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

Elder Scrolls: Legends template(s)[edit]

Hey! With the new information about Elder Scrolls: Legends, I've been thinking about what exactly we need from the template. As I see it, we need these parameters:

  • Name
  • Race
  • Class
  • Image
  • Cost
  • Attack
  • Defense
  • Ability/Effect
  • Type
  • Flavor Text
  • Prophecy

Can anyone else think of any parameters I may have missed? There might also be special cards that do not fall into these categories, or that do not use all of these categories. I'm looking forward to this! Jeancey (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, just as a reminder, all of this information should be sourced solely from officially released information and public conventions. Any closed beta info will be covered by an NDA and should be deleted from the wiki as soon as possible :) Jeancey (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Might want a parameter for how to obtain the card, for special cases like the Adoring Fan. Are we gonna transfer card data to the wiki right away or should be wait for release? —Legoless (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as it is from the official release video, I see no reason to wait. Everything should have the prerelease tag of course. Maybe add an NDA section to the pre-release template? Jeancey (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If it came out of an official source, I'd see no reason not to share it, however, there's no telling how (if at all) the information would change in the future. I'm more of one of those "wait and see" people though, and I personally would wait until the NDA was over and we were closer to release to start sharing data like that, just in case it changes. And, although I know we'd be vigilant and keep NDA'd information from being shown on the site, what if sharing large amounts of card information and stuff looks more like an encouragement to do more? Unless it was shared to a Pre-release page that was explicitly for such information, but wasn't posted elsewhere as unique articles or the like. -damon  talkcontribs 19:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Purely from a template-design perspective, my questions would be whether we're envisioning a single page with a table for all the cards, or one card per page. If it's one per page, then which of those parameters might we want to cross-reference on other pages (similar to quest or location summaries, for example)? Also if it's one per page, what else would we fill the page with besides the template? I guess a bit of Lore-like info would be appropriate, but I can potentially see individual pages being fairly bare. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
From the looks of things, individual card articles could actually be pretty beefy. Summary tables will definitely be needed as well though, so we might want to use something like {{Online Skill Link}} to transclude the basic data. —Legoless (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

() Great example, Lego. I wasn't thinking of what all could go on such a page. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Which parameter would things like "Uses: 3" or "Ongoing" go under? Or is that one you've missed? Also, what are the "flavor text" and "prophecy" parameters? I don't see anything like that on the images of the cards. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In the Lanes article they talk about how some cards are prophecy cards. It was separate from the ability, so I figured there was something special about them. Flavor Text is just from experience with trading card games, there is flavor text usually on cards. Sometimes just on cards without abilities, other times on every card. I figure that they'll have some sort of flavor text, but it's not a given. Jeancey (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, based on the above discussion, I've generated a quick template. Feel free to throw some parameters at it and see how it looks (cuz I haven't beyond a basic test). My design skills suck are unimaginative, and even looking at the test, I can see that we'll probably want to make some changes, so feel free to suggest any you might have or play in my sandbox yourselves. Also, I'm not intending this to be a comment on whether we should put it to use right away or if we should wait. I just figured I'd get something done while I was in a "templatey" kind of mood. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As another example of ideas for a card's page, here is an example of a card's page on a wiki for a game I used to play before they shut it down. This one focused more on the numbers: how strong a card would be if you leveled/evolved it different ways, and cost-vs-atk/def ratios. The cardlist might be good to look at too to see how they organize the full list of cards in the game (if you can get it to load, that is - seems to be very slow and iffy lately. The owner of that wiki's stopped doing any work on it due to Rage of Bahamut shutting down, and will take down his wiki before long.) ~ Alarra (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

() Ok, I've tried out the card template and been working on some pages as well. I'm not familiar with templates, but have suggestions:

  • Maybe "Magicka Cost" instead of just "Cost"?
  • I think the attack/defense would look better as two columns on the same row
  • I'd say rename "class" to "attributes", since a card can be a single attribute (i.e. Strength). Or maybe have it display as "class/attribute".
  • Maybe color the template based on which attribute the card represents? The colors they're using are red (Strength), yellow (Willpower), blue (Intelligence), green (Agility), purple (Endurance), and dark gray (Neutral). There are also cards that are half-and-half, and I'd assume we'd name them by their class name (for example a red/blue card would be a Battlemage card) - is it possible for the template to look half-and-half (whether it can do a gradient or fill it half-and-half, or maybe use one color for the part that's currently "lighter" in the template and the other color in the parts that are "darker"?
  • Add a field for rarity (that's what the bottom diamond on the card indicates). Maybe change text color based on what it is? Fans who've been to PAX East are saying that the rarities are Basic (white/gray), Common (blue), Unique (purple), Legendary (yellow).
  • For "Ability", maybe center-align the text, like it appears on the card? Also, "ability" covers all the prophecy/what the card does/etc, right?

(By the way, here is an album of most of the revealed cards if you want to look at how the cards vary.) Two more questions:

  • Is it possible to add the Dire Wolf licensing to the dropdown, so that it's a bit easier and people don't have to copy-paste the text each time?
  • Regarding image categories, should the images revealed so far be considered concept art? So far I've started to put them in Concept Art, but I'm considering a "card art" category instead since we know some of them are card images (and not, like, the avatar images). Maybe put them in Concept until we know that they're card art for sure and then move it?

~ Alarra (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've made all the template changes mentioned above. For now, colour choices are very primitive named HTML colours, so they're fairly off, but I figured it was the easiest way to start and then once the design is closer to final, we can tweak the colours to be something more reasonable. To implement the colour gradients, I'd need a full list of classes and the colours they're associated with. Class and attribute are currently both available and overlap in function, but using "class=" will display "Class", while using "attribute=" will display "Attribute". Also, we're probably going to want to re-think the abilities to some extent, as "Prophecy" isn't the only ability, it looks like. I'm just noticing cards like Tyr (7th panel down in the linked thread), where the abilities appear to be all of Prophecy, Breakthrough, Guard. I'm assuming we'd want to categorize all of those separately.
I've added the new license. It looked okay in the preview, but I didn't actually upload anything, so let me know if there's anything wrong there.
Finally, for the categories, I'd personally be tempted to follow your suggestion of putting them in concept art until we're sure, but I can see an argument for just putting them in "card art" to begin with so that there's no additional work to be done later on, and we can just delete any that turn out to be not the final image. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! The licensing works fine. Here's a list of the classes (ordered as they appear on the cards itself, as far as I can see):
  • Archer - Red/Green
  • Assassin - Blue/Green
  • Battlemage - Red/Blue
  • Crusader - Red/Yellow
  • Mage - Blue/Yellow
  • Monk - Yellow/Green
  • Scout - Green/Purple
  • Sorcerer - Blue/Purple
  • Spellsword - Yellow/Purple
  • Warrior - Red/Purple
Was rarity added?
As far as ability, maybe just change that to "text" and just type it as it appears on the card, bolding the actual abilities when we type it? I can, however, see the possible need for an extra field for "Ongoing", which appears as a gold bar above the normal text. For attack/defense, can you put those on the same line? It would look a little more like the card that way with atk on the left and def on the right, and be more distinct from cost. It's starting to shape up pretty well! I'm eager to start getting those pages up and running once we've got it all sorted out. :) ~ Alarra (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding colours, I would suggest we do something similar to what was done for ESO; take the hex colours that appear in the relevant material, use that as a "dark" colour for highlights and text, and extrapolate a "light" colour from those for the infobox. Here are the colours as pulled directly from the website:
  • Strength - #E6000B, Extrapolation: #FF8086
  • Agility - #1B5501, Extrapolation: #8AFD56
  • Intelligence - #1A91FF, Extrapolation: #B3DAFF
  • Willpower - #DDA308, Extrapolation: #FADA83
  • Endurance - #8A0A86, Extrapolation: #F79AF4
If Neutral is just grey, then that could simply be Neutral - #808080, Extrapolation: #CCCCCC
--Enodoc (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info, guys! The template's been updated with all of the above, I think: ongoing field was added, colours were changed, gradient was changed to be left-to-right now that I've actually spotted an example :), prophecy-specific code was removed and everything can just go in "abilities" for now, and attack/defense are on one line. Let me know if I missed anything. For now, rarity is just a plain text field, since colouring the text based on that would have made the text difficult to read in a lot of cases. It should be easy enough to change that, though. For example, we could use only a coloured diamond, if someone wants to capture images of them, or we could use both the diamond and the text. I've updated the example to include the rarity, so we can see how it looks if we make changes. I also added a second example to show the gradient effect (though it's the wrong image, since we didn't have one of Merric yet). And back on the subject of text colour, I reset all of them to white text for the darker background, and black text for the lighter background; we can tweak that as necessary if there are unreadable colour combos, but I figured it gave us a fairly uniform scheme to start with.
Noticeably, the "type" parameter isn't being used currently. What was that supposed to be?
Lastly, while scanning through the captured card images, I noticed a couple of additional things. Some cards have a gold circle on them at the top center (e.g., Merric-at-Aswala in the 7th panel) while others have a green triangle/arrow-shaped icon at the top right (e.g., Starved Hunger in the 4th panel). Do we know what those are supposed to be? Robin Hood  (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That template is looking great! I love how the gradient looks. I'll see if I can crop out the diamonds and upload 'em. For attribute, not sure if "neutral" or "colorless" is actually the correct term for the gray ones - I've heard both. We might have to change that eventually. Nobody seems to be sure what those other icons mean - one guess was evolved/evolve-able, but nothing confirmed.
Now, what sort of pages should we have for listing cards? My idea was to have an overall page with a sortable table, like this example for another game I played. (Is that feasible for us to do with apparently 400+ cards? Not sure how exactly their page works), and then pages for each attribute/class so that they can more easily find what they're looking for (though whether this should be another sortable table, or show the card thumbnails, or what, not sure - any opinions?) ~ Alarra (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

() So is the template good to go with regards to creating card pages? —Legoless (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so. The only issue is that apparently the rarities are wrong, but the person who told me wasn't at liberty to say more than that because of the NDA. We agreed that the best solution was just to not put rarity for the time being so that we don't have confusing or incorrect information. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone live with the template and set up the first couple card pages. I'm using the rarity color for now until we get a public source for the official terms. —Legoless (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Great solution to the problem—I hadn't thought of that. That'll make it very easy for either the template to handle or the bot to change once we have official details. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The template will also need to be able to toggle off some of those rows if the field is left blank. At the minute, it doesn't really support Action, Support, or Item cards (see here and here). Some Support cards also seem to need separate parameters for "Uses (number)" and "Ongoing (y/n)" (example). —Legoless (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The rows not disappearing was an artifact left over from testing in user space. I've added your example card to my sandbox, so you can see it looks okay. It's admittedly a bit odd to have race=Action, so we may want to change the wording for that, perhaps that's what the type parameter was intended to be in the original list? And yeah, I'd noticed the different gold-bar texts, but wasn't sure whether we wanted to handle them separately, as you suggest, or just have a single parameter that we'd type the entire text into (e.g., "Uses: 1"). Either way is pretty easy to do. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. Yeah, I was thinking 'type' might be more appropriate, so as not to confuse it with the separate Race mechanic (which is entirely separate from Creature types). —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

() I'd like to propose an edit to the template: rather than just having one "Type" and setting that as "High Elf", "Spriggan", etc, let's do "Type" (Creature/Action/Item/Support) and "Subtype" (race/animal type/etc). I imagine most people, when building a deck, are going to want to be able to sort a table by type - Action/Creature/Item/Support so that they can see, for instance, what kind of creature cards are available in that color, and not have it sorted, say, Action/Breton/High Elf/Item/Nereid/Support/Troll. If they want to see all the High Elves, they can sort by Subtype, but having a more generic type would allow them to see creatures altogether rather than mixing it all up like that. ~ Alarra (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Might be better to simply add cards to the Creature category by default, unless they're one of the specified non-Creature types. —Legoless (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Any other opinions on this? Also, one thing that has occurred to me, is we should probably specify whether the card is obtainable or not: there's the cards that you actually get in your collection, NPC-only cards (such as Acolyte of Boethiah), and cards that can only be summoned by other cards (such as Young Wolf). There should probably be categories and something in the template that specifies which of these three a card is. ~ Alarra (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with adding 'Unobtainable'. I think that it should be a parameter that is hidden by default and if used adds the card to a category of something like Legends-Unobtainable Cards or some such. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 06:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The word used for Hearthstone is "Uncollectible". I agree with adding a parameter for this. —Legoless (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

ESO Housing Task[edit]

Update 11 includes a lot of significant worldbuilding in preparation for next year's housing update. According to the devs, this has in some cases resulted in NPCs and buildings being moved or outright deleted. Here is a list of the changed locations from the PTS. Similar to Enodoc's request from the last update cycle, it would be beneficial for the wiki to have information and photos of the areas as they are on the live server. We have until the end of the month to document this, but it's a pretty large undertaking so I'd appreciate some help cataloguing the changes. —Legoless (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

All done, just not uploaded yet ;) --Enodoc (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, really? Excellent! —Legoless (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded and added to Player Housing (we can move them around later). --Enodoc (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
So we only need details on Pojeel's Hut, Lemaitre Manor and Lenith House? —Legoless (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think so. I've asked ZOS for a list of changes, so if they get back to me with that one in time then we'll have something definitive, but I couldn't find anything else that is being removed. --Enodoc (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

() Hey guys, I have an update from ZOS! (Thanks to Jessica Folsom for getting the details.) I sent them the list of changes we'd found, and here's the reply:

The Dev team wrote back and said that all of the info you provided is indeed correct. Nicely done! They also added the following, which you are free to use:

Relocated/Removed NPCs:

-  In Shadowfen:
o   The Merchant “Rides-the-River” now walks a little bit closer to the Road near Pojeel’s hut, but is still present.
o   Pojeel moved out of his home entirely because he already has a tent in Stormhold that’s closer to his store anyway. He wasn’t moved, but he wanted to cut down on expenses.
o   Veemarz and Am-Sakka cannot be found in Tamriel, but they may return in the future.
o   Several city Guards have a slightly their altered patrol route near Pojeel’s old home.
-  In Stormhaven:
o   Several city Guards now have slightly different patrol routes in Wayrest since they can no longer enter the back alley near the former Lemaitre home.
o   Madame Lemaitre and Khojifa were tired of getting robbed and assaulted, and they cannot be found in Tamriel right now. (They may return later!)
o   Loglorag gra-Burbulg now walks a bit farther away from the former Lemaitre manor, but is still present.
-  In Deshaan:
o   Rilos Lenith and Caretaker Beldros cannot be found in Tamriel for now. (They may appear later, when they find new homes.)

  Repurposed NPC Homes:

-  Pojeel’s Hut in Stormhold, Shadowfen is no longer available to the public.
-  Lenith House in Narsis, Deshaan is no longer available to the public.
-  Lemaitre Manor in Wayrest, Stormhaven is no longer available to the public.


Other than that, lots of squirrels, rats, and other small critters were permanently moved or shooed away. We’re confident they found new dwellings, though—critters are resourceful, after all.

Here's the list which I sent them that they confirmed as correct:

  • Bangkorai: A new house has been added just to the southeast of Hallin's Stand
  • Deshaan: A new house has been added just to the west of Mournhold
  • Deshaan: Lenith House in Narsis has been changed, the NPCs who were inside are unaccounted for
  • Glenumbra: A new house has been added to the southeast of Daggerfall
  • Malabal Tor: A new house has been added by the river to the northwest of Baandari Trading Post
  • Reaper's March: A new house has been added just to the north of Rawl'kha
  • Reaper's March: A new house has been added just to the north of S'ren-ja
  • Reaper's March: A new house has been added to the north of Dune
  • Shadowfen: A new house has been added to the northwest of Alten Corimont
  • Shadowfen: Pojeel's Hut in Stormhold has been changed, the NPCs who were inside are unaccounted for
  • Stormhaven: Lemaitre Manor in Wayrest has been changed, the NPCs who were inside are unaccounted for
  • The Rift: A new house has been added on a hill to the east of Nimalten
  • The Rift: A new house has been added just outside Riften

So the things we ideally need before Monday are a full accounting of the three repurposed NPC homes, and full details of the six NPCs being removed: Veemarz and Am-Sakka in Pojeel's Hut, Rilos Lenith and Caretaker Beldros in Lenith House, and Madame Lemaitre and Khojifa in Lemaitre Manor. --Enodoc (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I might be able to help with that. Is it ok if I put it all in my sandbox and you use it from there? Tib (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added some info on these now. Tib (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! I think that's all the necessary things done now. --Enodoc (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

() There's a bunch more of these up on PTS now. —Legoless (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Righty ho, at least they've given a full breakdown in the patch notes this time! I hopefully should be able to work on getting screenshots for these over the next couple of weeks. --Enodoc (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictures done, hopefully get them uploaded tomorrow. As before, we'll also need a full accounting of the repurposed NPC homes, and full details of the NPCs being removed. --Enodoc (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe I've gathered all the data for this. Haven't compared it to the patch notes changes, but as long as only interior NPCs are being removed we should be set. —Legoless (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation tooltips?[edit]

I realize that fulfilling this request most likely isn't as simple as the push of a button, but I was wondering if it would be possible to implement citation tooltips (may or may not be the technical name of this feature). I've seen them in use in articles at Halopedia, and I've found them to be immensely helpful. When seeking a citation, instead of clicking on it and being taken to the bottom of a page to sift through a list of references, you can just scroll over the citation and it pops up right there, so you can examine it without losing your place in the article. Again, I have absolutely no idea how to do this or even if it's possible on this particular wiki, but the convenience of it, both for reading and editing, can't be understated. Croaker (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference Tooltips are available with MediaWiki and used by default on Wikipedia. —Legoless (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ESO NPC Titles[edit]

The new dungeons in Update 11 have several bosses who have titles beneath their names. This space is normally used only for service NPCs; for example, Angier Stower has the title of "Banker". I can only think of one NPC who had a title despite not offering any services. However, ZOS have obviously now decided to use the title system for aesthetics. An example of this would be Online:Adhazabi Aba-daro the Golden, whose article is currently misnamed. The NPC's name is "Adhazabi Aba-daro", while her title is "The Golden" (capitalised, unlike our article).

I think we can approach these titles in one of three ways:

  • Add them to the page name as was done with Adhazabi (with correct capitalisation this time), i.e. "Zatzu The Spine-Breaker".
  • Omit them from the page name like we have been doing. We wouldn't have an article called "Angier Stower Banker". Instead, we use the NPC name for the page name (i.e. "Zatzu") and note the title elsewhere on the article.
  • Add a comma, i.e. "Zatzu, The Spine-Breaker".

Personally I'd favour the second approach. Since this aesthetic title thing is becoming a trend, it would make sense to add a parameter to {{Online NPC Summary}}. It could be similar to the sells param which we already use for service titles, or it could be added to the titlename on a new line. If we modify the infobox title to display as it does in-game, it would also be an opportunity to add service titles in a similar manner.

Any suggestions? —Legoless (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the secong approach. I would rather we name the page using the NPC's actual name aka "Zatzu" and mention in the opening intro sentence the title. So something like "Zatzu, also known as The Spine-Breaker is a boss in...." To me the titles are more like nicknames especially when they're on these enemy NPCs. I don't think that they're significant enough to place in the info box especially when it serves no gameplay purpose. Contraptions (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking something like this:
Title Infobox.jpg
Legoless (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That looks nice, I think that would be the best way to present it. Never knew info boxes could do that. Contraptions (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer quotations marks around the title, but the placement looks good as it mimics the game. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 13:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The infobox can actually already do that by simply using titlename and inserting a linebreak, so no additional functionality would necessarily be needed. The problem I see with adding our own commas or quotation marks is that it detracts from how the NPC is presented in-game. —Legoless (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Definitely in favor of #2 as well. I agree with Legoless as far as not adding our own punctuation to it. Maybe italics at most, but I think the style as shown in the image above is fine. -- Hargrimm(T) 14:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what it looks like in game, but just to toss out another possibility for the page name, you could also have "Zatzu (The Spine Breaker)", which has the advantage that the pipe trick will generate just "Zatzu" as the name, but the disadvantage that when you actually do need disambiguation, page names get a bit ugly: "Zatzu (The Spine Breaker) (npc)". That said, #2 is probably easiest all around. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like this:
Title NPC.jpg
Using the title in parenthesis would certainly work if the name ever needed a disambig. I can't imagine it would go three levels deep though, since we could just use "Zatzu (quest)" or whatever if such a situation ever arose. —Legoless (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

() If there's no opposition to option #2, I'll move Adhazabi's page and place a bot request for the proposed infobox layout. —Legoless (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick suggestion on style; I wonder if using the console-style display might help to better visually separate the 'title' from the 'name' in the infobox. That would look like this (current PC-style on the left, proposed Console-style on the right):
Angier Stower
Angier Stower
--Enodoc (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of excessive capitalisation, personally. At best it's a loss of info. We don't use it for items either, even though they're presented in block capitals half the time. —Legoless (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Books Categories[edit]

I have three proposals that require someone capable of altering templates (for at least two anyway).

  1. Remove "notes" from Online namespace. A bot to remove the parameter from the 1200+ books with them. I know notes is our own invention anyway for categorising, but there are an awful lot of inconsitencies. #2 has more reasoning. An option to stop the paramater from working in ON is an idea but probably a waste of time, once the category is deleted any new 'notes' can be spotted and changed.
  2. Add categorisation by collection for books (for ESO). There are currently 76 collections which split the books into neat bundles. An extra category for books without a collection would give us somewhere to put these books, and somewhere from which to work to check if they still exist within the game or have been suppressed.
  3. Add a "Compilation" type. This will apply across all namespaces. It can then be used to keep these 'books' from generating 'false positives' for missing data categories. The compilations would be moved to a subcategory of books too. Compilations should also have their Collection removed seeing as they are not part of them.

Thoughts, suggestions, and ideas are welcome. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

From a bot/template design perspective, I think this should all be straight-forward, although I'm a little unclear on what you want for the Compilation. Would it just be a new parameter, and then add a [[Category:Online-Books-<compilation>]] to the page? Would the compilation appear anywhere besides in the category? Robin Hood  (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
[Online-Books-Compilations] and |compilation=1 I don't think its neccessary to show it in the summary, just something to take it out of the main books category. And then an {{#if}} or two to remove them from such auto-cats as Online-Books-Needing an Icon. Also I think a book should be in both the books category and a collection category. The exact naming of the categories may require fine tuning, it could Books-Gold Coast Tomes or Books-Collections-Gold Coast Tomes. ++ Any compilations would need to also be exempt from the 'no collection' category. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. We touched on Notes before but never got around to doing anything with them, and I agree on collection-based categorisation and the use of a "compilation" type. --Enodoc (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the template changes and saved them in a sandbox (immediately after which, I accidentally saved the template itself...yay, me!). You can test it if you want by changing {{Book Summary...}} to {{User:RobinHood70/He...}}.
Using Online:2920: The Last Year of the First Era as an example, it would now show up in "Online-Books-Collections-Tales of Tamriel" if left untouched, but if you added |compilation=1 to it, it would instead show up under "Category:Online-Books-Compilations", but be removed from "Category:Online-Books-Needing an Icon". ESO books that are not part of any collection would show up under "Category:Online-Books-No Collection". Does that all sound right? Robin Hood  (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I was going to do that after I set up the Books needing an Icon thing, but I forgot :P Jeancey (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I inserted the compilation paramater on one new page, but misspelled it. It works good, exactly what I wanted, now we wait to see if there are an objections. There'll be overlap between no-icons and no-collection, but not all in no collection will need icons. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

() So the notes are merged with books, yes? Should we then change the wording on the individual collections page (for example, Gold Coast Tomes) where we have a sentence "X is a collection of Y books, letters and notes", which is linking to "Letters and notes" page, and simply write "X is a collection of Y books"? Or should we write "X is a collection of Y books, letters and notes" but omit the link? Just wondering! I guess the link has to go either way. Tib (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As long as the link is gone I don't think the wording matters too much. If there are actually texts written as letters and notes in the collection, might be helpful to keep that line. —Legoless (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a distinction in-game, just in the graphics used to show the book/note. There seem to be as far as I can tell 4 different graphics used for readable items in ESO: regular book, old book (the ones with dark pages and lighter text), note (includes letters, scrolls, etc.), and engraving. I'm not sure if there's more than just the two book graphics, those are just the most obvious. There may be note/letter/scroll variations as well, but they all look kind of similar. Books and notes also make a different sound when you read them. Whether this difference is particularly noteworthy is up for debate, but there definitely is a difference. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. Talk about being observant! I think I'll keep the wording the same, just remove the link then. (It was the creation of new collection Library of Incunabula that made me wonder) Tib (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Books, letters, notes, and etchings/engravings. The distinction in category was based almost entirely on the icon used, but the recent updates have left a huge number of them without icons using instead the Question Mark icon for missing data. A split by collection (biggest is 121) is more useful and manageable than the current split. We also have a slight complication. There is a category for Skill Books which is auto-generated when a skill is added to a book page, which there are 11 documented extra books outside the skill books collection. The page for Skill Books documents books that are not in the collection because of this overlap. Making the page "Skill Books (collection)" can either be used just a redirect for the template and category, or we can split the collection there and leave the skill books page for all skill books, perhaps merging the tables. I'm in favour of a full split page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 09:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Tib: Yes, notes and books are now merged. Since there was already an agreement to do so, as Silencer linked to, I just went ahead and did the bot run shortly after this was posted.
Silencer: Are the missing icons the result of a template/bot issue, or was it just something due to updates in general? If it's a template/bot thing, can you provide a couple of examples, please, so I can see what needs to be fixed? Thanks.
All: I don't see any disagreement with Silencer's suggestions. Shall I put the new template in place? Robin Hood  (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
By "missing icons" books, I mean those that use the question mark on the wiki; they use the question mark in the game as they lack an icon due to not belonging to a collection at the start, but now they are. Huge number is a bit of an exaggeration, I count about 10 using the icon. There are 175 books needing an icon if the QM isn't counted, but a number of them are compilations, maybe only 20-30 there are properly needing an icon. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

() I think that's long enough for objections to the remaining points. A full page split at Online:Skill Books (collection) and another tweak to the other skill books page too. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I updated the template and fixed a couple of bugs I'd introduced. Everything looks good now, so it's just a matter of waiting for categories to get updated properly, then we can go from there. Robin Hood  (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy regarding datamined info[edit]

Do we have any policy regarding the addition of datamined info to the wiki? I ask this since there has been talk going around of Vvardenfell and housing as well as future motifs/events (which I have already added some info regarding). So is it ok to add something once it appears in the game files (like Vvardenfell)? Or should we wait till it appears on say, the PTS before we start pages about it (like housing)? Contraptions (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make a page about Vvardenfell, there's plenty of datamined info here and elsewhere. ON:Player Housing already exists and we have a quest page for the Halloween event, so you can make additions there. As for motifs, I've been holding off adding info to ON:Style Materials and ON:Styles since some of it won't be coming out until October, but it's probably safe to add Update 11 motifs at least - the icons are already uploaded.
As a general rule, I'd advise caution when adding datamined info to pre-existing articles, but creating pages for the data is fine and matches what we've been doing with pre-release info for years. —Legoless (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Datamining as a source of info is generally fine, it just needs to be marked with the {{Pre-Release}} template. The only other thing is that there could be a lot of datamined stuff that never turns up; old versions of the Main Quest, Thieves Guild and a zone questline on mainland Summerset can also be datamined, but they are unlikely to ever appear. If it doesn't appear, then it needs to be deleted at some point. --Enodoc (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would have preferred that some sort of Vvardenfell announcement actually took place before creating any pages. Still, if you clearly state that it contains unannounced, purely datamined bits of information (ie the latest edit made to the page :p), then it's okay. But what if the announcement/development is delayed.. and no official news released about it? I mean, then it's gonna end up like Clockwork City and Murkmire. Tib (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to set a timeout. Most datamined stuff has been announced within a reasonable time-frame of it first appearing in the data, so we should set a date after which we consider Vvardenfell as no longer in development, and the info about it voided. --Enodoc (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if something is no longer in production, having a single article talking about it is still probably worthwhile, similar to Oblivion:Unfinished Quests. I think we can use common sense in determining if something isn't coming; having an arbitrary cutoff point of so many years doesn't make too much sense to me. For example, we know the Main Quest and the Summerset content was cut before release, we know the Cybiades stuff won't be appearing because TG was released without it, and we know spellmaking has been scrapped because of the developer departure. Stuff like Murkmire and Clockwork City is confirmed to still be on the release schedule in some form or another.
There's no doubt Vvardenfell will be coming at some point unless something goes terribly wrong for ZOS, since the datamining "leaks" from each new patch have been on a pretty regular schedule since the ESOTU release, i.e. only added to live patches a couple cycles before release. The exception to this is the Crown Store offerings which were mined months ago and never arrived. For example there's no sign of the skeletal mounts and it's been like a year, so if they were on any articles (like the "Coming Soon" section of the Crown Store page) they'd have to have been removed by now. This is why we should be cautious with propagating info on any sort of pre-release, unconfirmed content to regular articles. I therefore think we should take the Crown Store approach for things like Vvardenfell: creating self-contained articles is fine and keeps us ahead of the curve, but we shouldn't assume imminent release.
Let's revisit this discussion in a year's time if Vvardenfell still isn't released, or maybe if ZOS slow down the quarterly content updates. Like I said, eventually we'll probably want articles on scrapped content like Summerset and spellmaking (or at least notes somewhere), so it will probably be a question of how best to handle unreleased info rather than when to delete in. There was limited discussion here on this possible reality. —Legoless (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

() I think that there shouldn't be a set time limit to remove datamined content per se. Only when we can agree that that content will never appear, such as when it's been officially scrapped (like PVP justice) or replaced (like Cybiades) should we shift it to a central "unfinished" page of some sort and delete the main page. Of course if that content does appear in some repurposed way in the future we can always shift it back out and create a page for it again. Contraptions (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to start on an Unreleased Content page, but how far would we go? It's not like single player games where you can get the entire quest and all its connections from the CS/CK; the best we can do for some things is infer from what we've got, and inference is tantamount to speculation. For example, here's a list of a bunch of unreleased content, all from datamining: an alternative Main Quest ending involving Balfiera and the Zero Stone; a questline on Summerset involving the Maormer; Justice System Phase 2; the Thieves Guild involving Cybiades and the Violet Lamp; Spellcrafting; over 100 unused quests, with names and initial journal entries only; AvA grapple hooks; and an earlier iteration of Imperial City. How much of that would we include? --Enodoc (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Due to the nature of Unreleased content we can never truly confirm anything, so some speculation is inevitable. I feel as long as what we don't go into baseless speculation (ie. everything we put on that page should be supported with some in game data be it text or icons or images etc.) and that we keep our statements reasonable it should be fine. Contraptions (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Weekly FA and FI[edit]

I believe that we should be to cycle onto a new FA or FI within a week, versus the current standard month or two weeks. The reasons for this are numerous:

  • It is extremely easy to forget about FA and FI due to the time gap between entries, twelve FAs a year make it extremely easy to just be forgotten. I do not think it is a matter of there only being twelve articles a year of featurable quality, but because there is such a large bottleneck on how many we can currently feature the FA and FI system fall into disuse.
  • It will allow us to show off more work, on a more regular basis, one of the biggest issues with the front page is that of the four items on it, we control the frequency of updates to the three of them, yet we decide to make updates a bit rare.
  • In the past, including this year even, FA and FI have fallen into inactivity. So with this change made, I would also like to add the note that it is accepted as being fine if we do NOT have a followup right away, we accept it may lapse from time to time. Ideally, it doesn't, but we openly accept it may.
  • It may encourage people to work towards getting more featured work by providing more opportunities to get it featured. If someone wants to work an article towards it getting a gold star, then they have a fairly legitimate chance of seeing it happen in the course of a month, versus the current system where if we have any backlog for featured articles, you couldn't see your article up for literally months.
  • It gives social media more to do, as we could have more regular featured work.
  • It could give us more positive community building consensuses to make, as ultimately low stake towards the overall future, but designed to be frequent, decisions that any editor can take part in.
  • It would ultimately just be more fun then basically having these on the wayside.

I feel these are sufficient reasons to implement this policy change. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the activity level isn't able to support that and I can't see this rapidfire approach being sustained for long. It was moved from two weeks to a month based on the number of nominations we receive, and based on my experience handling the procedure, a month is still currently where we're at activity-wise. Forcing through more nominations to keep up with a seven-day schedule would diminish the value of the star, I feel. There's plenty of cool wiki content to publish on social media, it doesn't have to be restricted to featured items. —Legoless (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I think what is really diminishing from the value of the star are the huge gaps between entries, many times of which are simply because no one bothered to nominate anything. I don't think SR:Mountain Climbing, regardless of how good it is, deserved a spot on the front page for a third of a year. If I had to worry about nominations more than once a month at the least, I do believe the system would have more activity, and we wouldn't forgot it for as long stretches.
Right now, I do not believe FA and FI is that special because it is something that is mostly done out of necessity. I have nominated more articles for FA for the sole reason that there was not something to follow up the current choice than any other reason, and no one else had bothered. I'm sure people thought some articles were great during this time, but it is so far out of peoples minds due to the intense time gaps, it simply doesn't matter, it isn't special, it's an award given due to our eleventh hour decision making.
As it stands, the history of FA and FI speak for themselves. The current policy does not work for keeping it updated. I want to try something different, because it is about time we tried anything different after this being a problem for almost a decade (next month is one decade).
Which, actually, gives me another reason to tack on. We are a much larger website than what we were a decade ago. Our policies towards FA and FI should reflect this by giving more articles a chance to be featured. Twelve a year may had made more sense then, but we are simply much larger and have much more to show off. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean I wouldn't be opposed to a trial run to see if engagement picks up, but two weeks still seems like a more sustainable rotation. —Legoless (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I'm on Legoless with this one, and I'd prefer monthly > biweekly rotation. I would likely protest against weekly one. If the activity picks up, it will do so regardless the rotation length, because it is in my opinion more tied to the amount of people working on the site than the structural problems. Encouraging nominations and people to participate in the votes is always a good idea, but I'm not sure how to push for that on a site like UESP. AKB, I absolutely understand that the site is getting bigger, and so, but if we take a look at the ESO namespace that has great potential of providing FAs and FIs, then we see that many articles and even images still need work :p This reminds me that we need to do something about the Statue of Sithis! Tib (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Got distracted from this due to vacation, sorry. I will agree on both just being biweekly (for now, ideally they would both be weekly in the future), but monthly is still just absurdly long. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd say biweekly as well. We just don't usually get enough nominations to do it more frequently than that, but a month IS a long time to have an article up. ~ Alarra (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

NPC Images[edit]

There has been some discussion on the Featured Images page of possibly changing the image requirements for ESO due to the unique difficulties of capturing images there. A couple of people suggested bringing up a CP discussion, but I don't see one here, so I figured I'd start one. Based on the FI comments, I can see a few possible changes that we might want to consider:

  • Simply change the standard for ESO images to not require a full-body shot, provided the image identifies clearly who the person is.
  • Similar to the above, allow for images not to be full-body shots, with the proviso that the image must not only identify who the person is, but also include identifiable elements of their normal surroundings. Shop-keepers would have parts of their shop showing, quest-related NPCs would be shown with quest-related backgrounds, etc.
  • Allow for the idea of primary and secondary images, where the primary image must fit whatever restrictions we already have—or decide on here—but secondary shots can include beauty shots and the like that don't necessarily fit any strict criteria. Secondary images would still be FI-nominatable (Is that a word?), even if they don't fit primary image criteria.

These are just the ideas I've come up with, but by all means, propose others or shoot the idea down entirely if you wish. I just wanted to get the discussion started. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts I posted on the nomination in question. After considering this for a few days myself, I don't have any additional thoughts to add at present, so I'll just copy/paste my words exactly so that they are on the record here.
"The intent behind it is good and well-meaning, wanting the NPC's primary image to be indicative of them in their natural environment with a good look at their appearance, and I definitely feel like that should remain the primary standard, even for ESO. This image is lit up well and looks really damn good, don't get me wrong, but as Aranias' primary image, it's so close-up that it's not capturing her in her natural habitat particularly well. We have no real indication of her environment, nor do we have an accurate depiction of her whole appearance, which is what the point of the primary image for an NPC is to show. Because ESO is inherently different when it comes to framing up and capturing images of things in-game, there's always small hiccups to be expected, but that doesn't mean that the standard should be changed entirely. Where practical, I am absolutely behind the first-choice image being as full as possible to give the best appearance for an NPC that can be given, although at the same time as an MMO there should be enough flex to accommodate circumstances where it just isn't practical to get a full image, whatever the case-by-case circumstances may be. But the rule as it is is fine, I think, and the rule should always be the first thing attempted to follow when looking to frame up and take images of NPCs in the game. At least in my opinion."
Edit: Actually, on second thought, I do have an additional opinion: I am against the idea of primary and secondary images. Additional images to supplement an article is fine on its own when it helps the article as a whole (i.e. quest images, relevant location images, etc that supplement the written content).
The point of the images is to supplement the articles, and I don't see beauty shots for the sake of being beauty shots as supplementary. And, secondary images with lax rules that could exist as beauty shots, yet be FI-eligible, would defeat the purpose of the FI standards, which exist to prevent random non-Standard images from being created simply as beauty shots designed to steal the limelight from legitimate purposeful images. -damon  talkcontribs 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
RobinHood, thanks for starting the discussion! Damon, I do understand your reasoning, but there are certain NPCs where you cannot take a good full body image, plus that the dialogue window image has undoubtedly better quality. It's most obvious when the NPCs are hidden behind a desk or similar. Another example could be that the room or place has very poor lighting so the full body shot has a worse quality than the dialogue window shot would have. Same with the angle, sometimes there is no good angle for a nice shot. Some people are also moving, but forcing a dialogue makes them static and easier to take an image. (I know you now wonder whether comfortability should be an argument here, in which case I will say - with thousands of NPCs needing an image, perhaps it should be :p) Regarding the background/habitat, well the dialogue window does provide a hint of the surroundings. The Aranias' image is actually showing some background! A full body shot is not a guarantee that you would have a recognizable habitat in the background. I think I'd probably support suggestion 1 or 2. Well, that's about all I have in mind right now. Tib (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the standards in general, since that is what I said was flawed:
A full body shot of an NPC is a "wide shot". Wide shots are establishing shots, used for setting the scene. Medium shots by comparison are "subject shots", providing emphasis to the subject while still keeping the background in context. These are also the "everyday perception" of people. Medium shots would be more appropriate for NPC pages, as the subject of the page should be the focus of the image. With a 1:1 wide shot, more than 2/3 of the image does not cover the subject of the article. Sure it's good to present NPCs in context, but for the primary image of the NPC, the focus should be primarily on the NPC, not the surroundings. Because of that, I would say that an "everyday perception" medium shot, where the NPC covers about half of the image, is more appropriate. That gets more of the NPC in the picture, closer to the camera so they are more easily identified. For example, compare these two NPC pictures; the left is the picture of Aranias, the right is an NPC with what is intended to be similar lighting.
ON-npc-Aranias.jpg ON-npc-Beliene.jpg
These are forced to the default thumbnail size of 200px. Aranias' face can be easily seen in the top third of the picture, and fills a ninth of the entire frame, while the other NPC's face is barely visible as it only takes up the top fifth, filling in about 1/25 of the whole picture. As I said above, context is great, but when it comes at the cost of making the NPC identifiable, identifiability should take precedence in what is the NPC's identifying image. Since medium shots are the everyday perception of people, that also would suggest they are the most appropriate for use as the image of a person. --Enodoc (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

() I believe the full-body shots became standard to avoid poor-quality crops or Oblivion-style facecam images. ESO's dialogue screen is usually an alright depiction of the NPC and also adds lighting. I don't have a problem with using them for NPC images, but the problem is that they're often off-centre. We've been using full-body and dialogue images interchangeably in the Online namespace for the last few years and I think modifying our image guidelines to match would be appropriate at this point. There's even been cases of NPCs having both perspectives on their page, which is admittedly a bit excessive.

I think ultimately we need to balance several factors when trying to determine the best primary image: (i) clear depiction of the subject; (ii) depiction of the whole subject; (iii) image quality/lighting/detail. As long as the image is of a certain standard, I don't think we need to fret too much about whether the NPC's footwear is included or not. That said, I still wouldn't consider that Aranias image FI material even under these new guidelines. —Legoless (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been saying for years that the combination of requiring 1:1 aspect ratio and requiring full body shots was a poor choice, since you invariably wind up with the subject taking up less than 1/3rd of the image and can barely see their face. (Perhaps in earlier games this was an advantage - Morrowind faces were pretty hideous.) But in more recent games, especially ESO, since a medium-range, waist-up shot is exactly what you see in-game whenever talking to most NPCs (and this is in fact the best way to get a good screenshot of a character, since we don't have the option of a free-moving camera that we did in the earlier single-player games for obvious reasons), it just doesn't make sense to continue enforcing this rule. I wholeheartedly support relaxing the framing restrictions on NPC images. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Identifiable does not mean knowing what an NPCs face looks like so you'd learn their face and be able to recognise them if that's all you could see. An NPCs image is to identify them from a distance, which in almost all cases just needs what clothes they wear, and identify where to find them. On at least 75% of all NPC pages there will only ever be one image, as extra images are only added to put some colour into walls of text that most NPCs will never justify. Now the problem with ESO is that many NPCs will never stop in good image locations, nor can you freeze the game, so you can't get a clear picture of them looking at the camera, and there are even NPCs whose faces you will never see without talking to them, which only allows you to see their upper torso and face. In the first case I see no problem with taking a picture as best can be done, because as I've said, the main purpose of the image is not to show just their face. In the second case we apply discretion and allow exemptions. Following rules to the letter never helped anyone, and in this case I would expect anyone who has played the game would already know that it simply isn't possible to have every image conform to our strict standards. However I would oppose a change to the standards because they are not rules which must be strictly adhered to else the image would be deleted. Also I oppose the idea of allowing 'beauty shots' as secondary images, this would open the door to images being taken simply to gain FI; all images must have a proper purpose for being on a page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the idea of a primary (full body) and secondary image can be considered. The unique situation in ESO makes it hard to take full body pics of NPCs and creatures. On the FI subject, however, I do think now that they should be showing most of the image, or is a action shot. I checked out some of the old FIs, and there have been good ESO full-body images. There have been FIs where the NPC's bodies are partly obscured (such as http://en.uesp.net/wiki/File:OB-npc-Martin_05.jpg and http://en.uesp.net/wiki/File:OB-npc-Melus_Petilius.jpg), but those are close action shots taken with the console that would be impossible to take in ESO. Featured NPC images mostly rely on the characters pose or some kind of contrast that makes the character stand out(I use "mostly" here loosely, please don't take it too seriously). Many FIs of NPCs are some kind of action shot, but it's going to be hard to take a picture like that and keep the characters large, which means that cropping out parts of the NPC might be nessesary to "allow clear and easy visual identification of the NPC". In that case (action shots, hostile NPCs), I believe it is okay to put an image in FI even if it doesn't show the entire NPC. As for facial identification, I do not believe that the thumbnail has to clearly show a NPC's face to identify them.
In short, I believe that the "should show as much of the NPC as possible" rule can give in to the technical difficulties of showing the characters "performing some kind of action". As long as the characters are identifiable, I think that insisting that the picture show the whole NPC is not necessary. I don't believe we need to change the guidelines for FI though.
Regarding the image that sparked this discussion (http://en.uesp.net/wiki/File:ON-npc-Aranias.jpg), I do believe (now) that it's not FI material, but just because the picture isn't that interesting. (This honestly doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I guess I want to state my view on this now that the nomination is closed.) Phacteria (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

UESP Constantly Not Quite Refreshing[edit]

While browsing UESP recently after removing all my extensions and updating my web browser to do some unrelated troubleshooting I noticed all of a sudden editing pages to became a total nightmare. Miraculously it only did it for a few seconds on this edit page while I was entering the in Subject/Headline.
Oh, it's back nevermind. The page isn't refreshing but the little refresh button is sporadically flickering between the circular refresh image and the PLEASE STAHP X image. I can supply a gif if you really want me to.
This also results in unpredictable mouse behavior (it stops responding during the flickers on this web page), laggy keyboard responses (I type for three or four words before anything shows up and you can imagine how that works for backspace to correct typos), and generally makes me uneasy about browsing this website without my extensions that block scripts and ads.
Since the only addons for my browser that I had were a script blocker and an ad blocker and the only change on the page I can see between when the issues occur and when they don't occur is the ads at the bottom... there is either something wrong with the stupid video ads (who watches those anyway) that are loading at the bottom of the page or with the way they are built into the web site. Reinstalling my blocker add-ons now and forget I ever wanted to contribute to your operating costs... Ah, I think I found it. The ads have just now caused my Shockwave Flash to crash (I don't usually spend more than a couple minutes on the site). Just updated Shockwave and restarted my browser and it is still unsurprisingly doing it. This is especially disturbing as trying to use any in-game overlay's browser that supports Flash but is not equipped with a ad blocker can cause CTD if it stops responding during gameplay. Suddenly so many CTD I couldn't find a reason for are solved...Vainamoinen -Talk -Stuff 18:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. It also prevents me from actually refreshing a page 90% of the time because of this.Vainamoinen -Talk -Stuff 19:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Going through all the scripts and plugins I don't come across any issues until I turn on comedysec-a.akamaihd.net script. And that's when the spamming refresh begins and my editing ability tanksVainamoinen -Talk -Stuff 19:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

ESO: AvA Towns[edit]

With Update 11, three towns in Cyrodiil (Bruma, Vlastarus and Cropsford) are becoming AvA objectives with capture points. As such, they will cease to be Explorable Locations using the Towns icon style, and will require a new place type. Does anyone have any suggestions on what the name of that type could be? The new in-game icon, which we used previously to name the place types, is still called Town. Here are some suggestions, in no particular order: Occupied Towns; Controlled Towns; Captured Towns; AvA Towns; Alliance War Towns; Towns (AvA); Towns (Alliance War). --Enodoc (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and before you ask, I have all necessary before and after screenshots of the flag locations and respawn points      :)     --Enodoc (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

AvA Towns or Alliance War Towns makes the most sense to me. —Legoless (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
OK cool. I wasn't sure if we wanted something that "made sense" with the game world, or something that is purely descriptive. "Occupied Town" and "Controlled Town" are based on the concept of military occupation, "Captured Town" stems from the official name of the feature (Cyrodiil Town Capture), while the rest indicate towns with a functional connection to the gameplay of the Alliance War. If we were to name the page entirely by technical accuracy, I would favour Towns (Alliance War); conversely, if we were to consider the lore of the world, Occupied Towns would be most accurate. And yet AvA Towns works quite well for quick reference (hence the title of this section) and categorization purposes (since it's quite short).
Of course, we don't have to use the same name in the infobox and on the page; AvA Town or Occupied Town in the summary box could link to the Towns (Alliance War) list page, for example. Just some food for thought! --Enodoc (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Captured or Capturable would work just as well, per the official term for the feature. I'd be most inclined towards Alliance War Towns personally, since it seems the most straightforward name for something we're essentially making up. I'd shy away from a disambiguated Town type though; otherwise we'd end up with a trail that says "Cyrodiil / Towns / Towns". —Legoless (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Will we be keeping the style type in the trail? I suggested the dabbed titles because I assumed we wouldn't be. The other AvA locations (Keeps, Districts, Scroll Temples etc) don't have one, and I would have thought the same would apply here. --Enodoc (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean if they're using the Town icon they should probably continue to be listed on ON:Towns, right? Although this goes against how we treat the Imperial Districts, now that I think about it. It's hard to call either way; they're quite obviously towns, but they don't function like the PvE hubs or explorables anymore. —Legoless (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
They're not using the existing Town icon any more, they're using a new icon, but that icon is also labelled Town in the map key. --Enodoc (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that complicates things then. Is it this? That icon is labelled "avatown" in the game data. —Legoless (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's the one. AvA Towns may well be the way to go. --Enodoc (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Legends NDA Lifted[edit]

It's been confirmed by jurassica on the closed beta forums that the NDA for Legends has now been lifted. This means that as of today, all content from version and later can be made public. Please note that it's been requested that we do not publish information from the period in which the NDA was in place. Unless a change can be corroborated by officially-released material (such as this image, which shows that "Nahkriin, Dragon Priest" was originally called "Dragon Priest"), please do not add anything to the wiki from previous patches. This includes NDA screenshots, especially ones which show unfinished art assets. I'd also like to point out that info from Legends should not yet be added to lorespace until the official release; if anyone wants to help work on the new story info, please feel free to do so in userspace instead. —Legoless (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Error 500[edit]

I'm getting an error 500 when trying to view Special:Watchlist using the en domain (www works fine). It's happened before but usually self-rectifies. —Legoless (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably related to a few updates I've been doing on the site today. If you happened to have hit that page at the "wrong" time you may have cached the error page. For some reason Squid is not smart enough to ignore the error page and re-request a good page on subsequent loads. I've changed Squid to just not cache all Special:... pages on the site which should fix all such future issues as well as this one (it fixed it for me anyways). -- Daveh (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed! —Legoless (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've not experienced it in a little while myself, but earlier I wasn't trying to access my watchlist, I was getting the error just trying to access the UESP main page from my bookmarks bar, and I experienced it again on some other random page I was trying to view that I can't think of off-hand. Since it's not happened recently to me, I'm assuming you've fixed it everywhere, but it seems like a problem for more than just the Special paged. -damon  talkcontribs 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Search Updated[edit]

Just for anyone who's looking for it, the search option to "List Redirects" has been removed from the search. In updating the search to add Legends, I discovered that that particular search feature was removed from MediaWiki altogether as of version 1.23. Since checking/unchecking it no longer did anything, I removed it. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization of Template:Provinces and Template:Lore Oblivion Realms[edit]

Originally, I intended to tweak the layout of Template:Provinces to identify which of the miscellaneous islands were located in the Eltheric and Padomaic Oceans. Gradually, I realized that the final grouping of the template didn't really fit subject-wise. Most locations are found on Nirn, and then there's the abrupt inclusion of cosmic dimensions. My attempt to rectify this grew into a substantial revamp of another template plus title changes for both, so I thought it best to run the whole project by everyone before I pulled the trigger. I propose the following:

1. Template:Provinces will be renamed "Template:Nirn", and be restructured into this:

2. Template:Lore Oblivion Realms will be renamed "Template:Aurbis", and be restructured into this:

While I'm satisfied with the layout of the first template, the second may need some work. Are there planes/realms/dimensions/whatnot I missed and need adding? Should all Oblivion realms be under one group or stay as is? Should the existing Oblivion realms template be left alone and a third template (or more) created to cover the remaining cosmic locations? Is there a better way to note which realm is tied to which Daedric Prince? Are we particularly attached to the pink color? Croaker (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think what you've done is good, and that it doesn't need further changes. I personally think that the pink color's fine, but you can change it if you think it'll be better. But maybe you could try using Hover to note the connection between Daedra and Plane? - KINMUNETALK﴿ 09:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. Regarding what you may have missed, that depends on whether you want to include any of the attendant Aedric plane(t)s within Mundus, or any of the other Mundial planes like the Revenant or the Den of Lorkhaj. Lore:Planes of Existence lists all(?) of the realms that are known (and perhaps would be a better destination link for Planes and Realms over Lore:Places). Displaying the Daedric Princes like they are already is fine with me (I'm trying to encourage moving away from {{Hover}}, since mobile devices don't support it). I have no problems with the pink colour, but I do wonder where it came from originally (presumably to indicate Lorespace, or Places, or something). --Enodoc (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Added more Mundus planes (the ones with their own articles, at least, Den of Lorkhaj and Five Finger Dance lack lore articles at present), and changed the header link. Thanks for pointing out Planes of Existence. Croaker (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that I've got a spare moment and there aren't any other suggestions, I'll go ahead and carry out these changes. Croaker (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Images for Skyrim: Legendary Edition[edit]

Skyrim: Legendary Edition is coming out at the end of October, bringing with it some substantially improved graphics. This leads us to a unique situation for the wiki: what should our policy be in terms of images from the two? At one extreme, we could say that we have to replace all existing images with new ones; at the other extreme, we could say that no images should be replaced, except from the original game. Neither of those seem particularly useful as policies, so I'd like to hear some thoughts on how we're going to approach this. Do we do it completely haphazardly, allowing people to replace original versions with SLE versions whenever they want? Should we try and limit it to outdoor images, which are probably the most affected? Do we want to have an SLE image replacement project?

I have no concrete thoughts on our approach myself, other than not going to any extremes, but talking with one of the other admins, we both felt that we should at least open the topic for discussion, so we know what we're doing the day SLE comes out. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that replacing the outdoor images should be a high priority, and that indoors images should be a do-as-we-go job. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 03:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone took it upon themselves to upgrade the images to the new version or add images we just don't have, I wouldn't say no or turn them down, but I don't see the replacement of images for the sake of replacing them as something that should be given any sort of priority or urgency as a task. The existing images are already representative of what the game is and I believe that they are sufficient for the job. -damon  talkcontribs 04:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We don't insist that Skyrim screenshots should use the highest graphics settings or utilise the High Resolution Texture Pack, so I don't think we should impose any kind of policy requiring screenshots to use the new Special Edition filters. As long as an image's quality is serviceable, there's no strict need to replace it. Obviously in a lot of cases a screenshot from the Special Edition will be of an objectively higher quality than whatever it's replacing so there's unlikely to be any harm in doing so, but I don't think we need to prioritise it or encourage the replacement of well-angled or well-positioned existing shots just for the sake of some nicer lighting or whatever. —Legoless (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls Legends[edit]

Now that ESL is "out", I do believe its time we rip the game open and take her for everything she has. There are a lot of assets from the game that we could use on the wiki, like lane symbols, descriptions, the cards themselves. Each card also seems to have at least one unique line attached to it, so it may be worth it to us to host the dialogue, since there is so little of it. If this is impossible, it would still help us write it out if we could extract the dialogue. This is mostly directed towards Daveh and Robin (you two have the best track history for this on the site), but if anyone else feels like they can take a crack at this, it would greatly benefit our efforts for setting up the pages.

Another thing that should be discussed is deck building, we've had character designers, spell and alchemy calculators before, and this is up that alley. While we could allow for manual write-ups of people's favorite deck builds (which there is no issue using user space for that, obviously), I think this is one of the more expected features for a site in our position.

ESL is not the largest game in scope, I feel intentionally on their part, so it should be fairly easy for us to knock related projects out of the park, I feel. I think we can get the ESL section extremely well polished in just a short while, with just a little effort. Considering the ever increasing work load we have for ESO, and the giant that was Skyrim, I think we all deserve what is hopefully a simpler project in scope. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A few days ago, I was tearing apart the game files. Most of them are in non-file formats; no extensions. Just files. Most of the ones that aren't are in .asset file format. After looking through, the most obvious extractable files were .ogvs of the intro videos. That is to say, not many files are extractable straight off the bat. There'll probably need to be something like the Dataminer. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 14:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I can take a look at things and see how far I get soon. I'm almost finished with the ESO item update from Shadows of the Hist DLC and once that is done I'll have some time available to work on it. Meanwhile if anyone finds out anything regarding the file formats they can post it here (or the relevant article in Legends:). -- Daveh (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems I'm having problems with the Bethesda Launcher like some people...it refuses to let me log in using my user/password (tried reseting, no effect). I have an old copy of the files from ESL beta in April I'll use until then. Hopefully this will let me be able to at least figure out the file formats. -- Daveh (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I had that issue. It fixed when it updated for me, but the prompt to update came up only after a little while. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
A few things I've found out so far:
  • The .asset files are Unity files and can be opened/extracted with UnityStudio. I tried a few other utilities but this seemed to be by the best/easiest one.
  • That utility does extract some files but there seems to be a lot missing. There is 800MB of asset file data but only 60MB is exported.
  • Some texture files are exported as DDS but once you convert them to PNG they are almost all black or other solid colors. Unsure where all the artwork actually is.
  • There are a bunch of .FSB audio files. I tried a bunch of "FSB" conversion programs but none of them recognized the file format.
-- Daveh (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Unity Assets Explorer seemed to have better luck at finding things, but at least on the one file I tried, it crashed partway through extracting. I don't see card data anywhere, though, so I suspect that's either somewhere unexpected or it's not stored locally at all. If anyone comes across anything like it, let me know. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

() I'm working on manually uploading the cards through image editting. If anyone wants to work on getting card pages setup while I do this, I wouldn't be upset. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RH: I had tried that extractor previously but it does crash on multiple files. However, if I manually select files to extract I can get most files out of resources.asset. Unfortunately, all the .TEX converted to .DDS just seem to be blue squares so there's some issue in image conversion there. I'm still finishing up the ESO item dump but should be able to spend a little more time on this later in the week. -- Daveh (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

More template nesting shenanigans[edit]

I'm trying to figure out a way to get the ESO ArmorDye Link (and by extension ESO ArmorDye Icon) templates to work inside another template, such as an infobox. See Master Monster Slayer as an example of what's not working. I think it has something to do with nesting tables inside template parameters, which is always a huge headache. If somebody else can figure that out, please fix it, I'm stumped. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. Also allowed me to put the ESO ArmorDye Link template into the Online Achievement Summary template directly, so we only need to provide the name of the dye on those pages, not the whole link. Was trying to do that before, but those templates did not like being used inside other templates. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue formatting[edit]

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but I figure it is where it will get the most eyes. Basically, as far as I can tell we don't have any codified standards for how exactly dialogue should be laid out, particularly for ESO. The lack of clear documentation has been an issue with MWOP in the past, and I would like to head it off somewhat early with ESO so that we can start being consistent across the wiki. First, it seems uncontested that for a single line of unprompted dialogue, which the player can't respond to, it's just presented in-line, offset with a colon and quoted in italics, like so. But for larger blocks of dialogue, with player input and NPC responses, it seems there are three main styles:

  1. Player choice in bold, NPC response immediately after, on the same line, in quoted italics. (Example)
  2. Player choice in bold, NPC response on the next line, in quoted italics. (Example)
  3. Player choice in bold, NPC response on the next line, in unquoted italics. (Example)

These are in varying proportions of use, with I think #2 being the most common by a small margin, and #3 the least. Basically, I think we need to answer mainly the question of whether or not to put the NPC response on a separate line. Then I would like to get an actual policy written up and posted on the Style Guide or somewhere so we can point to it in the future if any disputes come up. -- Hargrimm(T) 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Number 2 seems like the best choice. The colons in example 1 are a little messy and the lack of quotation marks in example 3 make it seem like quoted text rather than dialogue. I think Chef Donolon is an ideal example of this layout in action. I certainly don't think we should go with the fourth, unmentioned example, which would be prose similar to Skyrim. ESO has a lot of important player dialogue and NPCs speak in paragraphs, so the sectional approach seems best. —Legoless (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
None of those options should be adopted. Dialogue should be in prose, as it has been done in all fully developed articles preceding ESO and its lack of care and attention. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The #2 seems to be most common, although for me it does not matter what format it is, as long as one format is officially accepted. Tib (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with Legoless that the prose style of Skyrim is not the best approach here. I would much rather have the actual text of the player's choices, in the interest of more data being better than less. Plus, converting everything to prose takes more time, leads to subjective 'quality' arguments about how the prose is rendered, and creates huge paragraphs that are very difficult to scan through. -- Hargrimm(T) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If we want to quote precedents either way, we have a Featured Article that precedes ESO that demonstrates effective use of dialogue in formatting that isn't just block paragraphs of prose. One set standard to follow is all fine and good, and I love set standards, but if dialogue can be shown in a different format that helps break up the article visually and look more attractive and readable than prose (and surely I'm not the only one who skims block text of dialogue or outright ignores it if I don't think it will provide helpful information to my query), then why not break off from the written standard here and there? I feel like something more interesting than basic indents could be done, but I'm also preferable to Option 2.
If not showing something in prose affects the quality of delivering the information, then we should go for prose, because we should prioritise content over style, but we're talking about improving readability, and I don't think that indents or visual tricks to break walls of text are going to hurt anything at all or affect the accuracy of the information or how it's conveyed. -damon  talkcontribs 22:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I like the Neloth-style... it could work well on NPCs that are involved in several quests and have more background. Besides that, two things come to my mind. Firstly, many ESO NPC's are, for a lack of better word, rather boring. Their activities are very limited, they do not have any schedules. Sometimes I even feel that the dialogue really is the only thing to write on the page. Well, for example Cleric Arvina. Apart from the quest-related dialogue we actually do not learn anything about him as a person. He is just standing in the Mages Guild! Secondly, unfortunately I'm not good writing in the Neloth article-style. (I can do it, but it takes so much time) It's a shame, but what can I do? Tib (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

() Just to comment as someone who admittedly doesn't know much about ESO, I was always under the impression that the only reason prose really wasn't used in the Morrowind namespace was because of the topic focused nature of Morrowind and how topics are handled in the in-game journal. So unless ESO has a similar situation to Morrowind in regards to dialogue, I don't see why any of the suggested forms of dialogue would seem superior to prose. The same argument about using the actual text of the player's choice could be applied to Oblivion and Skyrim but the standard in those namespaces has been to use prose for years. In situations where there are a lot of options, articles often will list player text and NPC responses like the ESO articles to break up the text and prevent overly wordy and technical paragraphs (like the example Damon provided), but I think prose should be used whenever the dialogue is linear and does not branch off. Commenting purely as a reader, I find the narratives some of our brilliant editors have written for Oblivion and Skyrim NPC pages to be more interesting than any of the ESO articles I have seen thus far, and it's not entirely due to the subject matter or to the lack of effort of editors working in this namespace who are all just as brilliant and as hard-working as anyone else on the site. I just think the narrative style will always be the most interesting way of documenting dialogue and the multitude of Oblivion and Skyrim NPC articles that have been featured tends to back that point up as well. Forfeit (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue in ESO is half topic-based, and even linear segments often contain branching. Oblivion went with prose because that game contained almost no player dialogue ("Tell Jauffre the Emperor's last words" springs to mind), and we stuck with it for Skyrim based on these OBNPCRP guidelines. ESO is a separate namespace and a very different game. In-line prose for anything other than short one-liners would be a nightmare to read, and like Hargrimm said would be an objective loss of data since player dialogue is actually important in ESO. —Legoless (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

() I think number 2 is nice and I agree that the "prose" style used for Skyrim pages may not be that suitable for Online pages since to me that style feels more like a description of the conversation than a record of the conversation. While I do appreciate the "human touch" that makes some of the featured articles in the other namespaces a joy to read, the sheer volume of NPCs and conversations in ESO means that that approach may not be feasible. I feel adopting a simple basic standard template would be best. When standard templates are in place it's easy for editors to simply dump raw data in to create a readable, albeit boring looking article (as compared to it being blank).

As for why I like number 2, the use of levels of indenting also helps show the structure of the dialogue tree (like how branches are shown by increasing indents). Number 2 is also used in the Neloth article to good effect. I particularly like how tables are used to present alternate dialogue which only unlocks under certain circumstances (this is also present in ESO). And although this may be complicating things, I would also like to point out that even the "single line of unprompted dialogue" format is not consistent. Online:Osalmil's is in the paragraph itself, Online:Connynque's is in its own paragraph without indenting, Online:Khafzajah's has its own paragraph with indenting. And a final question: how do we record the scripted dialogues between NPCs? (eg. the one heard in Daggerfall after the quest is completed "Some stranger saved King Casimir's life!" "I'd like to buy that hero an ale.") If we could agree on some standards that would be great. Contraptions (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I find #1 the most readable, personally, but that only works when there's a single topic matched with a single response. Contraptions' point about the indenting showing the tree structure is something I would see as important, personally, so failing a 1:1 ratio, I'd go with #2, as others have said. Of course, since I'm not terribly active in Online space, you can take my opinion for exactly what it's worth. :Þ Robin Hood  (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, certainly one of the reasons I wanted to go with a non-prose style is that it makes it a much simpler task to add dialogue by transcription, rather than having to dust off one's creative writing talents to wrape a prose narrative around the conversation. It must be admitted that our ESO coverage is not really where it could be with regards to NPCs in particular, so I'm very strongly in favor of doing what we can to reduce barriers to contribution and make it a clear, simple process. As for the "single line" examples you show, the other two are formatted that way because there are multiple possible lines those NPCs might spout when you talk to them. So it only makes sense to list them out on unique lines, since they're not actually connected or part of a conversation or anything like that. The inter-NPC dialogue is, I think, fine as we did it for Skyrim, which was just a simple script-style line by line list of what's said, as done here or here. -- Hargrimm(T) 23:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally like #2 as well. Showing the branching paths seems like a good solution. My only concern is whether this might run into problems on particularly long branches, when the number of indents may run out. I don't play ESO, so I don't know if that's a possibility, but it's something to think about. Maybe a workaround involving tables for unique dialogue branches? Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say the prose style as used for Oblivion doesn't really work here. ESO's dialogue is much more conversational, and it's useful to see the alternation between player lines and NPC lines. Prose is good to lead into the dialogue though, and when there is no player response. Beyond that, I would also prefer Option 2, as I think it's the most common, and the one I've usually used when adding dialogue to quests. Regarding branching and indents, I would say that it is a nice idea to indent branches, but what happens when you have exhausted the branched section and are back to a linear conversation? There's no real need to indent each stage of linear dialogue. I agree with Hargrimm that inter-NPC dialogue presented line-by-line is fine, but it should be indented like Plague of Phaer rather than <br>oken like General Tullius. A good example of inter-NPC dialogue using this format and player conversation using Option 2 is Elemental Army (but I wrote it, so I'm biased). Similarly, a good example of why setting a single standard may be a bad idea can be seen at Soul Shriven in Coldharbour, which uses prose, Option 1 and Option 2 depending on the context of the dialogue, and looks no worse off for it. Prose is used when there is no player response and for a couple of linear conversations; Option 1 is used for dialogue choices and brances; and Option 2 is used for linear conversations when including the player dialogue.
That then could be seen as a case to use any and all of them (except 3, which is just a badly-formatted 2) depending on the context:
  • Use prose for unprompted NPC dialogue and conversations when exact player dialogue is not important;
  • Use Option 1 when there are numerous and branching dialogue choices, probably mostly in cases which do not advance the story;
  • Use Option 2 for player-NPC conversations where the player dialogue should be documented too;
  • Use indented line-by-line scripting for NPC conversations (essentially a version of Option 1).
Incidentally, this contextual setup also seems to be closest the the aforementioned Neloth-style. --Enodoc (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

() What do you think about the below examples? Seems we agree regarding many of these, but maybe some cases need clarifying or are missing.

Case Example
At Louna's farmhouse, your companions suspect that something is amiss:
Razum-dar: "Raz thinks this place is too quiet. Good spot for an ambush, yes?"
Naryu Virian: "Oh, I certainly hope so! I could use a good fight right about now."
Razum-dar: "You send very mixed messages, Naryu. One moment you're flirting, the next you're stabbing. It's very confusing."
Naryu Virian: "That's only because you assume the two are different, Razum dear."
(No player response)
During the confrontation of Louna and the Fate-Bearers at her farmhouse, she will at some point yield to you, saying "Enough! Too much blood has been spilled! You've won. I know that. So sheathe your weapons and come inside."
(Opening sentence)
Head inside the farmhouse and speak to Louna. She will reveal to you, "You don't know how much I despise that name. I am a Fate-Bearer. One of the select few who can see what the future holds and then do something about it. Each of my targets had the potential to cause unmitigated disasters. I stopped them."
Linear dialogue
(NPC reply=two small paragraphs)
You're saying your victims were so evil they had to die?
"Good and evil has no bearing on my visions. It's their actions that concern me. Each causes a ripple that radiates through time until a disaster occurs.
Economic collapse, the death of a prominent leader, a Queen betrayed ... I had to stop them."
The trader, the baker, the Eye's apprentice. But what about Naryu?
"Her fate is the worst of all. Her daughter causes the world to burn. Or she could. The future is a fluid thing.
I have seen my escape and my death, both possible at this moment. And both championed by each of your allies. But the choice is yours."
Linear dialogue
(NPC reply=single block of text)
You're saying your victims were so evil they had to die?
"Good and evil has no bearing on my visions. It's their actions that concern me. Each causes a ripple that radiates through time until a disaster occurs. Economic collapse, the death of a prominent leader, a Queen betrayed ... I had to stop them."
The trader, the baker, the Eye's apprentice. But what about Naryu?
"Her fate is the worst of all. Her daughter causes the world to burn. Or she could. The future is a fluid thing. I have seen my escape and my death, both possible at this moment. And both championed by each of your allies. But the choice is yours."
Dialogue involving conditions
(imminent choices, past deeds etc)
Why shouldn't I simply kill you? I saved all your victims. (If you managed to save all three targets)
"For now.
If you let me live, I'll call off the other Fate-Bearers. There's always a chance the future will change. We'll all hope for the best and assume they'll have long lives. But if you kill me, my brethren will find and kill them—eventually."
I know what we need to do.
"Then out with it. Don't leave us all in suspense. Which of the possible fates have you decided to favor with your decision?"
I agree with Raz. I'll let you live if you agree to call off the Fate-Bearers. (If you choose to let Louna live)
I agree with Naryu. You have to die. (If you decide to kill Louna)
Mixed linear/branched
(An easy version, see below comments :p)

You can ask Astara more about the missions and the reputation of the Brotherhood,

Tell me more about this mission.
"The Grand Sermonizer and her priests spread lies about the Brotherhood for reasons I do not yet understand. Whether she seeks to insult us or acts upon some misguided tenet of faith, our response is clear.
These impudent priests must die."
Who's this Grand Sermonizer?
"She's one of the ranking priests at the Cathedral of Kvatch, right below Primate Artorius in the hierarchy. She won't be easy to find, however.
Killing her subordinates may draw her out. Otherwise, rely on Tanek to locate the hole she's hiding in."
Who's Primate Artorius?
"Primate Artorius leads the Cathedral of Akatosh in Kvatch. The Chanters and Sermonizers bow to his authority as the Chosen of the Dragon God, and even the Order of the Hour follows his commands.
Pious and faithful, I find the man to be insufferable."
Do we really need to send two assassins to Kvatch?
"Caution becomes the appropriate response after the deaths of two assassins, Initiate.
But make no mistake. I expect you to assassinate the Grand Sermonizer. Tanek will be there to provide assistance, nothing more."
Do assassins often die when they go on missions?
"Under normal circumstances, no. These recent attacks against us, however, have made circumstances far from normal.
Concentrate on the Grand Sermonizer. That's your primary mission."
What's the Brotherhood's reputation like these days?
"The common folk fear us, the political leaders tolerate us, and everyone who needs someone dead and can pay the cost hires us without hesitation. Our reputation remains strong.
But these attacks by the Sermonizers. They're obviously up to something."
What do you think they're planning?

Additionally, a few thoughts...

  • Unnecessary formatting? Many ESO NPC dialogue lines are presented in two small paragraphs-but there is often only one sentence in each. See Linear dialogue for example. Which way would you prefer?
  • The choices/conditions - any thoughts regarding these? We might have to discuss that a little, as I see tables being used in such cases.
  • Branched dialogue. There are a few examples of branched dialogue which I find a bit annoying to present. I don't have a good example written down here yet, but Mirabelle Motierre has some of that. Basically she changes a part of her answer depending what you choose, but another part remains same :P
  • Branched dialogue. Branched dialogue means you always backtrack to a couple linear questions, yes? But sometimes the wording of these questions changes - extremely slightly though. Example - Questions A, B and C each have a wording called D, E and F. But if you started with question B first, and trackback to A and C, then questions A and C suddenly have wordings G and H. And sometimes they even have three versions not two!! Things like this should be illegal! Tib (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

() The dialogue is very easy to miss on most pages due to italics being used and is not always clear. I've recently went through a few Oblivion pages and I did not notice the dialogue immediately. "" does indicate the dialogue but can be easily overlooked if one is just looking for the dialogue. I agree with the Neloth style and perhaps,it could be used for major NPCs? E.g. Jaffre in Oblivion gets Neloth Style due to him being involved throughout the entire main quest. I am aware that bold usually helps and i think, most articles do use it. Neloth Style is more organised and looks better. All the dialogue is in one easy to read template. Player Dialogue is always useful and I feel that if major NPCs had it, it would look better. --Thelastdovah (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ESO Books in Lorespace[edit]

Following on from the related discussions ESO: Notes and Books and Books Categories, how should we be determining which books are included in Lorespace? According to the Library guidelines:

The Lore Library is not meant for each and every scrap of paper in every game [...]; The Lore Library is for works of literature which substantially contribute to the goal of the Lore namespace: to provide an encyclopedia of accurate and verifiable information in The Elder Scrolls universe, separate from game-related details.

And yet, we have such insignificant trivialities as Aberrant Welkynd Stones, which certainly wouldn't be in lorespace under the standard guidelines of both historical relevance and in-game appearance (it's not a hard-cover book). Beyond that, there's discrepancies between the listings of Books by Subject, Books by Author, and the alphabetical lists, where some texts appear on one and not the others (I'm not sure if that's exclusive to ESO books or if it goes beyond those).

The simplest way I would propose to determine what should be in Lorespace and what shouldn't would be to base it on Collection, but the primary guidelines of relevance and appearance should probably take precedence.

Any comments or suggestions? --Enodoc (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We've usually been very lax when it comes to including books in lorespace. If it has any relevance to lore at all, it should have a Lore page. If the occasional irrelevant scrap of paper sneaks in, so be it. —Legoless (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The way I see it, if a book or even a scrap of paper contains lore that would improve a lorespace article, no matter now insignificant, it belongs in the lorespace. In terms of "Aberrant Welkynd Stones", I created that and my reasoning was most likely that the scrap gives us solid information about the properties of Welkynd Stones. They resist magic, cutting tools, and blunt force. That information is absolutely relevant to an Welkynd Stones lore article.
As for the Books by Subject and Books by Author discrepancies - I had been updating these two pages regularly with ESO books a while back, to try and get everything documented and in order, but I've been busy lately. Both pages need updated so there are no discrepancies, but its a tedious and lengthy job. --Jimeee (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Aberrant Welkynd Stones is detailing abnormal (definition of aberrant) properties of a specific set of Welkynd Stones found only inside Root Sunder. The only useful thing about Welkynd Stones that we can derive from that is that those properties aren't normal. That may be enough for a mention on the Welkynd Stones article, but under Game Specificity and Preclusion it would be more appropriate to reference out to the Online namespace, which would also preclude "if it has any relevance to lore at all".
I don't like lax guidelines. Laxity leads to inconsistency and inconsistency causes unnecessary discrepancy which could lead to conflict. --Enodoc (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We could always change it, but the laxity goes back years and would arguably involve deleting lore pages which don't fit certain guidelines. A lot of extra work for no real gain. —Legoless (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit: This discussion might also be relevant. —Legoless (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ESO Projects[edit]

So I put this on a different page without thinking to come to the Community Portal. For anyone who sees this, how do people feel about this sort of thing starting? It's been out for two years, this might help a lot. Schiffy(Talk) 00:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Very good idea.. I recently had a thought about starting a project but was unsure if and how to do it. I'd definitely try to contribute. Tib (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There are various large-scale tasks that need to be completed that might be suited to a project. Most of our quest walkthroughs are either low-quality or entirely absent. NPCs and creatures need various fields to be updated, such as reaction and pickpocket info. Plenty of pages need images. Things like Crown Store listings and collection pages need to be constantly maintained, and only a couple editors currently do so. Most city pages are lacking info on non-service buildings such as homes. A project would be a good way of organising those tasks and many others, if anyone wants to put one together. —Legoless (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd say if we end up doing this, there would need to be multiple projects like we have for other games (e.g. NPCs, quests, locations, etc). One I can definitely get into would be sort of an "enemies" project, gathering data on various "trash mobs" and bosses, along with where they're found, their level and health (which would both have multiple values because of the various places they're found). With quests, we have information on their reward when done in Cadwell's Silver and Gold, but we don't do this for enemies (for example, there's three versions of the Auridon World Boss Anarume - one at level 15, one at Champion Rank 40, and one at Champion Rank 160, I see no reason why all levels and health values shouldn't be noted). Schiffy(Talk) 22:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It was decided not to note the Silver and Gold values for enemies and such (and I actually went through and removed the exceptions earlier today). Silver and Gold will be removed in autumn anyway, so there's no point. —Legoless (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I could keep working on the things I've done so far, maybe most importantly filling in quest pages - all information excluding detailed walkthroughs, possibly even try to write some walkthroughs. Hm, images. Book collections. Locations and NPC-s. I'd really appreciate input about what you think should be prioritized! And yes, breaking down the project into as many smaller tasks as possible is really needed, otherwise the amount of work feels overwhelming. Additionally, I think I will perhaps focus on the DLC content, this is where I have many stored screenshots and it's where I spend most of the time right now. Tib (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

() I would be willing to assist however I can if there is a project to be done, right now I am focusing more on miscellaneous documentation such as rewriting older/basic pages. The lack of NPC info is rather glaring and given that there have been so many system revamps in the past/coming up with OT I can understand why we have not touched on it much. There was also some form of discussion regarding how to present NPC info but unfortunately some cases could not be resolved properly and thus not much change has occurred. I think the skills pages have been getting some love recently which is good. Wish there was a template that auto updates items, sets and skills etc. whenever major changes happen. That would save us a lot of work. Contraptions (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Contraptions: Automatic updating is generally something for bots to do. The good news is: we have one, and I'm its creator. The bad news is: I'm slightly backlogged at the moment. Nevertheless, you should feel free to add any requests to the Bot Requests page. Even if I don't get to them immediately, I'll get to them at some point, and then it's a simple matter to re-run the bot job after each patch.
When making requests, each should be under its own header and should outline exactly what needs to be done. A couple of caveats there, though: first, I don't play ESO; second, I'm chronically ill which affects my thinking to varying degrees at different times. In short, when requesting a job, "Explain like I'm five!" If you have a look at the ESO mined data request, Sarthes Arai's second message in that section is perfect. It tells me where to get the data, where it goes, and any changes that need to be made in each case. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm very interested in getting involved in a project for the quests or anywhere else needed. Biffa (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

() That's great to see more people interested in participating - every pair of hands will be very much needed. Would it be acceptable to have a big Online umbrella project, which includes numerous smaller (small being a relative term...) projects under it? I'd like it, if it is possible to do so - even if some sub-projects might be large, as it would give us an overview of where the Online namespace is heading and which parts are being worked on. EDIT - Ok, the way projects are listed on the big project page makes it unnecessary for an umbrella project, I didn't see it at first, sorry. Secondly, does the project need to be outlined before creating the project page? And who should do that? Since Schiffy posted the initial suggestion, would you be interested in starting that? Tib (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I was certainly thinking of it, but I didn't want to jump and do anything, having no administrative authority on this site whatsoever, without some community discussion and the okay of someone who does. Schiffy(Talk) 12:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want, I can take a crack at it the next free chance I have. I created the morrowind MWOP, which was one project, but had separate sections and completely separate templates for NPC, quest, and location pages. A similar approach may work here, though I'm slightly hesitant to do it that way since all it would do is add a checklist to the page that someone would still have to mark off one by one. A better approach might be to organize it around the locations, and add sections for NPCs and quests at that location, with a catch-all template on zone pages for those quests and NPCs that don't fit neatly into a single location (the traveling merchants in zones come to mind). I'm not entirely sure how much information people want in this project. Most projects have been to bring mostly or partially done pages up to a single level of quality and completeness, whereas this project is dealing mainly with empty or mostly incomplete pages. A single page with a list of all quests, locations and factions might work, where people simply put their name next to the pages they intend to complete.
These are just a few ideas. I have some more, but I have to run to work, so I'll let people chat about these to see if I can get a better idea about what is really needed. We might also want to use this space as a way to brainstorm what requirements or information we actually want on pages in order to consider them complete. Jeancey (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

() I'm working on NPC dialogues - although I'm not always sure I'm doing it the best possible way (especially presenting multiple-choice dialogue), and would certainly appreciate a project guideline from someone who has some experience in it. --Cailin (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Break 1[edit]

I'd like to keep this discussion going as I really want to push for starting an ESO project. Tib (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

According to my opinion there are four types of tasks that could be relevant here:
  • Missing information, basically just filling in and checking the multum of pages.
  • More advanced & time-consuming edits like walkthroughs, or guides.
  • Maintenance, e.g. patches, crown store - making sure it's all up to date.
  • Reorganizing where needed or wanted. E.g. Dark Brotherhood Contracts, which gathered the quests' information on one page rather than creating single pages. A project can be a good place for discussing and deciding things like this, yes?
Given the limited number of editors, I'm not sure what scope and goals would be realistic here. Thoughts? :) Tib (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally think the first two are the most important. I do a little bit of work in those, and they're severely lacking, though I'd probably try to help any ESO project. I'm not sure about other things, but I think that the quests goal should be something like "All main quests must be fully documented", "All Alliance quests should be fully documented", "All guild quests must be fully documented" and "Most misc quests should be documented" - which is a lot of work, but I believe that it's possible.? Concerning NPCs, I think that it'd be best to have all major NPCs fully documented, and minor NPCs documented to some degree, and generics a do-as-we-go sort of job. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Social Media: Doing Surprisingly Well Edition[edit]

As I have ended up in charge of all the social media buttons on the sidebar, I feel its appropriate that I give a general update as to "where we stand" on the Internet. The purpose of this topic is to firstly, be open about what's going on with them, because I believe that's important. Secondly, too discuss their future with the site, and how we should continue to develop them. Finally, this is also open to suggestions for them, in case their existence has slipped your mind.

  • Facebook -- Has broken 5000 likes and is growing at a healthy pace. It's become a bit of a "news dump", news that wouldn't make it to the front (albeit, in my opinion, more news then we allow could easily be allowed on the front), is talked about. We also have been doing the odd joke post, which seem to do very well. Additionally, we cover site news whenever we can. I am mostly happy with its growth, and can't complain. If you're well in touch with the ES Facebook community, I would like more help with this one still.
  • Twitter -- Has grown pretty well these last few months. It's been receiving news, fact, questions, and a few jokes. A definite healthy account. If anyone loves Tweeting, I wouldn't mind some backup. I do not want to be the person running this alone.
  • Google+ -- I do not know how to help this one, at all. Posts to this one tend to have the opposite effect we get on other social sites, whereas activity usually helps us there, it does not on Google+, it seems. A post will usually cause it to have someone unlike the page, but if its let sitting, I've noticed it grow without any interaction to it. If anyone is the slightest bit familiar as to how to use Google+, your input is desperately needed.
  • Tumblr -- We're redesigning a few things, and changing how the blog is ran. Already we've gotten some rather positive feedback. I can't wait to see where this one goes, but if we have any experienced Tumblr users, your help would be appreciated. I particularly say we need people able to answer questions, and create lore posts. Image compilations also do well.
  • Blog -- Our own blog needs love. We need people to write blog entries, and to provide comments to the blog. Alternatively, we should just get rid of the comments section, and use the forums for blog comments.
  • Forums -- as one of the oldest parts of the site, I'm happy its still running as well. If you are a regular wiki user, but don't use the forum, I'd kindly request you make an account and make the odd post their while your on the wiki.
  • IRC -- Still alive. We could use wiki users in the IRCs more often, though.
  • Guild -- Considering how well these guilds actually are doing, we're doing them a disservice by being so hands off with them, I feel.

For the second portion, let's talk about what we could do:

  • YouTube -- We've received a healthy number of suggestions for what to do with a YouTube account over the years, it may be finally time to try them out. I particularly like the idea of doing game guides, or a machinima series about the series. I wouldn't want to attempt it if we don't have someone with video making experience.
  • Twitch -- It wouldn't exactly hurt the site if we tried streaming. If we have anyone who is currently a streamer, or is interested in trying their hands at it, this could be a viable side project for the site. We've also had users go out of their way to show interest in doing podcasts and the like, and this could be a good platform for that.

So if anyone has the talent to help, I would appreciate it. I tried to be specific for most of it, saying how you can help, but if you think you can volunteer in a way I didn't foresee, I am open to all suggestions. I'm mainly posting this because we're not in a terrible, "no one has written to the Facebook in a month" situation. That's not true, they're doing very well, mostly, in fact. I want to improve on what we are developing, and that requires getting stronger. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

AKB, I used to run Facebook, Twitter, and for the briefest while Tumblr, before I got my job last summer and had to throw that stuff to the side to focus for a while on real life, as you'd know. I still have somewhere my email with the Twitter pass that you gave me, so that's one I'd be able to log on to and resume working on in the near future, I would have to be re-added to Facebook, though I can do so as well. I can also work a bit on Tumblr as well, and my blog name is callsign-atlas (yes, I asked the daft Oreos question earlier! :p) if you wanted to add me back to Tumblr. You can review the posts from early 2015 to see what I was doing in 2015 when I was (to the best of my knowledge at least) the only person who had editing rights to the account that was posting, and I'd resume roughly the same things I was doing then. Those are platforms I'm comfortable with and use regularly enough that I'd be interested in resuming work on.
For YouTube, I don't really see how game guides are practical. I remember saying years ago back when the social networking pages were in discussion and the proposal phase that I didn't see YouTube as viable. I still believe that today. TES games aren't linear like GTA games, to use the example I put forward, and there are so many ways to play the game that it'd be hard to document them all and it doesn't seem viable to document Elder Scrolls games.
I don't have any particular ideas or thoughts related to the other sites at present. -damon  talkcontribs 03:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It took me a few years, but I actually went out of my way to click the like button for our Facebook page... •WoahBro►talk 03:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It's good to have a YouTube page for the site in case we ever have need of video, but I don't think game guides are one of those needs. Machinima and livestreaming are the realm of personal creativity; sharing that kind of content is fine, but there's no need to officially endorse it.
There's no harm in keeping a comments section on the blog I don't think, unless spam is an issue? I've actually been having trouble using the web chat app for months now, I keep getting an error saying "server refused the connection".
The ESO guilds are doing well but most of the interaction happens in-game. There seems to be very little need or intention to conduct any of it through the wiki (although some events are organised on the forums, and cross-guild communication is usually through email). As long as things are chugging away in-game I don't think there's very much to do with them. The Blade of Woe competition might be a nice way of advertising their existence I suppose. —Legoless (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I idle in the IRC channel, it is fairly... laid-back, let's say. I would definitely like to answer lore questions and the like on the Tumblr if that's possible. That and Twitter are the two platforms I use the most personally. My Tumblr username is the same as on here; I don't really know how multi-user blogs or whatnot work but I'm willing to pitch in on occasion. -- Hargrimm(T) 07:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The Facebook page is looking awesome - well done to those posting there :) Legoless, yes we need the Blade of Woe competition!! IRC is not working for me, getting "unable to connect" messages :P Tib (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

() I'm having the same IRC problems as well. I wouldn't be opposed to writing a few more blog posts if something comes to mind, but I usually only write when I feel I have something of value to discuss. I would agree that the blog should remain open for comments though. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 19:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm active on Tumblr and would absolutely be gung-ho to help maintain it. My username is @forthelulzy. (Also, I liked the Facebook page... finally.) —likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
To all of those interested in helpign with the Tumblr, just email me with the email you have tied to Tumblr, and I will add you to it. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding YouTube and "someone with video making experience"; everyone has to start somewhere, and I don't think that's a good reason alone to not attempt it. Collaboration can achieve a lot. --Enodoc (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You know, you're right. I never used Facebook or Twitter or Google+ or Tumblr before UESP. So let me amend that, if you want to do any of these things for the site, and are truly passionate about trying it out, I'll support that as best I can. If you want to be a blogger, but haven't written much before, you can give it a shot here. Want to try your hand running a Tumblr blog, but didn't want to start from scratch, that's fine. Want to try running a social account, you can do so on G+, FB, or Twitter. And if anyone of us wants to try their hand at becoming a Youtuber, well, I don't see why this can't be your start here. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 06:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Update 12 (Info from Gamescon, summarizing the Reddit posts)[edit]

There are two posts on Reddit, by Woeler and Tony1697, which I'm gonna summarize here:

  • As most already know, One Tamriel means that all three alliances will now share PvE zones, also everything will be scaled.
  • There will be new skills/skill lines, which are gonna be discussed today aka Saturday 20th August.
  • Craglorn overhaul to suit for solo playing - I'm really interested about that one!
  • Dungeon overhaul, all will have a normal and vet mode. You will be able to do each dungeon quest in either normal or veteran mode (which sounds a bit weird, but I guess
  • All dungeons will now also drop monster sets and there's about 17 new monster sets - these have been datamined earlier so there's no super-big news there, but it's still cool.
  • Pledge system overhaul, but according to Woeler the details are secret as of now :D "All I can say is that people without dlc wont be missing out on pledges anymore."
  • Low level player scaling in dungeons is being redesigned, no specifics.
  • The random world drop sets will be distributed to alliance zones, and each zone will drop 3 of the sets, which will be scaled to your level.
  • AA and Hel Ra sets reintroduced to the game.
Crown Store
  • All-DLC pack in Crown Store, which costs ~5500 Crowns and has 4 DLCs, but not SotH
  • Loot Crates/Boxes, for a couple hundred crowns, which contain a random cosmetic thingy. The pool is from existing/upcoming items, no exclusive items in there.
Future plans
  • Update 13 (Housing), there's a mention of training dummies near your house, but no open world ones

Edit: It's also mentioned that the update will be on PTS before the end of the month, which is quite crazy.

Edit2: According to a video, Matt Firor also mentions that there will be Witches Festival around Halloween and New Life around New Year. Tib (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple more points, as they've revealed themselves:
  • Loot crates will give you a new currency if you receive a duplicate collectible. This currency can be traded in for other premium items, although the catalogue will be separate from the regular Crown Store (probably fewer items, rotated periodically). You can't opt to receive the currency if you don't like the collectible you get, i.e. you're stuck with something if you didn't already own it.
  • Weapon skill lines will be receiving new ultimates.
  • The pledge changes will introduce a third NPC to give DLC-specific dailies, so base game players will no longer have to skip a day. The bronze/silver/gold system will also be removed; doing Veteran pledges will reward two keys instead of one. I assume we'll need to quickly gather Glirion the Redbeard's DLC dialogue if he'll no longer be the questgiver for them.
Legoless (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Daggerfall Namespace Talk[edit]

It's come up that the guidelines for Daggerfall namespace could use some attention. The last big effort there was many years ago, and what was agreed upon then isn't really accessible to editors who weren't around for it, and there have been issues recently. So, it was suggested a reaffirmation may be in order, and since we were at it, possibly updating the rules for the namespace.

The last redesign project accomplished an enormous amount, and it's all helpful info. But it is showing its age compared to spaces for later games, and a lot of it is presented in a way that isn't quite user-friendly to new players. So, I would like to see if there is any interest in at least revisiting the standards and maybe coming up with something more current? The 20th anniversary of the game's release is in just a few days, seems like as good an excuse as any, and it might even draw a few curious new players. Echo (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any standards in-particular you wish to change? The only ones I'm aware of that apply to Daggerfall and Arena are that we do not try to force Morrowind and newer developed standards onto those games as they can't always meet them. Those impossible standards include the use of only .jpg for images and the minimum size of images. There are other standards that apply to DF and AR such as page creation, as 'every' NPC is named but done randomly, so the same person could have different names on different playthroughs, and dungeons, where there are over 4k but only a handful of layouts and totally random enemy spawns.
One thing I've thought about recently is extracting mod data to mod spaces for those namespaces. Another thing that has recently cropped up is the use of which patches are standard, that should be cleared up. The standard should always be the latest standard official one, and any other official ones that aren't part of the main series of patches should be included. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 10:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
For my part, I think that a lot of the changes Echo has been making are a step in the right direction. As someone who spent a great deal of time cleaning up the DF namespace myself, there are a few changes I would like to see, mostly dealing with how to integrate mods and patches into the game. Given that the unmodded game contains a number of severe bugs in its final incarnation, I think it would be good to list information from DFQFIX on the articles, since DFQFIX is essentially Daggerfall's answer to the Morrowind Patch Project or Arthmoor's Unofficial Patches and it restores a lot of content that was intended to be in the game but was bugged out. It's true that we can't have articles for each individual NPC or dungeon due to their randomly-generated nature, but I think a bit more information on skills, spells, and spell effects might also be useful, since we currently only list them in a series of tables with just a brief description of what they do. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad someone thinks so. I hope it's a step in the right direction, the problem is I don't have a map. For example, I've been just going off what Help:Images says about images (at least, as far as one can go with those in DF). I fear I've broken more things than I've improved, and would like to stop doing that (breaking things, that is). Echo (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that there are now images of things that didn't have them before is a good place to start. If necessary, they can be cleaned up later (to whatever small degree is possible). If nobody else has any suggestions or objections, I may start working on articles for the individual skills.
In terms of how to treat quest fix mods, I would like to know how the community feels. As stated above, I'm of the opinion that quest fix mods (DFQFIX in particular) should be treated like the Unofficial Patches and mentioned in the article, but mods that ADD quests that weren't originally part of the game shouldn't be mentioned. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

() I think we should try to limit unofficial information to the Notes/Bugs section. For example, we don't document the "Meat Pie" item added to Skyrim by USLEEP (at least, not in the Skyrim namespace - might be a good thing to have in Tes5Mod). Similarly, we shouldn't be adding sections to Daggerfall walkthroughs which aren't part of the base game/official patches. Even just separating this stuff off in a section at the bottom would be preferable; it's obviously good info to have, but third party fixes should always be secondary information.

As for third party content patches, I wouldn't object to hosting that stuff if it's popular. It's a shame we don't have a mod namespace for Daggerfall but I think it's far too late to implement something like that after all these years. We have pages like Daggerfall:AndyFall, so having third party quest walkthroughs seems fine as long as they're marked as such - maybe they could be subpages, like DF:QuestMod/Quest1 or whatever. —Legoless (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Something like this, then: A Great Errand? It's written out the way the quest should go if it worked properly, with the broken bits moved to the Bugs section, and a subnote that there is a fix for it and what the fix does. Echo (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a good format to me. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
All right, so in regards to this page (which prompted this discussion in the first place), what about something like this? Both edits smashed together. Feel free to edit as you see fit. Echo (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with everything up to the Notes section. My only concern from that point forward is that the bit regarding the alternative walkthrough seems spread across the Notes and Bugs section, so it looks a bit messy. My preference would be for that information to get its own subsection under the main walkthrough, with a disclaimer or template at the top of the section saying something like "This section contains information relating to bugged content that was restored by unofficial patches following the release of Version 1.07.213. This content may not be accessible without the proper mods installed." Then we could just migrate the necessary information about the differences into that section, which would make the Notes and Bugs section a bit tidier. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

() I have begun to add journal and dialogue information to Daggerfall quest pages. Just a heads-up and a chance for anybody to voice their opposition. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 03:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks good I think, those dialogue bits don't really fit into a walkthrough, but are still generated by the quest itself. The one thing that sticks out though is the quest log entry; it would probably be better served with a more specialized template. Echo (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The quest log for Daggerfall can be a bit glitchy, and it may be a tad more difficult to check than in newer games that have Construction Sets, but it's probably good to have at the bottom for completion's sake. As for the note on "any news", I've never seen NPCs respond to quest events like that before. For me, the "Any News" button always caused the game to either freeze or CTD, but if the information can be verified, it's definitely the kind of thing that belongs in a notes section. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


On the Non-Relevant NPCs page, a Morrowind NPC is relevant if "The NPC has unique dialogue." Additionally, it says immediately afterwards that "If an NPC will give you any information, no matter how mundane, that cannot be found anywhere else, they are relevant." The problem is that these contradict each other. For the former, the page of an NPC which holds a non-relevant status would transition to relevant status if the only unique dialogue they had was "Hello, how are you today?" On the other hand, add the "information" part into the equation and you cannot used the aforementioned unique dialogue hence the definition of the word. From the dictionary, information means "facts provided or learned about something or someone". If you had the option to reply with unique dialogue—providing factual content about yourself, I would say include the NPC's question—it would serve as the cornerstone for your response.

Here on the CP is the ideal place to reach a consensus. In fact, I propose that we should turn non-relevant pages into relevant ones, even if it's just "dialogue"—even dialogue that does not provide any facts—that necessitates a page's creation. Additionally, I would like to get some guidelines about the dialogue layouts created. First of all, I propose that all Morrowind-related NPC pages have the same layout. Second, we need to have a layout which everybody can follow when adding dialogue. Would we like to have the conditions before the dialogue? After the dialogue? Are we going to write verbatim when it comes to receiving items in conversation—for example, should we say "4 scroll of whatever has been added to your inventory" like it does in-game? That sort of thing. I would personally like to write it verbatim. As for the disposition, I would say write "Disposition +/-(whatever; insert number here) for increases or decreases, and for what disposition an NPC has to have, I would write "Disposition (whatever; insert number here)."
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 20:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If the dialogue is unique, I don't think there's any harm in giving the NPC a page for completion's sake. —Legoless (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Let me throw this out there. The main reason given to deny all Morrowind NPCs an individual page was the number of them. Given how many ESO NPCs there are who have no relevance except as bodies to fill out cities, I would support a move to give all named Morrowind NPCs a page, no matter how relevant they are. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't use the Morrowind namespace, so take my opinion for what it's worth, but I feel like in the absence of anything really noteworthy about a character, tables serve the same function in a more compact way. When you think about it, the only difference between a lot of Morrowind NPCs and the randomly-generated ones in Daggerfall is that the Morrowind NPCs have fixed locations and names. Other than that, they both serve the same functions as sources of generic information pulled from a common pool. NPCs with unique dialogue can at least be said to provide information that can't be obtained elsewhere, which makes them noteworthy in a sense. The only question is whether or not enough information exists about a character to flesh out an article. I would think a case-by-case basis would be the best way to go, but that's just me. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 21:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That's why I make the comparison to ESO. There are at least as many irrelevant NPCs in ESO as there are in Morrowind. These are the NPCs you can't even steal from or kill, nevermind the ones you just can't talk to. I would estimate that there are more NPCs in ESO that would completely fail Morrowind's relevancy test than there total named NPCs in Morrowind (which is over 4k by one respected editors figure, or 2.5k by the two categories). The relevancy test had some measure of reasonability when the following games had about the same amount of people as deemed relevant in Morrowind, but when there are over 15k NPCs with pages in Online with zero interest in limiting the numbers of pages there, it just seems ludicrous to deny ~1,300 NPCs in Morrowind a page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a slight difference in that ESO (thankfully) does not bother giving names to most of the random hostile NPCs you meet in the wild, while MW does - there's a large percentage of MW NPCs for whom the only notable thing you can say about them is that they exist in such-and-such cave and will attack you. There are a few who can be Calmed and even offer training or other services, and these are indeed notable, but the vast majority of them are nothing more than cannon-fodder. Now I would also say that many of the ESO NPCs who have pages now are not exactly relevant either - the only reason they all have pages is because they were created by a bot from data mined by the UESP Log addon. At some point, these are going to need some level of human intervention, and that intervention might take the form of simply saying "Hey, this NPC is not relevant, maybe we should just make this page a data-holder and redirect to a location page as we've done in previous games?" But that is a monumental task given the huge number of NPCs in this game, so it may take a while to complete, if indeed we ever do. The fact that ESO is an online game that is continually being updated means that we may never be able to keep up with it, and that's okay - some of those pages will just be stubs forever most likely. That does not mean this should serve as a model for the older games, for which we have all the information we will ever have and can easily make an informed decision as to what is and is not relevant, because they are not going to change. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Well now I think we should turn all non-relevant Morrowind NPC pages into proper pages, not just NPCs that have unique dialogue. Plus we've still got pages with MWOP templates on, some (dare I say dozens) of which that need a large overhaul, meaning hours of work put into making them complete. If you think about the term "non-relevant", you aren't going to be spending a long time getting those pages done. As the term implies it, there's not much to say about them. I was writing dialogue for Synnolian Tunifus the other day, and that literally took hours to write, considering the parts I had to underline for the topics, which are represented by blue text in-game. "They're a character, therefore they get a page."—that's how I see it.
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 22:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

() I don't really see the need to create pages for all the NPCs in Morrowind. If they have any unique dialogue or fit any of the other criteria listed here, then sure, they should have an article. But if the character is purely a background character or some hostile bandit, there simply won't be anything to say on the article other than the name, class, location, inventory, and spells. This wouldn't make for an interesting article to read at all. In contrast to ESO, most of the NPCs in Morrowind even look the same so the image wouldn't even be all that remarkable to document. In ESO, at least the NPC will have a fairly distinct appearance rather than looking like just another Dunmer wearing netch leather.

The amount of work in creating pages for all the characters in Morrowind shouldn't be underestimated. All these new NPC pages would need images of the characters and we don't exactly have that many people contributing to the Morrowind namespace as it is right now, let alone contributors who are taking screenshots for that namespace. Also, many of the characters may know a selection of spells and it can take a while to type these up. Overall, I see a lot more work being created for little gain when efforts in this namespace should be spent on expanding the pages of relevant NPCs in accordance to the MWOP. Forfeit (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Forfeit, just a question for you: by "any unique dialogue", are you proposing that you would like to see the criteria altered so that if a character provides any kind unique dialogue, not just dialogue that provides facts (e.g., if the only unique dialogue they had was "Y-y-yes, wh-what's up?" and you couldn't respond directly to their question), their page can be a proper one?
In general, one non-relevant page takes less work to complete than a relevant NPC's. There are currently 1,231 relevant NPCs and 1,321 non-relevant NPCs. Whether we want to have proper pages for each of the 1,321 NPCs is one thing. How we will see to it is another. Having said that, the wiki is a collaborative effort—there's no rush with it. The snail pace way would be to do one page per day, that would take several years.
A trial run would be good so we can see it would be like. That would be a matter of doing about a dozen of them. There are characters that have a lot of spells, characters that have a lot in their inventory, characters that have... That are this, that, and the other.
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 11:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Except that a trial run just opens it up to "Why are these not done when these others were". It's not like we are gonna turn them back into non-relevant pages if the trial was deemed not successful. I think that we should complete the relevant NPCs articles. After that, we can talk about turning the others into full articles. Jeancey (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Every relevant NPC article? And Jeancey, while you're here, please can you explain this? I know that if an NPC provides information and the or part of the dialogue falls under the dictionary definition of that word, it can be added, but it doesn't mention anywhere in the MWOP guidelines/rules that a character must have at least two unique dialogue lines for them to get a proper page simply on the basis that they have more than one unique dialogue line—that's what you were implying, at least to me.
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 17:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
TRL brings up a point I forgot, many of them are simply enemies who in other circumstances would be generic 'bandit' types. That could be a reasonable unfuzzy cutoff point if we decided to alter the test for NPCs to get full pages. EG All non-hostile pages get full pages, and only notable enemies (eg bosses, possible merchants/trainers), get a page to themselves. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dragon Guard: Yeah, I personally think a character with any unique dialogue should have their own article. The relevancy criteria does say, "The NPC has unique dialogue" as being one of the criteria. Even if the dialogue is very mundane, it should still be documented and the only place it'd really make sense to do so is on the NPC's article. Like I mentioned a while back though here, I think the page should be mostly complete when it is changed from a redirect to a proper article. This is to prevent creating work for other editors that only benefits the wiki marginally. The article should look more like this after being changed from a redirect to an article than like this. I agree with Jeancey though that the focus should be on completing relevant NPC articles for the time being. Forfeit (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As-is, the wording will bamboozle people. It mentions "information" after the "unique dialogue" part; that's what my concern is. Does this mean that all unique dialogue, no matter what it may be, can be added, or not?
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 22:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I see where there can be some ambiguity, but the way it was written and with how dialogue is treated in other namespaces I think that extra bit was put in to actually support the inclusion of "What's up" type lines of dialogue. I think the point that second sentence was making was that such lines of dialogue should be considered to make a character relevant despite how mundane they are. The only thing that is really debatable in my eyes from reading the criteria is making an NPC relevant that only has a unique greeting that may not be very special. If they provide unique information on a topic, it makes a distinct entry in the player's journal and fits perfectly with the whole "information that can't be found anywhere else" part since only that person can add that information on that topic to the player's journal. However, this isn't the case for a unique greeting which is not added to the player's journal.
However and again, I agree with you that any character with any unique dialogue, be it voiced, greeting, topics, barter, bribe, or whatever other types of dialogue should be given an article. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the wording on the Non-Relevant NPC page if the consensus was reached that any character with any kind of unique dialogue should be relevant to remove any confusion. Forfeit (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

() Now let's look at the layout of dialogue. I think it's important we do so as there are quite a number of inconsistencies across the Morrowind-related articles. I've been meaning to have a discussion about this, but I haven't got round to it yet. •D. G.|Talk|Work• 20:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In my view at least, the presentation of the dialogue on some pages being at odds with others isn't a massive problem. I know that both content and style and preferable, but on this wiki, we prioritise the former. That said, I put dialogue conditions in square brackets on NPC pages; that didn't exactly help matters as it failed to create or maintain consistency when there's curved brackets on other articles. I do seem to recall a discussion about this and things taking place a year or two ago, but can't remember where.
So for giving non-relevants full-blown pages—a yes or no has not been set in stone via consensus yet. I do agree about not embarking on this task just yet. I think that at the earliest, towards the end of doing the relevant pages—maybe when the "big" ones (characters that have lots of dialogue and things) have been done and there's only dozens of small ones left that take just that little bit more work than the non-relevants to do, I guess. At the latest, we will do it after every relevant NPC page has been completed.
But wouldn't it be better to produce a page of non-unique dialogue for Morrowind, in between relevants and non-relevants, or even alongside doing work on relevant NPC pages? Quill-Tail did an amazing article like that for Skyrim at a time when NPC pages in the Skyrim namespace were not all 100% complete, so I don't see why we can't currently do that for the MW/BM/TB namespaces. •D. G.|Talk|Work• 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd support a page for generic dialogue over creating pages for non-relevants. —Legoless (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I did do some work on generic dialogue for the game a few years ago, but I believe I lost interest and stopped working on it. It's on the wiki somewhere, in one of my sandboxes. If we end up doing the non-relevants at the end of things (even if we had a generic dialogue page completed prior as it was considered more important), that's fine by me.
As the chances of embarking on the transformation of all non-relevant articles before work on the relevants is finished is extremely, extremely unlikely, I don't think we should think about that until at least we're at least towards the end of completing relevants. But let's discuss if a generic dialogue page is wanted first. •D. G.|Talk|Work• 00:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Chat Client Not Working?[edit]

Whenever I try to access the chat client, I get the error message "Unable to connect. Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at irc.uesp.net:9090." I can see at least one other case of this happening, which makes me wonder if there's a problem with the client. Has anyone else been having any difficulties using it recently? Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The operation times out on the UESP-hosted chat. On the other web-based chat (Xertion's) I connect but no one is there (which makes me think its going to the wrong place). —likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the chat's not been working for at least a good while. And, a handful of admins are aware there are issues anyway, as it was mentioned previously and again just the other day on RH70's talk page.
Thuum, do we even have an IRC address at irc.uesp.net? I was never aware of that, and in any case, the wiki's IRC channel is on Chatspike. Likelolwhat, did you just enter /join #uespwiki on Xertion? You would have created and joined an empty room on Xertion, not joined our Chatspike room. Or, did you manually enter commands through the IRC client to connect it to Chatspike and made an error? (I've not used the forum's IRC client, btw)
In any case, the server information is on the IRC page. so if you want to connect badly enough to IRC, download a free standalone client (I use Hexchat on Windows and Colloquy on OS X if yo want examples) or get a browser extension like Chatzilla. Then, add a server at the appropriate button on your client, enter irc.chatspike.net for the server, 6667 for the port, enter your preferred nickname, and you should join the channel. Should be guides on adding servers to your client of choice on Google if you need assistance. -damon  talkcontribs 17:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I've always just used the "Chat" tab at the top of the site. It didn't use to be an issue, but now it gives me the error message whenever I click it. I can connect using Mibbit, so maybe it's an issue with Special:WebChat. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is specifically with Special:Webchat. As RH70 said on his talkpage, it was created by Jak Atackka in a coding language that he [RH70] isn't familiar with, which is why it's not been fixed yet. -damon  talkcontribs 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ESO NPC Reactions[edit]

Should we describe an NPC's reaction as "Varies" if it changes at some point? There are plenty of NPCs who are initially friendly and turn hostile, and the parameter doesn't even really make sense on species pages like ON:Guar or whatever. —Legoless (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed many whose reactions vary, and they're usually quest NPCs. Sometimes the circumstances in which the reaction changes is difficult to describe in a template, so yeah, 'Varies' or similar language would work. Also, I believe the initial idea for the parameter was just for individual NPCs/creatures, so I agree that it should be left off on species pages. Unless we make certain that, for example in the case of ON:Guar, it is understood the generic wild version being referenced.
Generally, named pet guar are Friendly, unnamed domestic guar are Justice Neutral, unnamed wild guar are Neutral (? I think that's what we called the yellow glow), and ON:Bittergreen the Wild is Hostile. That's a lot of variation. —likelolwhat talk lulzy to me 23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The infobox on pages like ON:Guar should resemble those creatures that are simply labeled "Guar". If there are "Guar"s of different reactions, I think a "Varies" is a good way to go. For those NPCs and creatures that change reaction depending on quest progress, I would suggest documenting their initial status and mention that it changes / may change during quests. -- SarthesArai Talk 15:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure initial state is the way to go, since there are a lot of bosses like The Mage who are initially "friendly" in cutscenes. If we want to note the changes, we could just say "Varies (Friendly, Hostile)". There should be plenty of room in that row for non-Justice NPCs. —Legoless (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"Varies" sounds fine to me. Tib (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
there are some generic npcs that are in some instances friendly and in others justice neutral (like soldier, or some of the thalmor npcs. What should be done with those? Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hm, so - Varies (x, y)? Jeancey, I'm not sure about generic npcs, but why can't we use the same principle? Feel free to give examples if there's anything specific troubling you. Tib (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Clarification - "Varies" is vague enough that it covers it all, I think we can specify more in the notes, if needed. Like Autra Snake-Tongue, becomes neutral after a quest. Tib (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
"Varies" is reasonable. We should also add in the notes the conditions upon which it varies. Regarding cutscene friendliness, I would suggest that for all practical purposes, that is effectively irrelevant. If an NPC invariably turns hostile after an interaction, there's not much benefit to adding that they are initially Friendly. --Enodoc (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

One Tamriel on PTS (2.6.0)[edit]

As you all may or may not know, OT will be on the PTS for testing soon. Should we try to get some events going on the PTS as a guild so that we can get info on the new updates ASAP? Might be fun. :D Contraptions (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fun :) I'll try to get the invite to UESP NA guild once I'm on PTS. Tib (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The patch notes are up and the PTS is now patching (and oh jeebus are there a ton of changes). Once the server is up we should get something going. Contraptions (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It's downloading sooo slow. Lots of interesting changes on PTS patch notes, oh boy! Tib (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
by the way, I'm at the one tamriel panel at pax, so if you have any questions about it in the next few minutes, let me know quickly. Jeancey (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

() Big changes to consider from the patch notes:

All monster levels are being removed - what do we want to do about those that we don't yet have documented?
Craglorn has been redesigned - we need to see how the quests and POIs have been affected.
Loads of changes to Itemization - sets, quest rewards, drops, and loot have all changed.
World bosses have been "redesigned" - not sure what that actually means.
Duelling has been added.
Weapon lines now have Ultimates.
FG, MG and Undaunted now have Dailies.

Yes there's loads more, but I think those are the primary things to focus on, as they require the most effort on our part to update. But feel free to add anything else that you think is major, as you may all have a different take on what is most important. --Enodoc (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing we should really work on are dro-m'Athra images, since the base game NPCs will be getting the Thieves Guild textures. It'd be good to get at least some high quality shots of the current shadow cat textures.
Like I said in the archived One Tamriel discussion, monster levels aren't really gonna be a thing anymore. We need to decide if we should even bother keeping that data; obtaining undocumented levels for countless mobs isn't likely to be useful. It's kind of a shame to lose it but honestly I think it would be simplest to just remove that parameter outright, and maybe note it on major pages instead (i.e. ON:Eastmarch can note the original level range and Veteran ranks). Keeping useless depreciated level data on certain pages won't be useful going forward, and it's not the first time we've outright removed outdated data - when the health system was overhauled, we disregarded the old values for NPCs.
As for world bosses, the patch descriptions are vague but the changes seem pretty significant. At a cursory glance it seems like we're mostly set to document the changes made, but it'd be great to make a concerted effort to fully document the affected locations on live just in case. —Legoless (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
hey! So I actually have an answer on world bosses. Basically, all world bosses will be akin to the orsinium bosses. In general, the bosses will be higher level that's planned for 4ish people. There are mechanics changes too, but that's more complicated.Jeancey (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, so all the levels will now always be just v160? Yeah, then the level is probably not interesting anymore, but health still is I guess. Tib (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

() Some things I noticed on the PTS.

NPC levels are no longer displayed. This probably means anything related to level info can be removed.
Health values have been standardised. There are 4 standard health values for normal mobs and a variety for elites/bosses. All mobs of the same type have the same health. (this should make it easy for us to record NPC info. No more arguing about different "versions" of the same NPC. Now there is only one.)
Craglorn changes are still not complete, some areas are clearly still balanced for groups when they're meant for normal mobs. Various new point of interest icons have also been added. The group areas are all world bosses now. Contraptions (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Certain overworld areas of Craglorn are denoted as "group areas", so perhaps that's the balancing issue you ran into?
The world boss change means Group Events have essentially been done away with, but Group Delves are still a thing. —Legoless (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly. Some clusters of mobs randomly scattered around are still in groups of 5 and above, when normal world mobs never cluster in more than three. These mobs were not involved in any group event as well. Although I do think this was mentioned in the patch notes where certain mobs were still more difficult than intended. Contraptions (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been able to see groups bigger than 5 in Craglorn yet (but 4-5 can be challenging to kill, ofc). The bigger change is that they have increased difficulty to some, but not all places. For example Szeknorist is prob intended to be soloable, it still has like 250k health. But Shaukadur the Impaler now has a whopping 1,5-something million hp. Same goes for the delves as well. I wonder what the final adjustment of Craglorn will look like :) It feels mixed solo/group so far, definitely not super solo-oriented. And def not an easy ride, tbh I kinda like the difficulty as it is right now. Tib (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Forget about "Group Events"; I think that was a classification that we came up with to group Magical Anomalies, Anka Ra sites and Nirncrux Mines together for our own purposes. If they're now all Group Bosses, that's fine. --Enodoc (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

() After watching the PAX panel, it appears there has been a major overhaul to Pledges. As a result, I would suggest that we don't try to update our existing pledge pages to compensate, but that we instead deprecate all of the old ones, and create new ones. --Enodoc (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. —Legoless (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure the pledges changed, but dailies got added. The pledges, there's just a third person giving them, I don't think the actual pledges changed much. They added more, and they award similar stuff instead of gold silver bronze. Jeancey (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit Break: OT Quest Levels[edit]

() Quest levels are also becoming meaningless. What should we do with them? We could scrap them completely, alongside location levels and NPC levels, or we could keep a "Recommended Level" visible. Personally, I think we may as well do away with them, as with battle levelling, there's nothing really outside of story order that a recommended level would be useful for. --Enodoc (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's not displayed anymore I would support removing it. If an activity or quest isn't level locked I don't think displaying a level for it will be useful anyway. Contraptions (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Funny thing is that they are still displaying levels on quests. But I can't see why; the level that is displayed is always equal to character level, so it's useless. If they were to remove quest levels from the journal completely then that would be better (and would probably make it easier for us to come to a decision). --Enodoc (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Presenting NPC info for OT[edit]

I hate to dig up an old topic, but I feel the OT update is a great time for us to finally fill in most of our blank NPC pages. While there was a discussion some time ago, the complexities of presenting multiple "versions" of an NPC which differ based on level/location/health/reaction as well as normal/silver/gold versions meant that no real consensus was met. However, with the upcoming standardization of level/health and the removal of gold/silver and vet/normal distinctions, I think most of the previous problems have been resolved (save for location/reaction). Based on what has been seen on the PTS, NPCs will not display level values at all. This includes all NPCs both friendly and hostile. Technically they are all CP160, but that can only be seen using an addon. So, how should we deal with this? Should we leave it as 50, or should we write it as CP160?

Secondly, some templates which need level info such as Template:ESO Veteran and Template:ESO Health might need some retooling since some of their parameters are now obsolete (there may be other templates that I'm forgetting). Once that is done, we could get a bot to implement them en masse. Do note that the above applies more to overland entities since dungeon/trial/instanced NPCs will behave differently. Thoughts? Contraptions (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think leveled should go, so its not displayed, as all but the passive creatures will be leveled. If all leveled NPCs are level CP160 can you see how leveling is done instead, leveled attributes? I.e. how will a level 5 character see the game compared to a CP160 character. If the attributes are identical then they should go too (document on the NPC page). If attributes are different yet leveled on enemies then there's no question the should stay.
If anyone is interested in a multi-infoboxes, the Final Fantasy wiki uses them, so it can display multiple versions of the same enemy by clicking a tab at the top for the location you are in. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 14:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that we no longer need to display level data or souls on NPC and creature pages. Suppose this would also solve the problem of the soul and gender clashes. Health might be useful to keep, but I'm guessing our current figures are gonna be outdated again?
The new leveling mechanic is already explained at ON:Battle Leveling, which explains how player attributes get buffed. No specific figures, but I don't think that data is available to us. —Legoless (talk)
Hostile NPCs will always appear to have the same health no matter what level your character is. In fact for almost all non-elite overland hostile enemies I already have the new values - 13187, 29870, 31364 and 34501. For justice neutral (except guards) the value is 39959. I think we can keep health, gender and location etc., but anything that varies based on level including soul info can be removed as well (since the only soul gem size after OT is Grand anyway). If anyone needs more details I can gladly provide them. Contraptions (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure these are the values? 39959, 59939 and 25974 are the current values for various justice neutral NPCs in the DLC zones (which one would assume are not changing, since they are already set to the level and values that the other zones are being increased to). of those numbers, only 39959 is on the list you provided. The other question to ask is layout. Currently level shares a line with health. Without level, what should take its place? Health does not need a full line. Likewise, for soul/gender, the gender of creatures isn't really a good stat to use because something like 90% of all non-humanoid creatures are listed as male, including such creatures as the Betty Netch, the Mudcrab Matron and all the Lamia. In fact, the only female appearing creature that is actually listed as female (from my cursory check) is the Spriggan. Thus, what should we put for creatures instead of soul and what should we put for everyone instead of level? or should we rearrange the entire infobox? My though is that we could KEEP level, and just hardcode it to display 160, since theoretically they could increase this cap in the future (though unlikely). That way, everything in the layout stays the same, but we don't have to go around adding level to all these pages by hand. Jeancey (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
From the PTS: "Final battle leveled combat balance is still being iterated on, and improvements will be ongoing throughout PTS testing." The health figures are likely being tweaked, so I wouldn't depend on live.
The datamined creature genders are of zero relevance and are also evidently inaccurate, so I don't think we should note them. This isn't like the singleplayer games, the raw game file data we work with is pretty wonky and not important to the reader. If anything, most creatures should probably get an "N/A" in that field. I think the simplest solution is to move the gender and health boxes onto the same line. There's no point in displaying "CP160" and "Grand" on every single page on the wiki.
I believe it's been confirmed that they'll be bumping the level cap in future, so that's even less of a reason to display the 160 figure everywhere. We only need a centralised page for that sort of basic game information, such as ON:Leveling. —Legoless (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
So if Gender and health are on the same line, all creatures will just have N/A for health? Does race then get an entire line to itself (which it doesn't really need? Jeancey (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No no, I mean most creatures should probably have N/A for gender. The health values are still important, albeit standardised. Perhaps race and gender could go on the same line then, and give health a full line? Some boss values are incredibly high, so a little extra space would probably improve layout. —Legoless (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

() I meant gender there :P. Actually, there is a parameter in terms of the game that we don't record at all, which is the little pips to indicate difficulty. We record this a little bit, for bosses on the dungeon pages, but for other mobs and NPCs we don't record it at all. This information is even gathered by ESOlog as "Difficulty". Would that make more sense to be paired with health and leave gender paired with race? Jeancey (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea! —Legoless (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
So... we are replacing level with difficulty, Soul will now always be gender while everything else stays the same? Contraptions (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree to scrapping Level and Soul, and keeping Gender paired with Race. Since Race becomes something else for Creatures anyway, and Soul is gone, we can scrap Gender from all Creature pages (it's only shown on Creatures if Soul is undefined anyway). Adding Difficulty sounds like a good idea as well, and putting it inline with Health makes sense. --Enodoc (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
When should these changes be done? I suggest that while we remove the level requirement from being displayed, it probably can be removed by hand as pages are edited, as it is a GREAT marker for pre-OT pages that haven't been updated yet. Aside from that, I'm not sure difficulty is required for many NPCs that aren't enemies, as for 95% of all NPCs it will be 0. It might also be better to come up with names (if we can find them in the data) for what 0, 1, 2 and 3 difficulty should be called. Something like normal, elite, champion, boss. Or something like that. In any case, as OT is released tomorrow, the template changes should probably happen ASAP. Jeancey (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
If we're happy with what's going to be done, then we can do it imminently. If no-one's got around to it by the time I get back in a few hours, I'll do it then. Regarding the names, some of ZOS's official names are pretty ridiculous (Normal, Scary, Hard, Deadly), so I suggest we use the same names that we have at {{ESO Boss}}. Although we would need to check that those names actually do match up with function, as I'm sure ZOS have changed the pips on some bosses before. --Enodoc (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
All done, let me know if I broke anything! --Enodoc (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Arena Places[edit]

Many of the pages on the Arena places list are non-existent. I would be willing to create all of these, with locations on the world map and pictures of the place for each one. However, I'm not entirely sure if this would be necessary as all that really can be included is the general location and a link to the lore page.

Personally I think that there should be a page for each area. Despite there not being all possible information on UESP we generally aim to have all information about a game documented, and Arena should be no exception. With a page for each place, people would be able to view necessary information about that place without being redirected to a lore page that is not relevant to Arena.

What is everyone's opinion on this? If there is general consensus to create pages for each location I'm happy to get to work doing that. However, if the general consensus is that there shouldn't be a page for each area, and that the links should just redirect to lore pages, I'm happy to do that as well. AlphaAbsol (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you see a redlink then 99% of the time that page is desired. I think the reason they've been untouched is that there are reports that the locations are random, that is the buildings and the city layout, making it hard to have anything much useful to say. That of course is not a reason to have a page in that namespace for them. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I myself am not entirely sure as to whether city layouts and names of locations within cities are random, so if I do create pages for all of them I won't include those until there is full confirmation about that. AlphaAbsol (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Arena is as random as Daggerfall, meaning the game world was created randomly during the development, but the final game world is the same for everyone, just to make the "random thing" once and for all clear, at least to the people who read this. An that's the problem, there is not much unique information one can provide for a given location, one mage guild of a given type looks the same as any other mage guild of the same type. And especially Arena has only a limited number of models. Another thing is, the game has a very limited draw distance, so there is also not much a picture will show and the auto-map is also similar to the one in Daggerfall. Too big for one screen so you have to scroll and thus creating an auto-map of just one given place is a lot of work. It would be a good approach to create an overview of each location, what shops, services etc. can be found there as well as their qualities. These are information that are really interesting for players. But this is really a lot of work and I know what I'm speaking of. For Daggerfall there are some good and advanced tools in existence that can extract game data, but even by using these tools and self-created applications it was a lot of work to get all desired information. Getting them manually would have been impossible or a life-time endeavor. And although Arena has far less locations, getting the relevant information manually would be too much works for just one person. And I'm not aware of any tools that can show/manipulate the data of Arena. For the quest relevant locations it would be much easier to create such overviews, because there are only a handful of them, but for the remaining almost 200 locations this seems way to labor-intensive for a single person. But this just my opinion, you can try and see how far you will get and how monotonous it will become after some time.--PLRDLF (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I do see your point. However, I personally find methodical, repetitive tasks quite enjoyable and relaxing which is why I'm fine to do this. From the testing I have done, I've come to the same conclusion as you; that is, that all locations are previously generated and therefore the same in each game. While it's too hard to get full maps of each area, there could be a listing of inns, temples, and other services. I reckon there's enough consensus agreeing that there should be individual pages if possible; so I'll get to work ASAP. AlphaAbsol (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Legends card categories[edit]

A few of us have started updating the card pages, since the templates have been updated to include Obtainable, Unique, and Subtype (thanks, Enodoc!). However, we'd like opinions on two things:

  • The idea with having Obtainable as a parameter - and in a category - is that when we eventually get cardlist pages up, we will want to display only cards that can actually be collected by the player. (Preferably a full list, and each of the category pages containing their own - attribute, rarity, etc. I'm picturing it being based on this, which was absolutely invaluable to players when that game was around to help us build decks.) Right now cards have categories such as Legends-Card-Creature-High Elf-Obtainable. Are these categories as they currently exist the best way of going about it?
  • What should we do with cards that seem to have been removed (e.g. Shimmering Scimitar, which has been replaced with Sentinel Battlemace)? Should that be an optional parameter? Should they have a special category? (Again, how should they behave in cardlists?)

~ Alarra (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have Legends, so I don't know specifically how these pages would be used, but hopefully I can still comment on implementation.
  • The example you've given from Rage of Bahamut relies heavily on Semantic, as it uses the #set and #ask functions to store data and create the table. Without Semantic, we can't create the table in the same way, but we would hopefully be able to do something similar using #save and #load from Meta (and possibly even #listsaved, but I've not used that one before so I'm not sure how it works). Another way to create a table would be to use DPL, which I've used before, but I'm not sure if we have that installed here either. Definitely if we were to use DPL, and possibly if we only use Meta, we wouldn't need individual Obtainable categories. For DPL, we'd only need Legends-Cards-Obtainable, and we'd take the intersection of that one with each of the other necessary categories.
  • Is Legends still in beta? If so, there's probably not much need to hold on to removed cards, unless you want a single page to list them all on. For ESO, anything that was in beta or PTS and disappeared before launch is only mentioned in notes, if it's mentioned at all.
--Enodoc (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It still is in beta, and I think a note "X was called Y during the beta" (or notable changes, such as Staff of Storms once being neutral) would suffice. I expect quite some cards to change , some even several times (for example Edict of Azura, which was Anihilate, and Raze before that).
I have no Idea on the technical nature of assembling such lists, but we may want to consider creating categories for specific keywords (guard, pilfer, last gasp...), and creating lists for them, too -- SarthesArai Talk 09:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree to simplifying all of the long-winded unobtainable categories into just Legends-Cards-Unobtainable.
However, I disagree with grouping by keyword, as many keywords are conditional.
While I'm here, just a quick question: Should Blood Magic have its own category? - KINMUNETALK﴿ 10:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should be displaying creature subtypes like "Creature (Argonian)" in the infobox, since that's not how it's displayed in-game. Strictly speaking there is no "Creature" card type. —Legoless (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel that it's the best way to describe those cards, and that having a type/subtype is the most useful to users who are coming to the wiki to help build a deck. The glossary in-game also describes Creature as a type, and the others as subtypes of Creature: "The card types in The Elder Scrolls: Legends are Action, Creature, Item, and Support. Creatures have individual types of their own, such as Wood Elf, Orc, and Daedra." ~ Alarra (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
All the subtypes are already listed exclusively on LG:Creatures. Aside from categorization purposes I don't see a need to use that word in the infobox unless it appears on the card; it's implied that an Argonian card is a Creature, and it's described as such in the article's opening sentence. —Legoless (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated ESO Zone Colouring[edit]

With the release of One Tamriel, two colour schemes we've been using here are now deprecated. The first is the ON-icon-VeteranLarge (color).png Adventure Zones colour, which existed to indicate zones that were only available to Veteran characters. The second is the Battle Leveling colour, which indicated zones that used battle levelling, and the level that players were scaled up to in those zones.

Craglorn is now just like any other zone, just with a few group-focused areas. If we were to keep the existing colouring for Craglorn, what would that now indicate, and what should we replace the "Veteran zone" icon ON-icon-VeteranLarge.png with to match? The standard icon for a Neutral location is the Ouroboros ON-icon-Ouroboros.png (except for Guild-run and Daedric locations), but that is usually paired with standard colouration.

I also noticed that Wrothgar, which is a Neutral zone, is using the Neutral colour but is using the Orc heraldry icon, presumably to indicate affiliation to the Orsimer Kingdom. If Craglorn is to retain its own colouring, should we define a new colour for Wrothgar too, to go with its icon? This would then introduce a precedent for the upcoming Vvardenfell to need a colour of its own too.

Thoughts? --Enodoc (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't see too much use in keeping the battle level colour scheme around in any meaningful way, but I don't see the harm in keeping the Craglorn colours. Unlike DLC zones, Craglorn still defies generic categorisation in its current free to play hybrid form. If Coldharbour gets a colour scheme, so should Craglorn. I agree with replacing the Veteran icon with the ouroboros though.
That's not to say DLC zones shouldnt get a non-generic colour though, to distinguish them from unzoned areas perhaps. Not sure what that would look like though, and it would get a little confusing with green IC pages and generic coloured DLC-specific unzoned areas. I added those Orc icons to Wrothgar pages to match what we've been doing with certain unzoned places but I'm not wholly convinced it needs its own colour scheme as well. —Legoless (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

New maps and statistic data[edit]

Hi everyone!

I would like to contribute to the wiki some maps and statistics on lore and ingame information, but I would like to consult with the community the format and nature of some of these contributions.

1. The maps.

I have some little thematic maps that I think could be a good addition to some articles, but I don't think if i must change the style or the fonts. If you have another suggestion, please let me know. A near finished example, a bit too dark maybe:

-Ashlander settlements in Vvardenfell (Sorry I don't know how you put external images in smaller sizes):


2. Statistic data.

I don't know if you had any discussion about what data are interesting to exhibit in UESP and what not, but I have also collected a huge amount of data of statistic nature.


-A very detailed demographic distribution of NPCs in Morrowind, by settlement ruling faction, by cultural affiliation, by region. A lot of little details in Oblivion and Skyrim demographics too.

-The exact number of interior cells in Skyrim, Oblivion or Morrowind, the objects x cell in great amount of cells and their median (probably the possibility to make a exact total median of every game object x cell in future).

-The total number of unique dialogue lines in Morrowind, median of words x line, topics with more different answers etc. The exact count of words in different dialogue lines in skyrim (WIP).

-The exact word count of TES games books, the median of each game, a classification of books by word average, etc.

The demographic data I asume that is ok, but do what do you think about include "game internal data" and "where/how", new list-pages?

--Illo (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, we aren't very fond of user-generated content here at the UESPWiki, I doubt your maps will get a great resonance, I'm sorry...
We have some Demopraphics pages, but I don't think they are not of a great relevance. Of course, if you have something to add, feel free to do so. -- SarthesArai Talk 13:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for answer.--Illo (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
For content like this you can always add it as a user sub-page like User:Illo/Statistics1 and then get direct feedback on each page. If the statistics are verifiable they might be eventually added to an "official" page. We tend to like to put only verified official content in the main namespaces. You can add your map on your user page or subpage but when uploading it make sure you name it something that identifies it as a user made image (or likely some admin will help rename/categorize it). -- Daveh (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy 21st[edit]

Cheers, the UESP can now legally drink in the US! At leas, it's Fall. The actual day was unfortunately not recorded, for posterity, as far as I am aware. We should probably decided on some date as the "official" day. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Twenty-one years old, eh? Best be bustin' out that special vintage brandy soon, since this is a special occasion!
Congratulations, Dave, for keeping the dedication up for this series for so long and enabling over two decades of fans from around the world and web being able come together as friends and create such a great community. It's been a fun ride so far, and long may it continue, skipper! -damon  talkcontribs 17:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Happy birthday UESP! It's hard to believe that it's been around for as long as it has. Seriously, it's a few months older than me. It's been through so many changes over the years and it has seen a lot of people come and go, but it just keeps on trucking along. I don't mean to get all sappy, but I love you guys and I love what everyone has done to make UESP what it is. Here's to another great year! Lorenut (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Quest Icons[edit]

Bringing back an old discussion since there now are different icons seen in-game for quests: ON-icon-quest-index.png Is the standard one, but there's also a blue version for repeatable quests, as well as an icon with a plus symbol in the corner to indicate quests which are meant for a group - mainly used in Craglorn as far as I know. I haven't found the official graphics for these new icons - they don't seem to be in the latest icon-pack from the data-miner, but if you've played the game since Update 12 you know what I'm talking about. I think it would be helpful to add these icons to the Quest Link template, similar to how icons appear with the Place Link template. Also might be worth adding to the quest pages themselves, maybe in the upper-right corner, or the quest description, not sure which would be best. Just opening up the discussion here so we can work out a plan to handle these. (Ideally, one which doesn't require changing every quest page individually, though a bot might be able to take care of that.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's found in the GameUIArt download rather than in with the Icons. This image needs to be replaced with the blue repeatable marker; the brown colour was only on PTS. Not sure where we could actually place the images though. Online:Repeatable Quests already displays the repeatable icon but I suppose it could go on the individual articles too. —Legoless (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
If anyone could find these icons, I would be happy to add them to the Quest Link template and the Online Quest Header template as well, but I'll need the icons first. Alternatively someone else can add them to the templates if they want to. AlphaAbsol (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
For the most part, these are already in place where appropriate. It seems that the icons added to Console for NormalON-qico-Normal.png, Main QuestON-qico-Main.png, AvAON-qico-AvA.png, CraftingON-qico-Crafting.png, DungeonON-qico-Dungeon.png, etc have been removed again, so these icons can be put there instead. Check Category:Online-Icons-Quests, as we may have them already (there's a few group ones in there: ON-qico-Group Area.png ON-qico-Group.png ON-qico-Group Dungeon.png) --Enodoc (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I've replaced the blue quest icon, but cannot find a quest marker with a plus sign anywhere in the zip file. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, just found it myself - had some trouble with the file - it has a ".zip" extension, but wouldn't open until I changed it to ".rar". I'll see if I can find the other one. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, the icon I was seeing in game is actually this one: ON-qico-Group Area.png, not an arrow with a plus. It only shows in the quest window, not the compass. But it could be a good icon to use to identify group quests. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
At the base level, this is now implemented (to match the Journal appearance, so no icons at all for the majority of quests). There will be some tweaks needed; for example, the Undaunted story quests like Blood Relations will need to have the Group=4 parameter changed to Dungeon=4, as Group= is now the parameter for overland group quests. --Enodoc (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Turns out that specific example is invalid, as that quest never even had the Group parameter. Anyway, the parameters needed are Solo=Yes for ON-qico-Instance.png, Group=2–4 for ON-qico-Group Area.png, Dungeon=4 for ON-qico-Group Dungeon.png, Trial=12 for ON-qico-Raid.png, and Repeatable=Yes/Daily/etc for ON-icon-quest-repeatable.png (per the Journal, this one appears in the content of the header only, not as a main icon). --Enodoc (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Patroller Nomination[edit]

Hi everyone. Since it's been a while since we've had one, and people may not be monitoring the page, I just want to direct people's attention to a new patroller nomination. It's only had one vote in the five days it's been up. Robin Hood  (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

For everyone's information, the one week interval is over now, so I don't believe any more votes are accepted on the nomination from now. Thanks to everyone who voted! AlphaAbsol (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The nomination is still open, so I've been wild and rebellish and thrown in another vote. Feel free to count it out, if it isn't eligible. Hugs, Tib (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Voting has to go on for at least a week, not just one week. It can continue until an admin makes a decision. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 13:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

DF:Vampirism's FA status, with regards to KINMUNE's rewriting[edit]

KINMUNE has done more than just a "minor rewrite" on a Featured Article. How does the current drastic change and his intent to rewrite the article differently affect the status of it as a Featured Article? I'm not nitpicking that he's rewriting it, which is his prerogative, I'm asking about the FA aspect of it considering there's a large material change in the shape it was in when voted on. I can't think of any precedent for when an FA was put up to someone's desires to massively rewrite it, nor can RH70 after an IRC convo, so I wanted to put this up to a discussion. -damon  talkcontribs 03:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that since it's such a big change it should go through the voting process again to see if people still feel that it is deserving of its status. If people think it still deserves its spot, then we keep it there and if not, then it goes back into the clean up pile. Lorenut (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Lorenut's idea may be feasible if the voting process occurs after I have completed all relevant tasks on the article, which may take a while. What would happen in the meantime?
Secondly, I'd like to apologize for taking such an action without consultation of some sort; I was tired and didn't think it through. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 06:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it would probably have to go through the process again, as it's no longer the article that was initially voted on. As for the meantime, if I remember standard practice correctly, something that is tagged with a maintenance template (Cleanup, stub, incomplete, WIP, etc) is usually considered ineligible for nomination, as such a template is a direct reference to the article not meeting one of the FA criteria (content, style, completeness, or quality), so its current featured status should probably be suspended. --Enodoc (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, I agree that it should be suspended; after all, the page is being reworked. Once it's finished, it will hopefully be eligible for this status again. AlphaAbsol (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

() Given the consensus here and the strong precedent set by our 2011 revokation of Lore:Khajiit, I've revoked the article's FA status. Like Lore:Khajiit, it can go through the nomination process again, but considering our shifting standards of quality it isn't guaranteed to be restored at any point. —Legoless (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start a new topic, but similarly I added substantial information to the Skyrim:Ulfric Stormcloak article a while ago, so should it be required to undergo the featured article process again? Most of the changes were additions rather than alterations, but it still certainly changed the layout and "feel" of the article with the amount of content that was added. I was simply unaware of the Lore:Khajiit precedent or I would've brought this up sooner. Forfeit (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Given the amount of information added, it really shouldn't have been featured in the first place on the grounds of missing information. That said, substantial additions that don't change the page's layout or 'feel' wouldn't necessarily require a rethink on the featured status, because, if it was good enough before, then being more complete wouldn't change anyone's vote. In my opinion there is no need to rethink Ulfric as you successfully integrated the new information into the layout. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, most FAs have probably been improved upon since their nomination. Unless it's a serious rewriting or a significant difference compared to current standards, I don't think FA status should be rescinded automatically. That said, if people feel strongly about the changes made to SR:Ulfric Stormcloak we could do the same. —Legoless (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ESO: Lighthouses and Ayleid Ruins[edit]

Currently, we have an ESO place category called Lighthouses, based on their usage of the Lighthouse ON-mapicon-Lighthouse.png POI icon, which also contains some Buildings that are lighthouses. This goes against the standard of not mixing up POI types and Building types. Additionally, half of the places which use that icon aren't even near the sea; Greenheart is a tower in the middle of Greenshade, Riverwatch is a beacon in the middle of Cyrodiil, and The Lost Fleet is a ship graveyard in Coldharbour. I would suggest that we rename this category to Beacons, and shift into here some other watchtower/beacon POIs like Crown Point. We can then set up Lighthouses as a category to only contain lighthouse Buildings.

Also on renaming categories, there has been a discussion on Ayleid Ruins to rename that category to Elven Ruins, considering there are a number of locations with that icon on Auridon, and those are Aldmeri rather than Ayleid. I'm just mentioning this one in case anyone has any more opinions to add. --Enodoc (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with elven ruins, and moving lighthouses to beacons seems good as well. However, adding places to the Beacons category that don't have theON-mapicon-Lighthouse.pngicon will result in the same problem of having mixed POI types and Building types, so I'm agains that. -- SarthesArai Talk 14:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with SarthesArai. Elven Ruins definitely make sense, and it would enable us to create a category/page with a list of places which use that icon separate from Online:Ayleid Ruins, which list places that are actual Ayleid ruins and do not necessarily use that icon. Or we can just decide to scrap the latter category/page altogether.
Beacons (or Towers) also make sense, although if we go that way, the category should also contain only the places with this specific icon, and another one for actual beacon-like buildings can be created if needed. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Both suggestions are good. I'm fine with recategorising places like Crown Point, since we're already doing that with other unmarked places. If we wanna change that, it should be done across the board. Doing so seems like more hassle than it's worth; completing the building/POI divide is more important than unmarked categorisation in my opinion. —Legoless (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Categorising places without the specific POI icon is something we're already doing; for example, Farwatch Tower is under the Forts/Towers category, Goat's Head Oasis is under the Groves/Marshes category, Thorn Lodge is under the Estates category, and numerous delves are under relevant Ruins or Caves categories. I used Crown Point as an example since it fits better by function into Beacons rather than its current categorisation of Forts. There may be other Towers that would also be more appropriately put into Beacons rather than Forts, but the point here is to keep POIs like Crown Point in a POI category, and separate from buildings like Northpoint Lighthouse or Vulkhel Guard Watch Tower, which belong in a building category. --Enodoc (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unknown rulers in TES2: Daggerfall[edit]

Most of TES2: Daggerfall is randomly generated, as are the names of the rulers of the vassal states in Hammerfell and High Rock, except those where the rulers' names are hard-coded. In the template, this has been solved by entering "An unknown Baron" or "An unknown Duchess" or whatever the title is under "Ruler".

As it turns out, it seems the randomly generated rulers' names turn up the same each time. If the random generation consistently turns out only one possible outcome, it is for a common player indistinguishable from hard-coded information, and might as well be documented rather than "An unknown Baron" or "An unknown Duchess".

If Gilpta (which is clearly a randomly generated Redguard name) consistently turns up in-game as the Baron of Abibon-Gora for all players each time, then the template stating "An unknown Baron" is not correct. Observations seem to confirm it is Gilpta each time. The same with Lhertta (also clearly a randomly generated Redguard name) who seems consistently to turn up as Duchess of Pothago.

This fact has so far lead to discussions on the talk pages of the user Athf and of the region of Abibon-Gora. —MortenOSlash (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Does this apply to every single randomly generated ruler name, or only some of them?
  • If it's all of them, I would suggest putting the name in the template, as that's more useful, and then mentioning the setup in the Notes, something like "Unlike the rulers of the main kingdoms, whose names are hard-coded, the ruler names of the smaller city-states are technically randomly generated. However, each ruler name actually only has one possible outcome, and will therefore always be the same for any given state."
  • If it's only a few of them, I would suggest keeping the current setup, as that's more consistent, and then putting the name in the Notes, something like "Unlike the rulers of the main kingdoms, whose names are hard-coded, the ruler names of the smaller city-states are randomly generated. However, the ruler of <y> only has one possible outcome, and will always be <x>."
--Enodoc (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with Enodoc. If we really want to document the outputted names, I think they need to be rigorously tested by at least another person.--Jimeee (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
That's the issue - the names are always the same. They're technically randomized, as in they're based on locations and suchlike. Problem is, the locations and suchlike are always the same, so the 'randomized' output is always exactly the same. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Does that hold for every single one of the 30-or-so "Unknown" rulers? --Enodoc (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I still have my old DF savegame lying arround on my harddrive somewhere, and I might be willing to compile a list of all ruler's names for cross-checking (though I might take a while). -- SarthesArai Talk 17:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The most important question is, how can one tell a certain NPC is the current ruler and not just some male/female courtier, just by appearance because he/she looks ruler-like? The data for all NPCs appearing in buildings and dungeons is hard-coded in BLOCKS.BSA, which faction a NPC belongs to and which flat will be used to display the NPC. And these NPCs appearing in palaces just belong to various factions and at best one of them belongs to the "Random Rulder" faction (faction-id 856). A ruler should at least be associated with the current region the palace is located. But this is not the case, simply because there is only one stock palace for Hammerfell and one for Highrock. All palaces in Hammerfall use the same stock building, the same is true for the palaces in Highrock. So you will always encounter the same NPCs in these two stock buildings and thus all NPCs one may define as ruler will look the same. Any male ruler will look exactly like another male ruler, the same goes for female rulers. You need an unique palace for every region to make this ruler thing work, then you can adjust the various parameters for the NPCs. So the game data simply does not define any of these NPCs to be a ruler. The unique rulers on the other hand use unique faction-ids and individual flats and thus really are unique. So game data and logic indicate that it is not justified to declare any of these NPCs found in places as "the ruler" of the current region. And to make this whole matter Daggerfall-like, the random ruler's name, you can get by asking for news, and the enemy/allies relations of the various factions change twice per game-year. So I'm recapitulating, it is not justified to declare any of these "random NPCs" as a ruler because neither in-game data nor game lore are justifying such a decision.--PLRDLF (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just tested the 'randomness' of all the names of the people in various buildings with 10 different newly created characters, and its been the same each time with each new game character. Going back to Enodoc's question, yes, everybody in the building will always have the same name no matter how many times you visit said location in however many different games you play. Sure all those buildings are stock buildings with every NPC inhabiting the building having stock names, but that shouldn't mean we not include them in the pages in question. The 'capital' of each region is always going to be the city with the same name (so says so on each region's article page), and all of these cities have palaces with rulers residing in them. Yes, they don't provide any in-game purpose but claiming that Pothago is ruled by an "unknown dutchess" is simply bad wording at best, and incorrect at worst. --athf (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Having not played Daggerfall, I don't know the full details, but per PLRDLF's question, how do we know which NPC is the ruler, and not just a random noble? --Enodoc (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

() If I remember correctly from Daggerfall (it is years since I tried last, at least two computers) the rulers (with spouse) are always placed straight ahead from the entrance in the throne room in the palaces. Can anyone confirm? —MortenOSlash (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Patroller Nomination Guidelines[edit]

Currently, our patroller nomination guidelines require one month on the wiki and a minimum of 250 edits in content space. In the recent patroller nomination, a couple of objections were raised about these requirements. Given the responsibilities of being a patroller, I agree that those figures do seem a bit on the low side.

Without getting into too much detail, I can think of at least one case in the past where the one month guideline ended up not working out so well, but a longer period of time might have brought people to a different conclusion about whether the person should have become a patroller or not, so I definitely support making the amount of time on the wiki a bit longer. I'd like to suggest we raise that to a minimum of three months.

In terms of content space, I like Jeancey's suggestion of requiring 250 edits in gamespace (including Lore) rather than counting all content space edits. I'd suggest also including Template space into that figure, though, since template edits can often be an indicator of technical proficiency, which I feel is just as important as knowledge of our customary gamespace editing procedures. This would discount edits in the Category, File and UESPWiki spaces, most of which are likely to be trivial edits that don't require a lot of wiki knowledge or edits to talk-like pages (already excluded anyway).

Does anyone else have opinions on these or any of the other nomination guidelines? Robin Hood  (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The numbers date back beyond the time when less than 50 people had even 1k edits, but even now there is only a maximum of 289 people who would not immediately be disqualified by the 250 edits (assuming every edit made was included in the count). That said, increasing it to 500 would still allow 185 people the chance to apply. Also, very few people ever manage more than 250 edits a month without the help of some project that requires lots of edits, in fact only 18 people have more than 250 edits in the last 6 months. In terms of 'content' I'm not sure file or category edits have ever been included, but perhaps clarification is required so no argument on a wording change.
In terms of the time, it is somewhat odd that a lesser role requires a longer period (autopatrolled at 3 months weekly activity) in order to qualify. Anything more than a month as a minimum would have to drop the daily requirement. Given the two guidelines that address this, the disqualification could be simply 'less than one month of editing', while the suggested minimum could be '3 months of weekly activity or 6 months of more sporadic activity'. The two suggestions allow for less active users to be able to help and are largely there so there is a large pool of edits from which to evaluate someones compatibility. I don't like a required 3 months limit, while 2 months seems contrived. I do recognise that the period when a new game is released often allows for new users to very quickly reach the limits, so perhaps adding a '3 months after a new game release' line would make sure new applicants were here to stick around.
To sum up, an increase in the number of edits required would almost certainly prevent anyone from reaching it within one month, and should be high enough that even if someone does there is more than sufficient areas to evaluate their judgement. Increasing the suggested minimum time to three months is a good idea, but leaving it as suggested still allows someone to oppose a nomination on time, grounds while not disqualifying otherwise acceptable nominations. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not against increasing the time required (or even edit count). However, truth be told, I can't see how the outcome is going to be very different from what it has been, and that is because voting is required. To take an example, if a majority had thought AlphaAbsol is not up for the task we would have opposed regardless of his time here/edit count. Since these two parametres do not really determine anything for me personally, changing them will not do that either. The bigger problems are patrollers becoming inactive and the need for more editors (which we cannot do anything about). Tib (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Being the editor who was recently made a patroller, I feel a little strange responding here, but I'll still give my opinion. I personally think increasing the required amount of edits would be a good idea, as well as giving more specific information about what namespaces these edits must be in. I think 300-500 edits would be a good amount (some number between those). As for the name spaces, obviously all gamespaces would count, as well as Lore. I think Template should also be added as a namespace as it is one of the most advanced namespaces, requiring quite a bit of markup knowledge to edit (with the exception of minor edits or maintenance edits). File and Category probably shouldn't be included, as well as UESPWiki.
With regard to having a required amount of time, I feel like with a requirement of 300-500 edits it would not be necessary to increase the time spent on the wiki. If an editor could possibly make 300-500 edits in a month or just over a month, this shows that this editor probably has sufficient knowledge of the wiki to be a patroller (assuming most of those edits were not tweaks/maintenance).
Overall, I think the time requirements don't need to be changed, but it might be a good idea to increase the content requirements to 300-500 edits in gamespaces, Lore, and Template. AlphaAbsol (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The guidelines for Autopatrolled are at least one month of near-daily activity, or at least three months of at least weekly activity, and a minimum of 200 edits in content namespaces or 500 total edits. I would say that as a base, Patroller needs to be more than that, as it is a much greater responsibility (taking responsibility for everyone's edits rather than just your own), so I would suggest a guideline of 500 edits in content + Template, with a disqualification of less than 300. As for timeline, I would say keep the guideline of about a month of near-daily activity or six months of at least weekly activity before being nominated, but have a hard requirement of at least two months, to give people a chance to settle in and learn the ropes.
I thought "content space" only included gamespace and lorespace anyway, but I guess it also includes Books, General, and the TESxMod namespaces, which wouldn't technically be considered gamespaces. There's probably no need to exclude those, so as long as "content namespaces" is actually defined, I think "content + Template" would be fine for the guidelines. --Enodoc (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

() After three weeks I think its time a course of action is justified. In one week, if not rejected, I will make these changes to the nominations guidelines.

  • Active on the wiki—The community needs to know that the wiki will benefit from your actions after becoming a patroller, so it is recommended that a candidate have a period of roughly three months of weekly activity before being nominated, or a longer period of at least six months of more sporadic activity.
  • Less than 250 edits in content space—A minimum of 250 edits in content and/or template namespaces will allow the nominee's knowledge of many different aspects of wiki markup to be judged. Content namespaces are defined as the gamespaces (eg Skyrim:) and lorespac, however, all talk pages are excluded. A breakdown of edits by namespace can be found by entering a username here.
  • Less than one month on the wiki—At least one month of editing is deemed necessary to have adequately learned the policies, procedures, and guidelines used on the wiki. In the event of a new game release there will be a two month requirement for any new accounts registered between one month before the games release and three months afterward.
  • Recent nomination—If a user has been nominated with his or her consent and that nomination was either rejected or withdrawn, that nominee will not be eligible for another nomination for three months from the date of the rejection or a withdrawal if votes have been cast. This exclusion does not include nominations rejected due to any of the other immediate disqualifications.

To explain the changes: first, in the suggested bracket, the one month of daily activity is gone, I've moved the weekly requirement to 3 months and made the 6 months a more judgemental 'sporadic' definition. The daily activity over one month isn't a helpful suggestion, and consensus is leaning towards a longer period anyway (plus its a suggestion not a requirement). We have many users who would probably be worthy of a nomination but because of the 'real life' phenomenon often can't meet the weekly activity requirement, and as a judgement call I don't see this as a massive factor in determining if someone can do the job, only whether the wiki will benefit having another 'semi-active' patroller.

Second, in the immediate disqualifications, I've refined the wording to include template and then defined 'content' as gamespace and lore. I've also left the 250 edits alone, as in the 3 weeks since this discussion started the 18 users that made more than that in the last six months are still the same 18. Only 5 have made that amount in the last month, and about a dozen of our current patrollers and admins have edited in the last six months but not reached 250. Raising the number, when it excludes maintenance edits already would make it almost impossible for newer users to reach without the benefit of a new game. Not only that but raising it to 500 would only omit 3 users over the last 6 months and 1 user in the last month (compared to 250 edits), a negligible amount in my book.

Third, I've omitted the 'daily activity' part from the time required as it means nothing when its removed from the above. I've also added a longer requirement for accounts made around the time of a new release. We have a number of these high edit count accounts that come during a new game, make a pile of useful edits, then disappear into the ether. Better to make it a little harder for them to occupy our time with a meaningless nomination. Most accounts of this nature are made around the time of release, sometimes before, so I wanted to catch them with a four-month window, one before three after. I thought about a 3 month requirement was a little harsh and there is still the suggested 3 months for those who wish to use it.

Fourth. I've added an exclusion for nominations that really should not have been made. We've had a couple of these nominations and once or twice agreed to ignore the rule when the user met the requirement before the timeline. These were usually cases where the edit count was not sufficient and the nomination was immediately pulled (sometimes with votes cast). I think I have the wording right as I think its an unfair punishment to someone who might have only miscounted or got a date wrong. It should really only be rejected nominations that require time before renomination. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Although I would still prefer a hard requirement of two months on the wiki across the board (rather than just around the period of new releases), since a longer time period seems to be the initial purpose of the discussion. This would ensure that the nominee has had enough time to learn best practices. With a hard requirement at two months on the wiki, and a guideline of three months weekly editing, those who are voting would be better placed to make an informed judgement, if, for example, in those two months the nominee had edited almost daily. A month of daily activity could still technically be sufficient under the current proposal, but may not actually be enough for someone to have really experienced a broad enough spectrum of the content. Two months would also give a better perspective on someone's stickiness (ie, their commitment to sticking around). --Enodoc (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The daily activity has been removed, leaving it at a simple month required, but as I've tried to show, its almost impossible to get the required 250 edits (without a new game or huge project) inside six months, nevermind one. The basic standard is usually taken as the lowest suggestion, therefore increasing the assumed basic standard time to 3 months, and anyone undercutting that would almost be required to prove they were good value for it, as the removal of the 'month of daily activity' removes any standardised way to undercut the time. I don't feel daily activity shows or proves anything more than weekly activity does. If the time were increased to a required 2 months I don't feel it would be necessary to have that extra month around new games. Voters are entitled to reject a nomination based purely on the suggestions. The suggestions are taken from common arguments against nominations and are usually indicative of what the community deems necessary in order to successfully pass. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for picking this up, Silencer. I've had other things going on, and forgot about this completely! Robin Hood  (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Bethesda Pinball[edit]

Per this, do we actually want to bring this Skyrim "pinball table" into the scope of the wiki? We haven't really covered cameos before, such as the TF2 Skyrim item from the Steam pre-order, or the various TES Easter eggs in other Bethesda properties. That said, this seems to be officially supported and marketed by Bethesda as a product. Based on the other products from this developer, it doesn't seem to be a standalone game on most platforms; on Steam and Xbox Live it's treated as DLC to "Pinball FX2", but on PSN it's for "Zen Pinball 2", and on Android and Apple products (and the Amazon PC download?) it's "Zen Pinball". It seems this developer just has a slew of pinball games and the Skyrim table will be available on all of them.

Is this something the wiki should cover? —Legoless (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's just an extension to an existing game, I would say probably not. It doesn't seem to be a separate DLC anyway, just one part of the 'Bethesda Pinball' pack. --Enodoc (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the Skyrim table seems pretty robust for a pinball game. It looks like it actually has a rough facsimile of the Skyrim gameplay loop, i.e. inventory, sidequests, and upgrading your character to complete the main quest. If their other products are anything to go on (see this video for example), it looks like it even has cutscenes. The developer's various pinball games seem to be more like platforms for these "table" games than anything, especially since they're freeware; looking at Pinball FX2 on Steam, I'm not even sure it comes with any free-to-play tables.
The fact that it's part of a pack with other Bethesda IPs is a bit weird for our purposes, but there aren't any actual crossovers so we needn't cover the other two. —Legoless (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

One Tamriel: Mages and Fighter's Guild dailies[edit]

I'm preparing a quest hub page, similar to how we did with the Dark Brotherhood Contracts. Any suggestions for the page names? Since the Mages Guild quests are called "Madness in ..." and Fighters Guild quest "Dark Anchors in.. ", I'm unsure what to pick. Tib (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"Madness in x" or "Madness in Tamriel" maybe? Hard to come up with an appropriate page name when the game doesn't give us anything to go on. Maybe something generic like "Mages Guild Dailies" would work better. —Legoless (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, I think Madness in Tamriel would be quite funny. Dark Anchors in Tamriel would sound quite okay, as well. But I hope to hear some more thoughts about this! Does anyone strongly feel that generic name would be more appropriate?? :< Tib (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
"Madness in Tamriel" and "Dark Anchors in Tamriel" sound good to me. That goes quite nicely with the AvA hub pages Capture Keep, Capture Resource, Scout Objective and Capture Elder Scroll, which were just named by using the generic collective term. You could also have "Madness in Zone", which would potentially be considered 'more accurate', and would directly follow the same naming style as the AvA missions, but that doesn't sound as good as "Madness in Tamriel". (On that note, if I had gotten to the Dark Brotherhood contracts first, I was planning to name them "Contract: Zone" and "Contract: Zone Spree", before we decided to put them all in one page.) --Enodoc (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a side note - Enodoc, you are more than welcome to change anything about the DB contracts. I'm just really glad that we managed to collect all the information and that was the most important thing for me: now that it's done, it can certainly be adjusted. Tib (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

() A question.. right now I made tables for each alliance, but technically we don't really have these anymore. Should I go with just one table? There's only 16 locations alltogether, which could be okay in one table. Hmm, a second question, could it be possible to add the quest icons for these items so that the table doesnt look so.. boring? :( Tib (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

One table will be fine, since the Mages Guild is neutral and doesn't follow alliance divisions. What icons are you thinking of? It probably wouldn't be necessary to clutter the table with icons, but you could certainly add {{Item Link}}s to the items if you want the table to be more interesting, and those will include the icons. --Enodoc (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Planned Features" category[edit]

Would we be able to get a Planned Features category for confimred upcoming updates (player housing, Volunidai's Manor, etc) and have it accessable from ESO's main page please? I'm sure it'd make things a little less cluttered. --Rezalon (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added Player Housing to the World Information section of the main page for now, so that it's accessible. Other upcoming features, like the unconfirmed Vvardenfell, will be added to the Zones list if confirmed, and teased future content is already listed here. What sorts of things are you envisioning for this category, and how would it be maintained and presented? --Enodoc (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

One year, four thousand edits - challenge me![edit]

Time is flying by so fast... It's been great to be a part of this community and I've gotten to know some members a little bit better. Thank you all who have helped me out with all the questions and explained things to me! Well, with the Christmas nearing, I really need to work on getting on Santa's good side, and I need your help. More precisely, I've decided to take a few requests for the Online namespace.

If you have anything you'd like to see being added, information or images, something you maybe have noticed but do not have time for or cannot do yourself, let me know! No huge tasks though please! I really hope I can get some requests haha, it would be fun. Post here or on my talk page! :) I think I'll do it throughout the December, because I'm not even sure right now if and how many requests will come in. We will see :) Cheers, Tib (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think Jeancey had you beat for his first year. Man's an editing machine and could probably do a thousand a day if he felt so inclined! *whispers conspiratorially* don't tell anyone I said this, but I think he might legitimately be a machine and not a man* Anyway, congrats on a year and almost as many edits as I've got since joining in Sept. 2011! haha :) -damon  talkcontribs 15:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Collections pages always need updating if you're looking for work! I don't even wanna think about how much data we're missing from ON:Pets by now. Filling out blank NPC pages is also a big help to the namespace. —Legoless (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
*coughcough* I think I actually had 4000 edits in my first month, If I remember correctly.... I have plenty of things for you to do, but I think they fall under the huge projects heading.... Jeancey (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Transformative Instancing in ESO[edit]

I don't think this was ever discussed before, but we should really have a page explaining "transformative" instances in ESO. These occur when a certain quest-based instance of a location transforms the area significantly, usually for time-travelling purposes or whatever. All of this occurs without ever leaving the overworld, so you can walk out of this instanced scene simply by getting too far way. Eagle's Brook/Lord Velian's Plane are a good example of this, or the time-travelling quest at Glenumbra Moors. These places hardly qualify as "realms" or even distinct locations, but explaining this mechanic would be a good step towards documenting those locations fully. —Legoless (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's part of the larger mechanic called "Phasing", that in general allows some overland regions to have different "versions" (like Bleakrock Village, where the pre-quest phase contains the villagers, and the post-quest one contains the covenant enemies). It's explained in short in the fourth paragraph of Online:Megaservers, though a separate page would be in order. -- SarthesArai Talk 16:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about, but in regard to very significant changes. I dunno if every occupied city or temporary screen filter needs to be listed. —Legoless (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Then we would have to craft criterias as for what we list and what we don't, and I don't think we can make out a cut somewhere. And contrary to you, I do think all phasing locations should be listed somewhere, as phasing also means that a character who has already cleared that location can't meet one there who hasn't. -- SarthesArai Talk 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It'd have to be a very comprehensive list to include every quest where phasing occurs. I was thinking a good cut-off point would be having to step through a portal to transition. As far as I can recall, that should cover every major location change. —Legoless (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
That is really a good idea. I think it should include both temporary (eg. time travel) and permanent (clearing locations) cases. In general, like SarthesArai, I think it should cover every case when two players being in the same location can't meet each other (assuming they're in the same zone instance). Phased locations seem to exist only in starter islands, the main 15 zones, and possibly Coldharbour - I've never seen any in Craglorn, Wrothgar, Hew's Bane, or the Gold Coast. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 18:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Item Links for Quest Items[edit]

Is it possible to use the {{Item Link}} template for quest items? I've tried every combination of parameters I can think of, but all of them just produce an "Unknown Item". I think the IDs for these are not the same as for normal items. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The quest items part of the esolog has been broken for months and months. When you search for an item (eg Agolas's Journal) then click View Quest Item it goes to the home page despite having the correct url. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure those are related problems. The quest items ARE available on the esolog - where do you think I got all the data to make Quest Items? But I think the Item Link template doesn't work with that part of the database. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure they are related which is why I mentioned it. No-one even suggested they were not available on the log so I'm not sure why you are saying that. Just a simple comparison of any other item with a quest item in the log shows that there is some difference in the way they are treated, which could mean they are incompatible with the current Item Link template, or that something is indeed wrong with the log. A quest item does not generate an icon because it uses a .dds file, whereas all other items use .png. The 'link'/'itemlink' is not a link, and neither is the 'name' part of the entry. Maybe none of this is the problem with the template compatibility, but getting the log search fixed is something that can only benefit. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is possible since my 5th May edit. As shown in the template documentation, class=questitem is what you need to add to switch it to showing quest items: {{Item Link|Orb of Discourse|class=questitem|id=3922}} Orb of Discourse; {{Item Link|Altmer Cache of Blades|class=questitem|id=5444}} Altmer Cache of Blades. --Enodoc (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Templating Help for ESL[edit]

While ESL is going to be a pretty light namespace regardless, it needs a few things done to it before we can say "jobs done". Per this conversation, I need help with creating or finding a suitable template/table to display card information in a user friendly way. I experimented with this briefly here. But what I want requires a bit more involvement. I would like a table with bigger icons, the ability to display a card's magicka cost, attribute, power, health, rarity, and card text, and dialogue presented on the table. This done, we can sort our articles by keywords (such as strength, intelligence, that sort of thing), and display the content in a manner our users will probably find the most usable. Getting this done will also simplify our requirements for future updates, less work to include any new content.

Any help towards making or setting up a usable template/table for this will be massively appreciated. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere, something similar to {{Online Skill Link}} would work best for transclusion purposes. That might be a good place to start. —Legoless (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I make no claims on having any special design skills, but how's this for a simple table? Note: I updated {{Legends Card}} a few times to get it to save the necessary data, so if you decide to play in my sandbox and try values other than those that are there, it'll probably be hit-or-miss whether you get legitimate data or things like {{{power}}} in the table. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That would serve very well, yes! If we got something like that working (ideally, it also linking the name to the Legends article in question), we'd have a really excellent way to present this material. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Good work with this! Only issue is that it if values are undefined (such as power), it breaks. I would recommend it display some form of "not applicable" if there is no health or power value. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 03:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Additionally, while it's a more minor request, rarity sorting should be based on how rare it is, not alphabetically, if that can be implemented. That's everything I particularly want right now, I know Alarra would like a hideimage, hideattribute variable to be included so that this template could be repurposed for a complete card list (it's extremely resource intensive with images, so doing a complete list, instead of lists based on keywords, would be browser breaking). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. I used minimal as the parameter name, and it strips off both the image and the ability. Let me know if you actually need separate hide parameters for each. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably would be a good idea to have them separate (and type/subtype should be optionally shown/hidden too). I imagine, for instance, that on a type (e.g. Creature) page or subtype page we wouldn't need to list the type/subtype since that's what the page is about, but we would want to list the attribute/class; likewise on an attribute/class page we wouldn't need to list the attribute/class but we're gonna want to list a type/subtype to know if it's an action, a creature, etc. ~ Alarra (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What we really want as well is something that doesn't have to be put together manually, using some generation procedure like #listsaved (or, if we were to install a new extension, DPL or SMW). --Enodoc (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

() Okay, I've separated the minimal parameter into individual ones. To follow {{NPC Data}}'s convention, I used skip<whatever> for the parameter names. And yeah, I was wondering if #listsaved might come into play here. As I recall, it's somewhat limited and often ends up not helping, but it might be something to try on various pages. Let me know if there are any other changes needed. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There are still some errors, some attributes are not transcluding and there seems to be an issue with transcluding type in some cases as well. See Legends:Argonian#Cards for an example of both these issues. Although, once this is resolved, it'll definitely look better. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Edit: per later testing, it appeared to be some odd caching error. The template works fine now. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. listsaved almost works, using that Argonian page as an example:
{{#listsaved:Card Data|subtype=Argonian|namespace=Legends|name|cost|attribute|class|power|health|rarity|image|ability|type}}
If we can work out a solution for that {{{1}}} issue, that would do it. --Enodoc (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Note, I'm still seeing issues right at the moment. Any help with that would be massively appreciated. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
After some finagling, I managed to get a repeatable solution. From what I can see, the page doesn't want to rebuild the info being transcluded, so the additional fields often don't appear correctly. To fix this if you see it, purge the source page, then the page the information is being transcluded to. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the {{{1}}} issue. As for the caching, I was getting that intermittently on the docs as well (it displayed fine when looking at the template page, but not on the /Doc page itself). Thanks for investigating how to fix it! Robin Hood  (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

() The {{Card Data}} template seems good so far. Here's my thoughts on it: The template should take its type (e.g. Support, Action, Creature) and only display the power/health if it's a creature. In addition, if it's a support card it should display uses/ongoing (in the same column). Right now, I think that instead of (or accompanying) the text saying the attribute, it should show the symbol for that attribute. As an ornament, it could display some sort of symbol for unique card. Also, we should have some sort of tooltip template, similar to {{Item Link}} for when a card summons another, in the following format: "Name; Cost; Power/Health (if applicable); (ability, with <br>s converted to commas or somesuch.); (uses, if applicable.)" The style I have suggested mimics the way that cards in the game do that, e.g. what you get if you hover over Ungolim the Listener in-game. - KINMUNETALK﴿ 07:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Legends Card Template[edit]

There were a number of things that were changed or left open-ended in developing the {{Legends Card}} template, and I'm wondering if I should do a quick bot run to update them and then simplify the template. Since I don't play Legends or contribute to the space beyond basic fixes, I'm looking for opinions of those who do.

  • name: no longer necessary in most cases, can be removed if it matches the page name.
  • power/attack: these are redundant to one another, should I just change them all to power?
  • health/defense: ditto, change to health?
  • class/attribute: similar situation here, but they're technically names for different things and the text that says "Class" or "Attribute" is updated based on which parameter is used. Should one of these be renamed, should they both be renamed into something that covers both concepts (e.g., classattribute or something shorter with "Class/Attribute" as the text), or just leave things as they are now?
  • flavortext: we assumed that some cards could have flavour text in them once things were out of beta, but this doesn't appear to be the case, and the parameter is unused. In this case, there would be no bot changes necessary, but should I remove this from the template itself? Robin Hood  (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
We should drop power/attack to just power, health/defense to just health, leave class attribute alone (use the appropriate one per the situation), and remove flavortext and name. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, this is all done. There were two cases where the card name didn't match the page name that'll need to be checked out: Renowned Legate and Tower Alchemist. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Those were just a case of missing updating text I copy-pasted, so I've updated those pages. Thanks for catching those! ~ Alarra (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)