historical reasons is a great idea! I'm kinda confused on what's happening though. I haven't played ESO in a bit and haven't kept up on it, but ZOS is removing provisioning ingredients from the game? Does that mean that the ones people already have (in their inventory or bank) will just be deleted or something? What about the recipes that people have, will those just be unable to be crafted now? Lorenut (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
It's getting overhauled. The details can be read here. —Legoless (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
Thanks Legoless! I'll check it out. Lorenut (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
(edit conflict × 5) Aye, the posterity thing makes sense. I wasn't sure how much we would be sticking to that with an ever-changing thing like ESO (in the same way that we remove fixed bugs, rather than marking them as fixed). I guess we could keep a list of the old items and their conversions in a sub-page, such as Online:Provisioning Ingredients/deprecated, or something like that. I am going to assume that the lists are complete, since the recipes were last updated in December and there are enough ingredients to cover them. I may be able to help you work with the mined list; starting here, I believe everything is covered either by Food, Drink, or Ingredient. There's a search box in the top right as well for finding specifics. Luckily it seems that these items are displayed at their actual values already, so let's take Bervez Wine as an example. In the URL, you can see that the item ID=28482, it's green, so quality=2, and it's Veteran Rank 5, so level=v5. Then your link is {{Item Link|id=28482|level=v5|quality=2|Bervez Wine}}. Ingredients are all nominally Level 1, so you just need the ID: 34348 is Bervez Fruit. If you want to keep the fancy colouring, you'll need to wrap {{ESO Quality Color}} around the Item Link, otherwise it'll either display in grey, or not link correctly: Bervez Fruit, Bervez Fruit, Bervez Fruit. --Enodoc (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
Great, so we do actually have them. That's mainly what I was concerned about. It should be easy enough to export those items into a wikitable similar to this. Was there ever any decision made in regards to favouring Item Links over tables? —Legoless (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
Hmmm, I don't think any decision was made, although a possible issue with just dumping out a table like that is that it may include a bunch of random things that are in the mined items but that don't actually appear in the game. Here they are though: ingredients, food, drink. For some reason, the "level" field doesn't actually seem to work... --Enodoc (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2015 (GMT)

() This was e-mailed to me today and looks like it is relevant to this discussion:

My husband and I went on PTS server those past few days and we made an extensive table of the provisioner changes for the next TESO update.
We made a excel file with 3 tables (and their french translations):

* first one is the conversion between old and new components (discontinued items being renamed as "old jazbay grapes" or liquewise names)

* second table is the list of primary components and additives by types

* third table is the list of most of the recipes (missing 2 green and some blue and purple recipes). We went to check most of the guild vendors
around the world and our personal recipe lists to make this table. We also stole a couple of VR1 and VR5 drink recipes that were brand new and
added them in green to the table.

As you can see, it is an extensive work that would benefit absolutely nobody except a couple players in hubby little french guild. We spoke
about it and decided to share the work around us, so I'm sending this file to uesp.net, Tamriel foundry and Game-guide.fr.

I hope you'll find this useful. Feel free to share it on your websites or to friends. You can modify the files as you see fit!

Have a nice day, Whilhelmina & Llogwey

I've uploaded a copy of the spreadsheet they sent me to Google Sheets. -- Daveh (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (GMT)

Greet, we found out that we had an account here! Thanks for uploading our table, Daveh. By reading this thread, we found the list of recipes that you got as a feed. We found a way to use the mined data you have and convert the links so they work. The first part of the link (what I assume is the item ID) doesn't change, but there is another number in the list, so adding "0:" in the item link string works to get the new item. Name automagically changes for the new one. We'll check some more tomorrow to see if we can complete the recipe table.
How it works: old components are transmuted into "new ones". The new ones can be still useful (in that case they changed names) or become useless (in that case, the name changes from "stuff" to "old stuff" and they can be sold for 10g piece. There are no entirely new components. ; for recipes: old recipes are transmuted into new ones of the same level. No recipes is deleted. Old drinks/foods turns into the new ones. It's not possible to see at a glance what will be the new name of the new recipe (components are not faction dependent at all).
btw, you're missing the basic "saltrice slurry recipe" in the mined data but we found threads on the boards saying that it never dropped. —Llogwey (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2015 (GMT)
Following on from this, I have been in contact with ZOS' Community Team over the last couple of weeks and they just sent through their official conversion table for us to use. We can use this to confirm the ingredients changes that have already been found (nice work on those!), and it also has the recipe conversions as well. Dave has uploaded this one as well on Google Sheets. --Enodoc (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Slow Reversions Please!

Okay, guys, this whole thing with Ewolfg1 got out of hand way too quickly and frankly, I'm a little bit perturbed by everyone's responses to it. Normally, I'd keep my criticisms private, but there were several people involved in this issue and I think this tendency we've had lately to jump on any response to an older topic as a necropost is something that really needs to be dialled down a notch.

There is an argument to be made that Obax's post was appropriate, even if it was a response to an older post. Necroposting, according to our own policy on it, requires that the post be off-topic or not of interest. It certainly wasn't off-topic and the fact that Obax asked the question, a user reinstated it as interesting, and I thought it was interesting enough to dig through the CK and post an exact response pretty much negates the latter. But leaving aside the question of whether or not it was a necropost, the appropriate response to a debated post is not to edit war with the person reinstating it (unless it's offensive/vandalism, of course), but to use slow reversions and to discuss the issue. There was really no great and immediate harm caused by the question being there and it really didn't deserve the response it got.

So to restate the topic of the post, can everyone please use slow reversions when dealing with disputed edits rather than jumping on the Undo button. Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Is slow reversion a kind of reversion, or do you mean just to slow down on the reversions? Current practice to ask related questions to an old topic, is to simply start a new topic, I think. Whether that's logical or not, I suppose that depends. I necro-posted before myself until I was told not to, and those were answers to questions etc ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
Slow reversion is when you wait several hours or even a day or two before reverting something if there's no urgent need to revert it. It stops edit wars dead in their tracks and tends to lead to less-inflamed tempers. I was hoping to find a Wikipedia article that discussed it, but while I can see several instances of the phrase used on talk pages, I don't see anything in their actual help/policy pages.
I agree that, generally, current practice is to start a new topic, and that's preferable in most cases. If you're responding directly to an older topic with information that might be useful on the page, or even a strongly related question, though, that doesn't necessarily constitute a necropost. A necropost, according to my understanding of the term and of our policy, is when someone says something like "I need help with this part of the quest" and someone responds to their request for help months or years later. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
(edit conflict) What I took away from our most recent discussion of this was that new topics could be made for necroposts, but that people performing the reverts were under no obligation to do so. If you feel there's a need for a change, we can certainly have another discussion about that.
As for the "edit warring" bit, (and at the risk of sounding immodest--please don't anybody take this the wrong way), I legitimately don't know how my response to this situation was in any way erroneous. My attempt to discuss the situation with Ewolf was (in my opinion) courteous and calm, even when I already felt I was being spoken to rudely. That was followed by a personal attack made against me, and instead of making any response or issuing a warning (although it certainly would have been justified), I removed myself from any further discussion with him, deciding it would be best to let an admin handle matters from there.
For my own part in that series of reversions, while I acknowledge that there was some back-and-forth between Ewolf and I, I would like to draw attention to the fact that after directing Ewolf to the necroposting policy (upon his request), he said, quote: When you delete...posts by claiming necroposting I will readd them every single time. I undid his revert of my revert once after he made that comment, but after that I refrained from reverting again, even if it might be justified, because I refused to let it get to the point of an edit war. That's always been my policy; even if I know I'm right, don't press the issue if it puts me at risk of a 3RR violation.
To summarize, while an issue of someone getting blocked for personal attacks is always unfortunate in and of itself, I feel that in this case the responsibility lies entirely with Ewolf for his refusal to follow policy and his personal attacks, and I don't see how following procedures puts me at any sort of fault for this. Do you disagree, Robin? Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 06:35, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
Dwarfmp: From my understanding i think Robin Hood means not to revert automatically on seeing a post in an old topic.
Robin Hood: I've always heard that if you have something new to add to a topic then you should start a new section on the page, so that is one of the reasons for my revert. The other reason is because from my understanding that is a necropost. The wikis policy for necroposts states "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 or of concern to anyone else". The original posters don't seem to be around anymore and it could have simply been made into a new section since that wouldn't have made it into a necropost. Lorenut (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

() Thuum: Apart from the multiple reversions, your response to Ewolfg1 was fine as far as I'm concerned. From a technical perspective, even the multiple reversions were fine, but a slow reversion would have been a much better choice while the legitimacy of the initial edit was still in question. My primary concern here is that we not get into edit wars, or edit-war-like behaviour, especially with relatively new editors who may not understand what they've done or what 3RR is, etc. Nobody that I saw actually suggested to Ewolfg1 that he post to a new topic (or in this case, move Obax's post to a new topic). I can understand his frustration when he felt it was a legitimate question but it just kept getting erased with no other recourse, and he gets a warning where others don't because they've come under the three-reversions that he probably didn't even know about. That all being said, I don't disagree that his aggressive response warranted a warning block at the very least.

Lorenut: The response to the post was indeed old, but it's the "or of concern to anyone else" which is coming into play here. No, the original poster probably would never have read the response, but it clearly was of concern to others and might be information that could be added to the Dark Brotherhood page. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Found it! It got moved away from Wikipedia a while back, which is why I couldn't find it there anymore: The value of slow reverts. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
I thought that matter got pretty ridiculous, too. While there are legitimate reasons for prohibiting necroposts, it often doesn't take a lot of effort to split off a comment into a new discussion. We should be helping people contribute properly, not shutting them down for making a formatting blunder. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 13:48, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
Firstly, I'd like to say that necroposting is never really harmful and traditionally we allowed the majority of talk page posts to remain in place, so this recent deletion phenomenon can understandably rub some people the wrong way. To put it bluntly, unless something seems like a "stupid question" and adds nothing to a talk page discussion, it would probably be best to simply leave it be or even try to answer. See here for how overzealous deletion can lead to potential detriment of the article (sorry for singling you out Thuum). However, Ewolfg's behaviour was not acceptable, and edit warring combined with spitefulness upon being corrected cannot be blamed upon this necroposting policy issue. —Legoless (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
That edit was a misunderstanding on my part. All I saw was "it costs 500 gold to hire him every time, even if you marry him," and without having any other context, I didn't realize until after your edit that he was referring to the article's claim that he could offer his services for free. I read over the article and I wasn't able to make the connection by myself, so I was a bit confused as to the message. While it's obvious in hindsight that it wasn't a forumlike post, at the time I honestly couldn't understand what he was talking about, hence the prodding. I will concede that if I had read through the article more carefully, I might have eventually made the connection, so perhaps I was a bit hasty there.
As for the other bit, the difficulty I see is with how we define "adds nothing to a discussion". I presume most people can agree that saying something like "this happened to me too" after confirmation was already provided, or "you could also try such and such" after a fix was already offered but no further comments were made, could fall under that heading. After that, it gets into a whole lot of gray area. If someone revives the discussion with a related-but-separate issue, should it be placed in a new discussion? Should there be an obligation for a person reverting a necropost to make that placement? If we are in agreement that there is some degree of subjectivity involved in determining what constitutes a useful contribution, then we have to also accept that different people may have different opinions in some instances.
So how do we approach this dilemma? I see several possible solutions:
  • We make the policy on necroposting more clear; this includes defining what constitutes a useful contribution to a discussion and laying out clear guidelines for how to handle necroposts. If we remove subjectivity from the equation as much as possible, we're left with fewer disagreements like this. While this approach would lead to fewer disagreements of this nature, implementing it might be easier in theory than in practice.
  • We continue as we have been doing, undoing posts in discussions older than 3 months that add nothing to a discussion (which may involve some judgment calls). If a post brings up a good point, or if there's some debate over its value to the topic, it can be moved to a new discussion, though there should not be any obligation to do so. This seems to be the easiest solution to implement, as it allows for subjectivity and leaves the door open for further discussion if someone thinks it's warranted. On the downside, people who are new to the wiki and don't have an in-depth understanding of the reasons behind the policy may react poorly to this and may not be knowledgeable/comfortable enough with wiki editing to re-add something to a new discussion, as we've seen here.
  • We do the same thing as the previous example, but with a mandate on moving useful contributions to a new discussion by the person who undoes the edit. My main problem with this solution is that it takes the responsibility for an edit away from the person making the edit and places it on someone else. Also, without defining what constitutes a "useful contribution", we run into the same problem of subjectivity, which puts us back at square one. The only other alternative is making new discussions every time, and that opens the door for all posts to be allowed to remain, regardless of value, at which point we might as well remove the necroposting policy altogether.
Thoughts? Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 19:00, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
If I understand correctly, necroposting occurs when a post is so old that it's not likely that the author of the post will read it. But in case of some more important questions, it can be likely that other people will seek the same information on the talk page, even if the question is months or even years old. Therefore, I think we should allow people to answer these important questions. I am only unsure how do we estimate which question is worth answering and which is not. That should be somehow stated in the policy, and so I think that Thu'um's first solution (making the policy crystal clear) would be the best. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 20:40, 28 January 2015 (GMT)
Sorry its taken me so long to respond, but i've been rather busy today. When it comes to posts like the one we're talking about, what some people find interesting others may not and that is 100% subjective. I do think that it should have been made into a new section since the topic was so old and i do feel like me or Thuum should have done that, but at the time of my revert i hadn't thought of that and for that i apologize. However I feel like the policy needs some revising to make it "crystal clear" as per Thuums suggestion because it seems like there is a lot of confusion as to what constitutes a "necropost". As for my thoughts on how Ewolf reacted to this, i believe he deserves the warning and block he received because being rude to others over something like this is never the correct way to go. Lorenut (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

() In and of itself, I don't think it's a bad thing to have a response to a question or post that's very old. That's the assumption made with the {{Good Question}} template, which often sits on a question for years waiting for someone with the expertise and time to discover the answer. It becomes a necropost when it both responds to something old and does not add significant information or bring up a new (or more deeply probing) question. As long as a post to an older topic does one of those things, I don't think it should be reverted, though it may be appropriate to move it. That, of course, will also be a judgement call.

So bringing this back to Thuum's point, I think we can expand our policy to explicitly include all three options: revert, leave in the same section, or move to a new section. Defining which one of those to do at what times, however, we can only give examples of. It will always be up to a patroller (or any other editor, really) to make a judgement call as to how best to handle those contributions. There are times that moving the question into a new section might actually make it less clear. Using Obax's post as an example, by leaving it under the existing section, it was clear which daggers he was talking about. On the other hand, it could just easily be argued that it was a new question and deserved a new section. That question could have been answered in its section and the original could have been expanded on as a separate response. Both would have worked in this instance, but when I restored it, I felt that because of the fact that my answer covered his question and elaborated on the original question, leaving it in the same section was the better way to go. Someone else might have approached it differently.

As far as not putting off new editors, I'd suggest that whenever a necropost is reverted with no intention of doing anything else to it, a quick message be left on the editor's page or in the edit summary, explaining why their post was reverted. It doesn't have to be anything major, just something small like "Sorry, we discourage responses to older posts unless they add something new to the topic." I'd also suggest that, like we do with deletion tags only in reverse, if a post is restored after being reverted, it should be left alone and anyone feeling strongly enough about re-removing it should take it to the talk page of the editor(s) involved. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2015 (GMT)

In response to Robin Hood's statement "There are times that moving the question into a new section might actually make it less clear." Something that could work for when a post is made into a new section is just link to the other section on it in the post. It would hopefully make it more clear and not confuse people. What are your thoughts on that?Lorenut (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2015 (GMT)
(edit conflict) I'll second that, Robin. And I think everyone should make an effort to be as accommodating as they can, because we're likely going to have a lot of new people in here in about 6 months trying to learn the ropes. We're going to have to invest some time into treating them right if we want people to stick around and become regular contributors. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 03:16, 29 January 2015 (GMT)
Lorenut: Yes, that can work too. I think it depends how closely linked the topics are as to whether they'd be best to stay in the same section or a new one with a link back to the old one. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2015 (GMT)
Linking back to the old discussion would definitely be helpful, since we already do it when revisiting archived discussions. But if the direction we're leaning in is to just leave it up to a person's judgment, then we're taking option 2, where nothing changes at all (which I'm fine with, but it seems to run counter to the point of the initial post, as it was me following my own judgment that seems to have sparked this debate). Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 04:01, 29 January 2015 (GMT)
Nothing changes in terms of approach, no, but I think we're coming up with better and more uniform procedures on what to do in each case. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2015 (GMT)
I agree with what Robin has said above: "it depends how closely linked the topics are". If a new post adds valuable information to what has been said in older posts, it's better to keep it in the same section so that it's easier to compare the information at one glance. If a new post indeed adds valuable information or considerable thoughts, it proves that the topic is not dead, no matter how old the last post may be. --Holomay (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Oblivion magic school colors

Morrowind-based colors
Actual Oblivion colors
Alteration Alteration
Conjuration Conjuration
Destruction Destruction
Illusion Illusion
Mysticism Mysticism
Restoration Restoration

I just noticed that all of the Oblivion magic pages use the same color scheme that is used for (and based on) the Morrowind schools of magic. However, it seems Oblivion has its own color scheme, easily seen here on the unobtainable potion bottles for each of the magic schools. Most notably, Alteration is defined by a white color which helps to distinguish it from red/pink-based Destruction and Mysticism colors. Skyrim chose to use different colors yet again, and the Skyrim magic pages take that into account so I don't see a reason why we shouldn't for Oblivion too. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (GMT)

Makes sense to me, nice idea! --Enodoc (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2015 (GMT)
I'm fine with this. How many pages need to be changed? Is it just the templates really? Or should HnB do it? Jeancey (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (GMT)
Thanks for the quick responses. The colors are defined in common.css, so all we need to do is add some code specific for Oblivion and it should automatically take effect on the relevant pages. I assume we add need to add something like this. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (GMT)
This makes sense to me as well. I don't think HnB would need to be involved, since pretty much everything uses templates. The only exception to that that I found was Spell Effects, where the template can't be used because there are other classes being defined at the same time. I'll get to work on it after breakfast. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2015 (GMT)
Thanks, although the Oblivion schools seem to be using different colours than the ones demonstrated here (e.g. Restoration is pink). The colors I used in the table to the right were sourced directly from the potion bottles, with a suitably lighter shade of that color chosen. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2015 (GMT)
Sorry about that, those were just copy-paste errors. Also, all existing classes that I could find anywhere have now been converted. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2015 (GMT)
Awesome. Looks good, thanks. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Online Guild Kiosks

I am working on the Online:Guild Traders page here and the Online:Guild Kiosks list here. Since it is all interconnected, I started to create pages for kiosks as well. While I was finishing the Ebonheart Pact kiosks list, I realized that the guild marketplaces (e.g., Mourner's Market) have to have a full-blown page, while singular kiosks (e.g., Bleakrock Barter) should probably be done as a redirect to a settlement or a nearby Wayshrine, just like individual vendors' stalls are usually done. There is not much information there anyway, except for the vendor, kiosk name and a location. Then I discovered that Enodoc did this already (e.g., Mogazgur's Mart) for some of them. So, the purpose of this post is just to let RC watchers know that I am going to redo those single kiosk pages I've already done as redirects. Unless somebody has any other ideas or suggestions. The progress is slow, but steady :) ~ Shuryard (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

Well, I found some other singular kiosks which are not redirects (e.g., Bayside Barter and Traitor's Trades). I assume this is because they are located in the settlement and marked on its map, rather than simply being situated near a Wayshrine... Perhaps, I should check it with Enodoc first, before making any changes. ~ Shuryard (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2015 (GMT)
Yep, following on from how Legoless started, I handled Guild Kiosks in two ways:
Enodoc (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2015 (GMT)
Okay, I will redirect only those that marked on Zones maps. I will also add icons to the kiosks' pages that are redirects. Thank you. ~ Shuryard (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Online:Sets

The page is very long and contains huge amounts of information. I propose to leave intro and 'All Sets' table on the page and split the rest into three pages, Online:Craftable Sets, Online:Dropped Items Sets, and Online:Bought Items Sets. Or something along those lines. I volunteer to do that.

Also, bonuses for craftable sets are outdated. However, to update those, one needs to update all the individual set pages and then copy all that into the huge table on the main page. Moreover, there is a chance that the bonuses can be changed again in a future update. I propose to transclude bonuses from the sets' pages into the main table. A set page could look like this while this is how it would look like in the table.

Any objections, suggestions, ideas, comments? ~ Shuryard (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2015 (GMT)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would like to suggest you get rid of the vertical text from the original page, as to me that's unnecessary and untidy (perhaps make it bold instead). Nice use of {{ESO Alliances}} as well. I never thought it could be used in so many different places   :)  . On a related note (but perhaps not useful in this instance), I was wondering if anyone knew whether we have {{#lst:}} here, as that could be useful if we ever need different bits of a page in different places. --Enodoc (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2015 (GMT)
The {{#1st}} template is a good one to have, but in this instance it would be more convenient to transclude info the other way around, I agree. And the {{ESO Alliances}} is a useful one indeed, thanks for making it.
I will start working on it today. (There is still time for suggestions before I begin propagating stuff through 23 pages :P) ~ Shuryard (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2015 (GMT)
Enodoc: Yes, we do have labeled section transclusion here (see Special:Version for a list of everything we have).
Shuryard: Note that that's #lst (LST), not 1st. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2015 (GMT)
Great, thanks! Another bedtime reading material for me :P ~ Shuryard (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Time to Condense the Sidebar?

As far as I recall, one of the main arguments for listing all three Skyrim DLC in the 'sections' section of the sidebar was due to their recent release. It's been two years since their release on PS3, so I think it's time to replace them with a single link to Skyrim:Official Add-Ons. This will not only condense the sidebar a little, but it will also provide site-wide linkage to the Space Core and HD add-ons. Any thoughts? —Legoless (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2015 (GMT)

Sounds like a good idea. I think we should do the same with Shivering Isles and the two Morrowind add-ons, as well; keep it consistent and help save more space. - Alarra (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
I agree with all that, but just to pile on, why aren't the modspaces linked to in the sidebar? Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 02:43, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
The sidebar is really strange. Sometimes the game names are collapsable, and expanding them reveals all the add-ons (IMO this is the superior solution, and the links are incredibly useful). The rest of the time they appear as a normal bulleted list, but with non-expansion add-ons missing. What's up with that? -- 09:12, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
That depends I think on whether you're logged in or not. If you are logged in, you have the option to Convert the "sections" portion of the sidebar to be collapsible in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, which uses JavaScript. I found an old discussion on this — not sure if it was the most recent one, but it's the one I remember — if anyone's looking for some background reading. --Enodoc (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
That was me posting from my phone :p So that would explain things, I don't think I was around for that discussion. Thanks for linking to it. Perhaps it's worth reconsidering it as an extension. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
Dorsal Axe: Gadgets have the option to be enabled by default, which also gets applied to logged out users. As I recall, though, a lot of people were opposed to that idea last time it was suggested. That's a different discussion, though, so if you want to propose it, start a separate discussion and we'll see where it goes. As is often said, consensus can change. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Creation Kit Wiki

It seems there's some kind of odd problem at the Creation Kit Wiki and I'm working with one of their support people to track it down. Can a couple of people try editing articles on the wiki (all the better if you can find something and improve it, as opposed to test edits) and see if they have any issues, please? I keep getting MWException errors on any Main space article or talk page I've tried, but User space all seems fine. I tried a different user account to no avail. Even just asking the CK wiki to confirm my e-mail gave an exception. We've tried different computers and browsers, and nothing helped there. A different IP let me make one edit to ckwiki:FormList, but not its talk page. This is, of course, rather bizarre, and it would be helpful to know if this is widespread or a one-off issue. Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2015 (GMT)

I can't even register. —Legoless (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2015 (GMT)
I registered around the time of Skyrim's release (I think). I edited a page just a month ago, had no problems then. Of course, something could've happened in that time ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (GMT)
Whatever has happened is recent, as I've had no problems in the past. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (GMT)

[edit] Skyrim Prima Official Game Guide should be treated as an official source

I think we made a mistake somewhere along the line when we began treating the Skyrim Prima guide as an unofficial source (see, for example, how it is used here). It's the official guide to the game; it has Bethesda's approval. I think editors should be allowed to cite to it without going through the added trouble of making an OOG cite.

I can't find the initial discussion which created this disposition, so I don't know the exact reasoning behind it. But treating the Skyrim guide as an unofficial source is incongruent with how other official guides have been treated (e.g., The Daggerfall Chronicles, The Morrowind Prophecies, etc.). I don't see a valid reason for treating the Skyrim Prima guide differently. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 14:38, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

I think the guide is being treated as "out of game" as opposed to "unofficial" on pages. In any case, we discussed this a while back when I enquired about the "Acolyte Priests" lore in Dragonborn - but the the most concerning thing was apparently the guide was full of mistakes. I dont mind using the guide as an official source (i.e. not OOG), but we should be careful what is added to the lorespace. --Jimeee (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (GMT)
Thank you! I could not find that discussion to save my life. I had forgotten the basis for distinguishing the Skyrim Prima guide. For the sake of consistency, I guess labeling it OOG is fine. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 15:43, 28 February 2015 (GMT)
For something like how to translate the dragon language, it's easy to test by comparing the translation notes against several dragon walls, so I think it's okay to assume that someone did their homework until proven otherwise (though I still don't place complete trust in Prima Guides). But I would urge caution about what elements of the plot we take as fact from any OOG sources. I don't know how well this jives with our policy, but my personal opinion on canon and external sources (in all forms of fiction) is that if something isn't stated (or at least implied) in the source material, it should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, if the author doesn't consider an element of the plot important enough to actually include evidence of it in the story, why should we consider it important? That's my feeling anyway. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 16:49, 28 February 2015 (GMT)
My thoughts on this were made clear previously in that discussion, and I still stand by it regardless of that quoted liability clause. It's clearly intended as a legal statement, not as a de-canonising of the contents within. The Prima guide is an official publication and should be afforded official status on lore pages. —Legoless (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2015 (GMT)
I'll tolerate treating the guide as unofficial, but treating it as official is still my preference, too. The Dragon Language lore page is the only one that would require correction, so it would be easy to implement. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 18:09, 28 February 2015 (GMT)

Personal tools
 What is this Ad?
Report Ad