UESPWiki:Community Portal

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: Policies and Guidelines — A category listing of policies and guidelines, which each have individual pages; their talk pages are the best place to discuss these policies (see Active Discussions for links to active policy discussions). Administrator Noticeboard — If you have a request that requires an administrator, you may want to post your comments there. Reference Desk — This is the best place for questions about how to play Elder Scrolls games. Community Portal/Templates — Technical issues regarding templates and related issues can be discussed on this page. 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

Maps Re-Working

I'm going to have to upgrade the interactive Google maps to use the v3 API shortly (v2 API is being deprecated) and figured I might as well see what other map features and work can done at the same time. I've listed a bunch of things below but feel free to add other items. I'll gather the list in a week or so and see which ones I can easily implement.

• Skyrim

• Colored maps
• DLC maps
• Ingredient and ore locations (probably in the same format that Nephele did for Oblivion)

• General

• Update to use the v3 API
• Option to disable location display
• Look at location label format
• General format/style/UI update particularly with any new API v3 options
• Printable map?
• Offline map?
• App for mobile?
• Roads/paths?

• Other Things

• Streetview (probably not worth the effort)
• Interior maps (may be nice but likely hard/impossible to automate their generation and thus very time consuming given the number of interior cells)
• Interactive user editing: Users could mark-up a map (add locations, notes, paths, etc...) which would be saved and shared with other users. Unsure of the usefulness of such a feature given how much effort would be required to create it.

Keep in mind that not all features listed here will be implemented. If anyone wants to help work on the map coding just let me know. -- Daveh ^(talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (GMT)

The colour-coded icons from the discussion above would be nice. Right now, I believe the only way to do it would be to implement separate icons for each hold. If we can have a hold list (with some back-end programming to pick the right colour), or perhaps just a straight-forward colour drop-down, that should do it. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:40, 7 March 2013 (GMT)

Note that I didn't make every icon in every color, only the ones we'd actually need. Making all of them would mean 580 icons, instead of just 205, so more than half of them would not be used. That might preclude (or at least complicate) a "drop-down" option if such a drop-down were expecting all 10 colors to exist... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) While we're upgrading this, can we do anything to make the map editor easier to use? It's seriously confusing figuring out how to do something as simple as add a map marker. I always end up just clicking buttons at random and often reentering the info several times before it actually takes. It's ridiculously unintuitive. Something that allows click-and-drag for marker placement would be much better. Also, having to scroll down the page to see the controls is very much not ideal, since scrolling also zooms on the map, which can make you completely lose your place. I think the edit tools should be on the side, (making the map box itself smaller on the editing page) so there's no page scrolling required at all. Either that or in some kind of pop-up. I hope the v3 API addresses some of these issues, because it's just a pain to use as it is right now. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2013 (GMT)

The edit thing is entirely custom and was done very quickly without any consideration for ease of use. It was intended to be rarely used so getting a nice design wasn't a priority. Since we're using it more often now it is definitely something I can look at improving. -- Daveh ^(talk) 21:04, 8 March 2013 (GMT)

Another useful thing would be the ability to tag icons according to which DLC they come from, then turn those icons on or off, either dynamically or as a preference setting. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

Layer capability would be good. Several requests for DLC or mod related versions of the map have been voiced. If the API is to be used for other TES titles - like Arena or Daggerfall - then perhaps standards for what features are implemented for each program might be useful. Igor van Dame (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

Maps on pages which don't feature the location

Moved from User talk:TheRealLurlock.

There shouldn't be any orphan pages in the lore section. Every page should have a category. So if there's no category for it, and it can't stand up as an appendix, then it shouldn't exist in the first place. Their function is to narrow down the scope of prospective pages to reduce duplicative and/or overbroad coverage, but that doesn't work if we tolerate orphans. We don't have a dictionary (anymore), so I don't see why we should even have a foyadas page at all. All of its information can easily be shifted to Lore:Foyada Mamaea anyways.

Regardless, if you want to continue your eradication of it from Lore:Places, you might want to check out the multi-topic page. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:26, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

On a tangentially related topic, I think this is a good example of why including a map which doesn't actually show the place at issue is beneficial: to get an idea of where the Deshaan Plains are, people are going to want to know where the Thir River, the Valus Mountains, and Narsis are located. The map doesn't label the Valus Mountains, and it doesn't depict the full extent of the Thir River, but it does show Narsis, and from that, readers can get a rough idea of the location and size of the plains. I think the concerns about misleading people are minimal, but even so, could be absolved entirely with proper image descriptions. So I'm planning on continuing that habit because I think it's helpful to readers. If you really think it's worth your time, you can take them down, and I won't make an edit war out of it, but I still think it's the right thing to do. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:18, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

To be fair to TRL, I removed that one (and I have removed others in the past), which was unrelated to TRL removing one earlier. I think that it doesn't mislead the reader, I just don't think it is useful if it doesn't show it. With no indication of where the plains begin or end, it is hard to tell anything about the plains at all. That being said, I swear I saw a map with the plains listed on it somewhere around here... I will look for it later. Jeancey (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Again, with the proper image descriptions, it doesn't hurt anyone to have an image which doesn't explicitly label the topic place. It can, however, be very convenient to readers to present a map showing the landmarks that have been referenced in the text to give its position. So it's my firm belief that the images that have been removed hurt no one and could help a large percentage of readers. Anyways, like I said, I'll continue to do what I can to help each page. If you're all satisfied that a page has actually been improved each time your name shows up on its edit history, then by all means, keep doing what you're doing. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:31, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Having "Foyada" in the Places category makes about as much sense as having an article called "Lore:Mountain" or "Lore:River". It's a type of geological feature, not a specific place. It's entirely possible that foyadas could exist outside of Morrowind. (Though it is an Ashlander word and there's no other active volcanoes that we know of in Tamriel, so not likely.) As for the maps, it makes no sense to show a map that does not feature the location the article is about. This is specifically stated on the Lore Places Project page. What we could do is come up with some maps which do show the locations. Possibly either by adding them to the existing image, or maybe using the {{Image Mark}} template, but you'd have to know the exact location to use that properly. Having a map there makes the user want to look at the map, and if they sit there and stare at it trying to find a location that isn't there, we're wasting their time. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

On the foyadas: I agree. To clarify, I only added the template because I was on auto-pilot; I'm not in favor of it in the lore. In fact, I'm not in favor of its existence. There have been several pages I've skipped because they're undeserving of any attention, and Foyada should've been one of them. My only point was that an improperly categorized page should be properly categorized, or proposed for merger and/or deletion, but we should refrain from leaving orphaned pages.

On the images: my goal is to present what relevant information we have. It's irrelevant what information we wish we had. As it stands, Lore:Deshaan Plains and others omit relevant information. You talk about wasting the users' time, but we're needlessly making the potential uninformed user out there hunt for images elsewhere to aid in his/her understanding of the subject page. There's no point in holding anything back on what we know about it. Many of these pages are just scraps of data; there are entire pages formed around one name on one map, or one line of dialogue mentioning a location in passing. We present what we know, that's all we can do. The maps are not ideal, but they're what we have, and there's nothing wrong with a placeholder image which improves the page until something better can be made. A nebulous but relevant image should encourage people to make a better one, not to retard what we have to offer now.

The old adage stands that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you try to put yourself in the mind of a new user, and how to best help them comprehend the subject of a page, a version which has a properly-captioned map of the region where a topic place is found is going to be more helpful than a version which has no image at all. I feel that should be abundantly clear. There's absolutely no point in purposefully retarding the helpfulness of the current pages; it will not magically prompt better images to appear. So, if you don't like how a relevant image might mislead a few people, the solution is to clarify in the description, not omit the image. From my perspective, that's tantamount to vandalism, so I hope you'll understand my concern on this issue and forgive the length of this rant.

I'm trying to expand the use of a beneficial template that was improved by members of the Lore Places Project. I am not a member of the project precisely because I don't want to bind myself to detrimental policies based on well-meaning but misguided fine print. I agree with its goal, but with this particular emphasis, it can't see the forest for the trees. Of course we should be working to improve the pages, and we "should" not have images that don't label a settlement or region. But if giant leaps aren't available for the foreseeable future, small steps will have to do. When there are better images available, assuming they ever are, I'd be more than happy to help implement them. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 03:57, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Actually, with ESO coming out fairly soon, we probably will have better maps in the near future, perhaps even ones which feature the locations in question. Having a map which doesn't feature the location is just silly. Imagine if Wikipedia's article on Chicago just featured a map which is an outline of the state of Illinois with no labels on it. It would make no sense at all. Deshaan Plain is the worst example too, because it's not a city with a specific location but just a region, so you can't even specify its extent by looking at an unlabeled map. Honestly in my opinion, if we don't (and possibly won't ever) even know enough about a location to write more than a sentence about it, like not even knowing exactly where a place even is, I don't think it even needs its own page. Maybe we should just make it a redirect to the entry on the Places page instead. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

There are literally billions of images of Chicago. We have two or three maps that give any detail of mainland Morrowind. Of course our standards must be different, and what doesn't make sense is to hold the pages to this artificial, unhelpful standard. People have made many pages in the past that I wouldn't have put the time into making, but comprehensive treatment generally wins out, because what they've done is not really wrong. And once there's a page, there's no point in redirecting it to a multi-topic page, as the additional dressings of a proper page is minimal.

To run one more tired phrase at you, if it's not broken, don't fix it. And the most relevant map we have available on a place is not broken, it's just not everything an image on the subject could be. Deshaan plain is only a poor example right now because some of the information we have on it is apparently false. We can't reliably specify the extent of many topographical regions in the games, so that's a pointless argument. Tenmar Forest, the Alik'r Desert, etc., none of them have very well-defined borders. Elder Scrolls Online is still "TBA 2013"; a potential December release, assuming they even keep that time frame, is not "fairly soon", and that's not any kind of argument against including a relevant image now. There's no point in speculating how useful ESO could prove at providing images for the various place pages. In the here and now, removing the images only hurts the readers. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:49, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm moving this from my talk page because I hate arguing on the internet, and I feel like other people should have some input into this. Look. The fundamental - nay the ONLY purpose of a map is to show you where something is. A map which does not perform that most basic function of maps is not only a failure as a map, but downright misleading, as it breaks the user's expectation of what a map is supposed to do. I would rather have no map at all that one which lies to the viewer by implying that it contains information which it in fact doesn't. Slapping a general picture on there just because you feel like a page needs to have a picture on it is pointless. You could just as easily put a map of all of Tamriel with a caption "Hey, it's in there somewhere...". It's useless. If so little is known about a place that we can't even come up with more than 2 sentences or a map showing its location, that page has simply has no reason to exist. Stub articles are created with the expectation that at some point they will become full articles. If a location is only vaguely mentioned once in a book somewhere, it's hardly worthy of mention (other than on a list page maybe), because that page will probably always be a stub (barring any new information we get from ESO.) I'd rather have that information in one convenient location (the list pages), instead of wasting the user's time clicking on a link that takes them to a page with almost no information on it. Anyhow, I've stated my case, I'm bowing out of this discussion because as previously stated: I hate arguing on the internet, and I'd rather not have this crap on my talk page anymore. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Edit Break 1

I'm going to use the Deshaan Plain as a representative example to highlight the only real issue in the above remarks. Take a look at this sandbox, and then this sandbox. I think it's self-evident that the version with the image is going to be more helpful for the reader than the version without it. Does that make sense to people? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 21:17, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

I think having a map of the general area, with the text referring to points marked on the map while describing it's location is preferable. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:05, 24 April 2013 (GMT)

More CK Info

We use the Creation Kit a lot on this wiki, but have little info on it. We have video tutorials and links to the CK wiki, but honestly, those did little for me when I was trying to learn how to use the tool--they were too technical or long-winded (I don't want to watch a long video to figure out that I need to be in the right worldspace and in the cell window to find a cell... which I had trouble doing, once upon a time). I'd like to add a page or two on CK navigation for people new to it: How to find an item, what the CK categories mean, how to maneuver about in a cell, etc. Like a little pocket guide to using the CK. Could put it under SR:Creation Kit/How to Use, maybe with an extra /Hints page if I find enough info to add to it (like deleting objects that get in your way, if you're not modding). I realized I was adding a lot of info about just how to navigate around a single cell in Krusty's sandbox, which wouldn't be necessary with a page on getting around in the CK. I also plan on supplementing the article(s) with images.

Any objections? Suggestions on location? It's not going to be a huge project, but anyone interested in helping will be encouraged to edit my sandbox(es). Vely^►t►e 22:15, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I wouldn't be opposed to a short? page on how to use, but for detail can't we just send people to the CK official wiki? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:17, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Is there ever a time we shouldn't cover an ES related topic just because another site is doing it? I'm all for more CK stuff if you want to add it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:23, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Sure, for some detail, but I personally think information there is hard to find. Like, I could explain how to rotate a room and see what an item is, and I could tell you where to find certain items in the item lists, but I wouldn't go into detail about how to build houses or create scripts. I might mention how to place items, but only because you literally just click and drag. I want to aim it towards navigating the CK, with very little info about modding or how to change values--I just want to cover the basics of where and what everything is, with a little info on how to move about or understand things. It should be a sizeable page, but not a monstrous one. Vely^►t►e 22:26, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Very well. I think some useful tips would be welcome. Just put it under SR:Creation Kit and a single page would be enough. It is meaningless to cover every aspect of the CK. Copy the content of another website and reword them into USEPwiki pages? I don't think it's a wise choice. From my point of view, a single page and some tips would be enough. After all, we should focus on teaching reader how to use CK to IMPROVE OUR PAGES. I'm for Vely. Dreamshadow (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

SR:Creation Kit is about the CK itself, not anything detailed; a subpage is necessary. Additionally, it would ideally be useful for improving pages, but I'd also like to make it handy for aspiring modders as a little navigation guide. Not much modding info though. Vely^►t►e 23:38, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

This shouldn't even be a discussion. The CK is developed for an Elder Scrolls game. Vely knows the CK stuff and is willing to write about it. We need more persons knowledgable about the CK. Let's get it going and be grateful that we can actually point somewhere but the other wiki when people have trouble or wants to check something out. --Krusty (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) I think this is a great idea, Vely. Too many times I've tried doing something in the CK that I couldn't figure out how to do, and I've maybe only once found the information at the CK Wiki helpful. I agree that it's not necessary to turn it into a modder's guide, but a few how-tos for the things we commonly use the CK for would be awesome.

As for a title, how about SR:Using the Creation Kit? ⇠eshe^talk 20:12, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Isn't this the whole point of the TES5Mod namespace? That's where we've put similar articles for the Morrowind and Oblivion Construction Sets (in TES3Mod and TES4Mod respectively, of course). I don't think it should be in the Skyrim namespace, though it should be linked from Skyrim:Skyrim, and possibly from the sidebar as well. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Ah, so there is. I forgot it existed, maybe because the CK wasn't there. Tes5Mod:Using the Creation Kit would be a good spot, I think, per eshe's suggestion. Vely^►t►e 22:06, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Personally, I think that Tes5Mod:Creation Kit Usage would be a bit cleaner. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:10, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, I was thinking "Using the Creation Kit" might be helpful from a search standpoint, but I suppose "Creation Kit Usage" would probably work just as well. Either way, I think it would be a great help. ⇠eshe^talk 16:01, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) Has this been started yet? I would be willing to help with this project, but can't find where it's being worked on. -- Musicman247 ^(talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Not yet, but I can get on it today--classes are finally over. I can set up a basic outline, and then you can work on something in your own personal sandbox to avoid any edit conflicts. I'll make it clear what I'll be working on first, too, if I can make it organized enough. Vely^►t►e 18:56, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Sounds good. Having a list of things that should be on the page will help in making sure we don't add anything superfluous. Do you want to add that to your sandbox? We could check off things as we work on them individually. -- Musicman247 ^(talk) 19:06, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Just stick the stuff under headers; I sorted it like it's sorted in the CK, mostly. The TOC keeps it clean. Once you've finished a part you can stick it back in my sandbox if you did it in your own. Here it is. Vely^►t►e 19:34, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Small Place Categories

As part of Helena's Oblivion House project, I've been preparing the information that needs to be created, and in the process, I'm discovering all kinds of wonderful inconsistencies, thus prompting my various recent minor changes/fixes. One of these inconsistencies is the use of the city parameter on {{Place Summary}}. Clearly, it was intended that this parameter be used for major cities. What's less clear, at least in Oblivion space, is whether or not we should be using it for smaller locations. For example, several locations in Hackdirt declare Hackdirt as being the city, while others like Aleswell Inn declare the location as a location. The difference, as you might guess from the subject, is whether or not a Place category gets added or not. Does anyone have any preferences as to whether we only declare major cities or whether we declare them all?

I ask, both because this affects what the bot does with the info it's got, as well as to know for myself if I should be making these consistent by removing towns and villages as "cities" or whether I should be adding them and creating the relevant categories, even if they only have one or two locations in them. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:22, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

I think only the major cities should be using the city parameter, smaller settlements should use the town= parameter, and everything else should be the loc= parameter. Jeancey (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

There is no town parameter on Place Summary or that would make it much easier to decide. :) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:22, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

Well, the obvious solution then is to add town to the Place Summary template. That would solve a lot of issues, I think. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

Or settlement, or something of the sort. That would mirror NPC Summary, which has a city, town and loc parameter. Jeancey (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

At this point, it would be a redundant parameter one way or the other, though it at least opens up the possibility of future expansion without breaking anything, but it still leaves the question of whether or not to create categories for each individual town. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:34, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

I'd say probably not - as quite a few of them would only have one or two entries, so it'd be kind of silly. Of course, you could maybe add categories optionally, using a nocat param to exclude them or something. But that's more work. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

It might be redundant, but it could change how it is displayed or rather, display something new depending on if it is a city or a town. Jeancey (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

Word Wall Template Slow Update

I think there's a bit of a problem with the current template used to display the word wall text on Skyrim shout pages. It's not critical exactly, but it's kind of annoying. The problem is that every time anyone makes even a small edit to a shout page, even if it's not at all related to the word wall part of it, it completely screws up the text in the translation panel. This can be fixed with a simple Purge of the page, and will ultimately fix itself when the page auto-purges (which may take several hours), but this leads to problems: First, anyone who isn't a Patroller or higher doesn't have access to the Purge feature, and even those who do have access to it might not know about it or that they should do so after editing a shout page. They may not even realize that their edit has caused this glitch to occur, or if they do, they may think it is their fault and revert their own perfectly valid edit in attempt to fix it - which won't work of course, since a revert is just another edit and will cause the glitch again. It makes the page appear broken, and those who can't or don't know how to fix it may get confused, and be frightened away from ever making edits to these pages.

Is there a way to redesign this template so that it doesn't have this drawback? Maybe keep the Word Wall data on a sub-page and transclude it so that it doesn't try to reload the template every time unless you specifically edit the Word Wall section? I don't think there are any other templates that have this exact issue. Some templates may depend on changes made on other pages, like the list entry things in book/ingredient/etc. pages. But as far as I know, no other template breaks when you edit the same page that the template lives on, even when editing things outside of the template. Or is there some way we can just make it so that all pages automatically purge after every edit? (How serious an impact would that have on the servers? If it's severe, we could maybe find a way to only auto-purge after edit on pages using certain templates - some magical keyword in the template itself might help with this sort of thing. I don't know how technically feasible that is though.) I also wonder why page purging is a restricted feature in the first place? What possible harm could come from allowing anyone (even anonymous IPs) to purge a page if needed? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2013 (GMT)

Anyone can purge pages. Elliot (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2013 (GMT)

I believe this is the same problem that's been happening with all of our templates that use #save/#load, either directly or indirectly. You often see it with pages that use the ribbon template or a page icon. Purging or null editing can fix the issue for those that know how to do it. I was hoping that Alfwyn would find the problem, but I don't know how deeply he looked into it, then he ended up leaving, so it became a moot point. I'll look over that issue when I have some time, though my knowledge of PHP and MediaWiki's API is minimal, so I don't know how far I'll get. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 07:27, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

Hmm, I thought purging was restricted to only some users - been a while since I've looked at the site while "out of uniform" as it were. Even so, the point still stands that while maybe anyone CAN purge a page, I still doubt that most people know HOW to do so, or are even aware the option exists, judging by the frequency with which I've had to purge pages (mostly just shout pages) myself after somebody edits them. (I don't think purges are logged anywhere, but it's been quite a few times.) Yes, this does apply to all templates using #save/#load, but as far as I know, the shout pages are the only ones that load data from themselves, and as such will require a purge every time. Other pages that are problematic include ingredient pages, book pages (mostly just the gamespace ones, not the Lore versions - my original design for those book icons required THREE pages to be purged on every edit, which is why I changed it to only be used on the gamespace pages - also less overall impact caused by minor edits to the book text, such as adding links, sic tags, etc.), place pages and quest pages, both of which may have descriptions which appear using certain link templates. These are generally less severe and page-breaking compared to the shouts though, and given that the shouts are only loading data from themselves, it seems like there should be a better way to do this. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

I don't think loading from themselves makes it any better or worse. When I was doing the non-relevant NPC data in MW space, I had to have the bot save and null-save every non-relevant NPC page it edited or else the data wouldn't load properly in {{NPC Data}}. Even if loading from the same page makes a difference, there are a few others pages where that happens that I can think of, such as the base DLC pages (e.g., Dawnguard) as well as the ribbon examples on the various project pages.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way saying that re-writing the template is a bad idea. It's just that for myself, if I'm going to focus my energy somewhere, I'd rather focus it on studying Nephele's code and seeing if I can find a global fix for our problems. Even if I'm still at the level of a dabbler, I think Dave and I are the only active members who have any experience with PHP/MediaWiki (and 2/3 of the active members who have access to it), whereas we have several good template coders. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:22, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

Oh, and as far as purging goes, I seem to remember that we used to have some restrictions there, but as it stands now, anybody can purge, though IP users, and maybe non-auto-confirmed users(?) get asked if they really want to do that. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:24, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

Tense vs. MWTense

We currently have two approaches to the same problem - verbs used to describe content in Morrowind should be in the present tense on Morrowind pages and past tense on Lore pages. I feel like we should maybe consolidate these two and get rid of one of them. Here's a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each:

	{{Tense}}	{{MWTense}}
Pros	Only need to supply one tense of the verb, it translates automatically. Works in other namespaces besides Morrowind.	No vocabulary limits since you supply both tenses. This means no need to ever edit the template just to add more words.
Cons	Limited vocabulary. Must edit template to add words, which can cause server lag if it's used in a lot of places.	Only works for Morrowind pages. Must supply both tenses.

Now, I personally favor the MWTense approach (I'll admit I'm biased since I created it). As for its cons, these can be improved on: the check for the Morrowind namespace can be easily changed to a check for anything except Lore, which is how Tense works. So far, at least, there's been very little use for either template except for Morrowind content, so this change should have little consequence. I imagine ESO will require something similar, but we'll solve that problem when we get to it. I don't see that it's too big a problem to have to supply both words when using this template, especially given that the alternative is that every verb we could possibly need must be added to the template, inevitably requiring the template to be frequently edited any time new words need to be added. I think we'd be best served changing MWTense to work for all non-Lore pages instead, deleting Tense, and moving MWTense in its place. We could even consider adding an optional 3rd parameter for namespace on the off-chance we need it (say, in a Lore article about a location that existed in Skyrim back in the 2nd Era, but not in the 4th - which would need to be in present tense for ESO, but past tense if it appears in Lore or Skyrim articles). I don't think it's likely that would be needed often, but it can be added just in case. I'm willing to hear an arguments in defense of the current Tense template, but one thing I don't think we should be do is to keep both of them around. It's redundant and inconsistent. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

I have recently also used MWTense for books where the text is slightly different in the Morrowind version from the Oblivion and Skyrim versions. It is also being used to add information to Morrowind pages during transclusion but not to the lore page itself. Basically, it allows you to include things in specific namespaces where otherwise you would have to use a complicated namespace check. That's one reason that I advocate for adding the namespace parameter, so that if a book is slightly, say a word is misspelled in one and not the other, it can be easily dealt with using this template. Jeancey (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

It's not hard at all to add vocabulary to Template:Tense. Even a template illiterate like myself can do it. While I don't know just how stressful increasing it's vocabulary can be on the site, I greatly prefer the ease of use that one-parameter template offers to editors. It's veritably idiot-proof. So long as it is able to function properly as more words are added, I would opt for that. However, I don't see why we need to force the community to use one or the other. We have two templates for unsigned talk page comments, for example. Users may take advantage of whichever one they prefer, and there's nothing wrong with allowing that choice. I don't see why we should take this choice away. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:19, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

{{OBTense}} and {{BMTense}}. Would there really be any difference in namespace tense words "is/was"? They are good for changing words as Jeancey has done, but surely three specific versions are redundant (I only created the Oblivion one because I didn't know about the standard one). Would it not be easier to have one template with namespace parameters. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:35, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

I also did not know about the general one, but must admit to using MWTense for more than just tenses, for example, on Lore:House Hlaalu, I used MWTense for its namespace restrictions for the transclusion of For more information, see the lore article, and to allow a paragraph about the 4th Era to transclude to any page except ones in the MW namespace. I like the freedom the MWTense, BMTense and OBTense provide, rather than having it use words defined by the template. --Enodoc (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

That was my thinking, to use it for transclusion, rather than just for tense. That's why I originally proposed adding the namespace parameter. Jeancey (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm in favor of adding the namespace parameter, with the stipulation that it be optional, and default to Lore (or rather not-Lore). And any namespace provided would need to be used in addition to Lore, in order to work for my ESO example given above. So if, for example, Snowhawk appears as a city in ESO, rather than a fort, we'd need information on the city to appear in past-tense on Lore:Snowhawk and Skyrim:Fort Snowhawk pages, but present-tense on Online:Snowhawk. As for the ease of editing the template - yes, it's not that hard to do, but 1.) it's generally best not to expect inexperienced users to have to edit ANY templates, and 2.) if a template is widely used, as this one could be if we start using it for ESO content, any edits to it can have far-reaching effects, and can cause general slow-downs on the site as the changes propagate. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

Oh yes, it would of course be optional. Though, whether it is Lore, or NOT Lore doesn't change how it is coded in the slightest. All it depends on is how you display the information on the documentation page. {{Tense|Lore|Not Lore}}. If you display the info as the lore comes first, and then the word comes next, that's one way of looking at it. Or you could look at it as the word comes first, and whatever is NOT lore comes next. It's the same thing really. Jeancey (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) Can't we just move the functionality of MWTense into the general Tense, as in use whatever words you want, just specify a namespace? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 15:07, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

I think that would make sense, so would that mean you would have {{Tense|ns=mw|Lore|Morrowind}}? I would also advocate keeping MWTense (and the others), like we have both uns and uns2, where the code for MWTense would then be {{Tense|ns=mw|{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}}} I think. --Enodoc (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

Honestly, I think having both uns and uns2 is silly and redundant as well, but that's a different discussion. I could see keeping around MWTense as essentially just a wrapper for Tense (assuming we move the code that's currently at MWTense to Tense), though honestly, just having the criterion be just "Anything but Lore unless an optional 3rd param is given" should cover the majority of situations without the need for extra wrapper templates. Oh, incidentally, even if we did opt to make a bunch of wrapper templates, the {{BMTense}} one shouldn't be necessary, since we can just make it use the parent namespace for all BM, TR, SI, and DB pages, so we'd really only need one per game, saving us from also having to make them for the expansion namespaces. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm not sure where exactly this all stands at the moment. Should I stop using any of the current tense templates for now? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 18:59, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Nah, don't let it stop you. If necessary, it should be simple enough to get a bot to go through and convert them all. But I'd personally stick with MWTense for now, at least if you're editing MW content, since it's easier to automatically convert from MWTense to Tense than to go the other way. If there's agreement, we can go ahead and make the changes. I think Tense is currently being used for some DF pages, so it might not hurt to create a DFTense template as well, but it should be easy enough to change. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

The Map of Solstheim

Sorry to bother everyone here. I've noticed the map of Solstheim is here. However, we've spent too much time on this map and many readers would be eager to see it. From my point of view, this map should be done as soon as possible. Many pages would benefit from it very much, not only the map itself, but also East Empire Pendants, Geodes, Heart Stone Deposits, etc. The map would make them become much more convenient. Dreamshadow (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2013 (GMT)

Yes, I have copied Alfwyn's map to my sandbox and put an image behind it, (thanks to Roger). However, I've been told that Daveh is working on an interactive map of Solstheim using the Google API, so I haven't done much more with it since. I'm happy to work on this further myself if need be. Also, I've opened my own sandbox to full collaboration, so anyone who wants to is welcome to work on it there. Be aware that the work Alfwyn had done previously was to create a map that allows for the verifying of locations, hence the red pong and the subpage code. This is still very much experimental. — Daric✐ 02:26, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

I see. That would be nice~ If the Google API map is done, there is no need to add other world maps. Hope to see the map someday. Dreamshadow (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Here are a couple of samples ^{( 1 , 2 )} of images I have created using Quantum GIS (QGIS) to digitize part of the map that Roger provided. I have added a few location points just to give an idea of what it could look like. Their locations are not exact. Once the map is fully digitized it will not be hard to change the colours, to zoom in on specific areas, and to show only selected locations on the map. This is just an example of what I could do if need be. It doesn't take me too long to do this, but obviously the more time I spend on it, the smoother the map will be at higher magnification. I won't go on further with the digitizing process for the map of Solstheim until we hear back from Dave Humphries. I don't want to duplicate effort that might already be being done, nor to tread on anyone's toes. — Daric✐ 12:22, 17 May 2013 (GMT)

Closing down nominations as a non-admin

A recent nomination on the Autopatrolled Users page was closed by a patroller. I wasn't aware that this was allowed for a non-admin to do so. Which is weird, because FA and FI for example do in fact have to be closed by an administrator, even though all the possible actions that are to be followed can be done by a patroller, as opposed to user rights nominations. Also, the Userspace Patroller nominations can also only be ended by an admin, I fail to see why an Autopatrolled User nomination is "less of a big deal" (in fact it's more of a big deal).

I'm not opting to get rid of the rule only admins can close nominations, but rather that all such nominations cannot be ended by a non-admin. Closing down a nomination is a pure administrative action that I don't feel patrollers can just go ahead and do ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

Agreed. It was an absolutely inappropriate action by ABCface. Elliot (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

And apparently by Kiz, RH and Vely who have all done it. There wasn't a rule apparently on the matter before, so it wasn't inappropriate at all. I would support this though, since it makes sense. Jeancey (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm pretty sure most of the experienced patrollers, and perhaps even the occasional regular user, have done this before. Typically when a non-admin has done this in the past, they've either posted to the admin board or just flagged down an admin in IRC and asked them to make the rights changes, while everything else has already been done. I think it can be a real time-saver for admins, and it makes it less likely that a nomination will sit there going nowhere because nobody has the time. I think that, to avoid confusion, an admin doing it is preferable, but I see no problems with someone else doing the proverbial scutwork, as long as they're experienced enough to do it properly, and let the admins do only the parts of the task that actually require an admin. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:53, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

It should be left to admins. I'm not convinced that the burden we're talking about here is so onerous that the admins need help with it, or that it would outweigh the increased risk of errors. Closing a nominations seems to me to be a purely administrative task and we have plenty of admins to perform this function, so allowing others to assist seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Of course, I may be underestimating the time it takes to close and archive a nomination. And at the risk of further undermining my stance, it seems like it's past time for Holomay's patroller nomination to be closed up. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:34, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

This was brought up before informally, and as the rules are different for the Autopatrolled User group than other such voting processes, those involved in that discussion felt it was completely fine for this type of nomination. (I probably still have the logs somewhere if you care to see them, Dwarfmp.) I still don't see the issue, considering the fact that I'm the fourth patroller to have done this for this user group and again because the voting process for this group is completely unique. But we go by consensus around here so whatever others feel is best is fine with me. For all other nomination processes, it's only appropriate for administrators to close them- the voting processes are different for those. For this one, I don't see the issue with patrollers closing the process, but I guess for consistency's sake we can add that to the rules if others feel it's necessary. — ABCface^◥ 13:05, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) There are no written rules on who can close an Autopatrolled nomination, so there is no basis for accusing someone of wrong-doing. Making it in-line with Userpatroller and Patroller, and allowing only Admins to close it is fine. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:09, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

I don't have a problem with our more experienced patrollers closing some nominations, but it would be wisest to make all nomination processes require being closed by an admin, just in case we get that new patroller that's eager to impress everyone that ends up going against site policy. • JA^T 18:01, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Even looking over the Completed patroller nominations history, it looks like several non-admins have archived nominations before, and the same goes for the various other nomination processes as well, although in the few that I looked at closely, it seems like most of them were either withdrawn or failed when a non-admin did it. The people Jeancey mentioned have all archived nominations, Silencer has (though consensus had already been called by Krusty), and looking back, I see others like The Albino Orc, and no doubt others that I lost in the clutter. My point being that if we're going to say only admins can close nominations, then I think it would be best if admins also did the archiving every time, including withdrawn, invalid, and failed noms, to avoid any suggestion that non-admins can in any way close a nomination.

Honestly, I thought it was a fairly customary thing to do, myself, until Dwarf brought it up. It was only then that I went back and looked at the rules and saw that we either imply or specifically state that an admin should be doing the entire process from start to finish. In the end, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, beyond the idea that we should make it clear who can do what, and then apply that across the board to all nominations (with the obvious exception of Admin noms, which have always gone through Dave). – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:31, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

Unless someone objects in the next few days, I'll add a line to the autopatrolled page along the lines of the other pages stating that only Admins can call time on the nomination. I don't have a problem with anyone archiving the nomination, so long as an Admin has called it one way or another. I'll also propose this specifically on the talk page there, to have a specific section for the proposal. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:45, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

As for the issue of nominations running on, just remind an admin about it if you see one. A simple talk page message point one of us towards the nomination will do the job. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:53, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) This has nothing to do with archiving, but it has everything to do with closing the nomination. They are completely different, and yes, it was inappropriate for her to close the nomination. Elliot (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm having trouble understanding why it was inappropriate, apparently. Can you enlighten me as to why it was inappropriate? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:20, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

From my point of view, it was appropriate, since no guidelines said she couldn't and there are clear guidelines on when and how a nomination for autopatrolled ends in support or oppose. So, ignoring personal views on implied guidelines, it was fine. But must we discuss the recent closing of the nomination? Can't we just discuss the implementation of a new guideline instead?

I don't care if admins have to do it or not. I don't care if such guidelines are set up. I don't see a problem with a patroller saying "it's been a week, might as well close the thing and move it". To me, it's the equivalent to marking a page with {{speed}}--"hey admins, look here"--or archiving a major page--"hey, it's archived, go ahead and protect it now". Or even moving pages, since the original gets left behind and an admin has to clean it up anyway. It's a little thing that shouldn't matter, and I don't see what the fuss is about--the worst that can happen is that a nomination is closed prematurely or incorrectly, which admins can do too, which can always be undone and doesn't actually affect the usergroup. Go ahead and make a guideline if you want; people aren't nominated every day, so it doesn't matter if I do it or if someone else does, the result is the same, and nominations don't pile up like speeded pages or leftover file redirects.

The only reasons I can see for admins to need to be the only ones to do it are trust (which is given to patrollers too, who were also voted for, though admittedly not to decide nominations) and convenience (close it and add usergroup at the same time). If that's what people want, go for it. I don't care either way, I just oppose the negativity here. Vely^►t►e 02:55, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Yes, archiving and closing are technically two different things, however, the only real difference when you get right down to it is who slaps a {{Consensus}} template on it. In cases where there's ambiguity, yes, I think it makes perfect sense to leave it to admins, whose job it is to make the tough decisions. When consensus is clear, at least to my mind, it's irrelevant who adds a tag that says the same thing that everyone on the wiki can see plainly anyway. The final say inherently rests with an admin or above in any event, since they're the only ones who can do the actual promotions. Also, what Vely said. :) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:35, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

It's not just about trust, but it's pretty useless for a patroller to close a nomination and then say an admin has to do the rest in the edit summary (which can be missed entirely), or notify a particular admin that they need to the rest. Either way, the admin should still look up the nomination and see what's up, so they have to do that anyway (unless blind trust is applied, be it justified or not). So it normally just leads to two people doing work instead of one, pretty much. And just to be clear, I'm not pointing any fingers, no rules were broken nor was there any harm done ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

I would rather leave closing nominations to admins, especially where the procedure states nominations should be closed by admins, but it's not a perfect world, so...patrollers, poke one of us if you see one that needs closing. If you're very sure the nomination needs to be closed and you're confident it's an easy call, I guess I don't see much harm in patrollers closing nominations. Just make you let an admin know so we can make sure the rest of the process is completed. Seems pretty simple to me :). ⇠eshe^talk 13:11, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

I agree with Eshe, that seems like a reasonable solution. I think the current guidelines state that if there's one week without anybody posting, it's okay to archive, maybe a slightly longer time frame (two weeks?) might be appropriate here, maybe not. Either way, I don't think this is anything but an honest mistake. Hell, if RH has done it in the past, what else COULD it be? ThuumofReason (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2013 (GMT)

Tamriel Rebuilt Factions

Sorry for bringing this to CP, but I'm not sure how much attention the Tamriel Rebuilt talk page is getting these days. I'm just going through and trying to convert as many NPCs as possible to use the {{NPC Data}} template, and in order to do that, I have to make sure that the data in the {{NPC Summary}} matches the data on the people pages (e.g. Adalerine vs. People in Port Telvannis. The problem is that the usage of the {{Faction}} template is slightly different in many cases. House Telvanni, for example, is sometimes labeled "House Telvanni" and other times labeled "Mainland Great House Telvanni". While they actually point to the same faction either way, the NPC Data template won't allow different naming from what's specified in the NPC Summary, so we should pick one or the other. This is a good idea for consistency and clarity in any event.

Does anyone, especially the Tamriel Rebuilt crowd, have any thoughts as to which way we should go here? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 22:37, 27 April 2013 (GMT)

I'd go with Mainland Great House Telvanni in order to prevent any possible confusion. However, it is really long, how does it look in the table? Jeancey (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Definitely a bit awkward. I'm at 1680×1050, full-screen, and at that width, the rank wraps to the next line on most of them. It looks a little rough in User space, but this will give you a general idea. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

We could simply do House Telvanni and hope people don't get confused. That would also get around the fact that Houses Indoril and Dres do not have vvardenfell counterparts and thus are not named the same. Jeancey (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

I'd support calling it just House Telvanni. This would also help were we to change the mod so the Vvardenfell and Mainland branches were more closely interlinked at some point in the future. I poked Haplo (one of the project admins) on IRC so hopefully he'll chip in at some point too. -Cathartis (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

I support House Telvanni as well. Hopefully people will notice the namespace and not get confused. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:58, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

What's the faction called in-game? "House Telvanni" etc is fine for shorthand, but I'd still prefer accuracy. —Legoless (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

In-game it is "Mainland Great House Telvanni" which is so long it messes with the layout of the table. Jeancey (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

I come down on the side of "House Telvanni", mostly because it is the shorter one, and the one which I always tried to use in the articles which I edited. I think that it is implicit to just about everyone who would be using the mod that it is a separate mainland faction, as all factions have separate mainland divisions. Frankly, the part of the faction name that includes "mainland" is mostly for CS use and separation purposes. And while I haven't played TR in awhile, I seem to recall people talking about the local Telvanni as "House Telvanni" and not "Mainland Great House Telvanni". --HalfStache 23:34, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Will UESP wiki be on Kiwix and Wikitaxi?

Will UESP wiki be on Kiwix and Wikitaxi as offline reader? — Unsigned comment by 188.252.137.114 (talk) at 09:50 on 28 April 2013

They are both Wikipedia offline readers. They suggest that other wikis can be downloaded, and so long as they do it for wikis that use MediaWiki I don't see why it wouldn't. They do not say that the wiki needs to do anything in order for you to download it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 13:04, 28 April 2013 (GMT)

Consistent Naming of DLC Pages

This has been brought up a myriad of times, so I'm officially bringing it up here, in the hopes that we can reach a consensus for once. The issue is the above. We have Skyrim:DLC, Oblivion:Official Plug-ins, and Morrowind:Official Plug-ins. The problem is that they aren't named consistently, and they aren't named correctly. They do need to be changed, because Plug-ins is incorrect - the Morrowind plugins identify themselves as Plugins, without the hyphen. The term DLC isn't technically correct, because you can buy boxed versions of them (at least for Skyrim). Most of them are much too big to be considered Plug-ins, plus that's an outdated term that few people are familiar with. As a compromise, I propose one of the following:

1. If we want consistency, name them all Official Addons or Official Add-Ons, as this is the most neutral term that describes them accurately.
2. If we want accuracy, name them Skyrim:Official Add-Ons (that's what's used in the in-game menu) and Morrowind:Official Plugins. I don't know what the most accurate term for Oblivion would be.

I personally prefer naming them all Official Addons, because it's consistent enough that users will know what to look for, and broad enough to be fully accurate. However, we do have to consider that ESO may come along with "Expansions" instead. Perhaps that would be a better term? No matter which we choose, we'll (or I'll) create a slew of redirects to the page for each spelling and naming variation. • JA^T 18:41, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

Definitely high time for consensus on this! I would vote for consistency here, for the sheer convenience of being able to remember what the page is for each game. "Addons" looks odd to my eye, though, so I would prefer "Official Add-ons" across the board. ⇠eshe^talk 18:48, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

I don't like the addons name. Admittedly, I come from an MMORPG background, but that makes me think of World of Warcraft addons (interface customizations more akin to what we call mods). I'd be more in favor of "DLC", even though it isn't technically correct. I don't think it had to be exactly technically correct anyway, as we are trying to encompass a broad variety of content under one term(something like Morrowind:Entertainers isn't exactly closely related with Dragonborn). --~The wind, forsaken~ (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Expansions usually refers to larger content additions across all sorts of games, so I don't like using that to refer to things like horse armor, and Dawnguard and KotN would run into definition problems. My top preference is to keep them with whatever the game's term is (like plugins for Morrowind and DLC or addons or whatever for Skyrim), but if we must have consistency, Addons or Official Addons works (with or without the dash depending on whichever Bethesda uses more); I would propose saying "additional content", but "addons" is sort of the short way of saying that. I would oppose using "plugin" for all of them because I'm pretty sure that's what the p in .esp means plugin, but except for the tiny additions like horse armor (I think), official releases are master files (.esm) and that would cause confusion.

But as Eshe says, consistency makes it easier to find a page, though no matter what happens we can just create a bunch of redirects. I don't care too much despite my preference for accuracy over consistency. In the sidebar we could put "More..." or "Extra content" or something; I don't mind consistency in the sidebar regardless of what we end up naming the pages themselves. Vely^►t►e 19:07, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

If we are going to use the same term for all the games, I agree that "addons" or "add-ons" is generic enough to cover everything, and the similar term "add-in" seems to be in fairly common use today (e.g. Microsoft Word "add-ins"). Keep in mind that "Downloadable content" literally means "able to be downloaded", not "is only available via download", so its use is not precluded by being able to purchase a boxed version of the program. "Expansion" could be interpreted as "expansion of game code", which would cover pretty much everything, and "plugin" is so vague that it could also cover everything, so it basically comes down to personal preference, not accuracy. --Xyzzy ^Talk 19:59, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

I prefer Addons or Add-ons too.--Ashendant (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

Xyzzy covered my reasoning perfectly. My top choice would be the hyphenated and title-cased "Official Add-Ons". I'm anal enough that it offends my sense of all that is right in this world to see "Addons". :P My second choice would be some variant of DLC, whether it's spelled out or an initialism, "Official DLC" or just "DLC". – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

I also agree that it should be "Official Add-Ons". --Ad intellige ^(talk) 21:28, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

I am also in favour of "Official Add-Ons", and this across the board for consistency. In terms of accuracy, if anyone's interested (which I would also support if that is the way consensus turns), on the official site they are currently referred to as Expansions for Morrowind (even the small ones), DLC for Oblivion, and add-ons for Skyrim. --Enodoc (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) Alright, so we are leaning towards consistency. That's good, because as Enodoc pointed out, it's not easy to identify what the most accurate term is, and we'd end up making a judgment call anyways. To Xyzzy: That is true, DLC does not necessarily mean it can only be downloaded, only that it can be. I'm leaning away from "plugin", since that's a fairly uncommon term, and "expansion" because it implies that it is large, which is definitely not true in all cases. And yes Vely, I plan on making a ton of redirects, for the following terms: Addins, Add-ins, Addons, Add-ons, DLC, Downloadable Content, Expansions, Plug-ins, Plugins, and all the above preceded by Official. My only concern is with ESO possibly mixing things up. Unless it truly takes its own path, additional content will likely be in the form of "expansions". It'd be silly to reach a consensus now only to revise it in six months. Are we all okay with calling future expansions in ESO "Add-Ons"? I don't mind. • JA^T 22:07, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

For ESO, (and other MMO's to be honest), Expansions is the overwhelmingly proper term. Most people would look for any ESO expansions under that term. Expansions and Patches. Jeancey (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

I think that calling even ESO's expansions "Add-ons" is proper because they will add things into the game. A redirect at expansions would solve the problem of people not finding the page while looking for those. --Ad intellige ^(talk) 14:35, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Follower leveled skill data

I moved an edit to Njada Stonearm's talk page that had some detailed info about how her skills level. The same editor added similar tables to a few other followers' pages, one of which was reverted. I think this data has its place on the wiki, just maybe not in this fashion. My thought was either a section on the Skyrim:Followers page, or a page linked to it. Thoughts? --Xyzzy ^Talk 23:31, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

I'm the one who originally added those tables. The reason I added them was that I considered that Xbox/PS3 players, or PC players that don't use the console, might want to know what kind of follower they are getting once they are past the level cap for that follower. Someone who is trying to decide between two followers will probably look up both pages to compare them. The information is not readily available on the wiki; as I've mentioned elsewhere, Eola and Faendal both cap at level 30, and have Sneak as a bolded primary skill. However a level 30 Faendal only has 28 sneak while a level 30 Eola has 78 sneak. That was one example that I pulled out where the information provided seemed both inadequate and even misleading. Anyway, that's my reasoning, for what it's worth, and it's up to the community to decide whether that's superfluous information or not. 108.180.175.37 01:58, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

It's more relevant as a comparison, and so belongs on either the Followers page, or possible a sub-Followers page (with all the followers stats on it, it will be big). It doesn't fit too well on the individual NPC pages. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:05, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I would probably vote for a subsection on the currently existing Skyrim:Followers page perhaps, with all the relevant details listed out in comparison within a table? I don't think the information would be good on a stand-alone page. I do however, agree with Silencer -- that information doesn't fit on the individual pages really -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 04:08, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I'm concerned/worried/something about the length of such a section (I'm thinking a sortable table with all the NPCs together). Plus the non-capped ones can't be included (I'm thinking a separate, slightly different, table for those few). Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 04:34, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

For non-capped ones, can't we just put 100? I mean, all skills are naturally capped there, so even if you leveled up enough for a follower to max all skills, they'd still go no higher, right? Or does that cap not apply to NPCs? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

Well first off we need to worry or focus on one thing at a time. If we're going to do this approach as a consensus, we're firstly going to have to actually gather the relevant data. Then when we have the necessary data we can figure out how to actually document it. -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 04:52, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I support a separate follower-sub page with all the data, as it could prove very useful. At the moment, it's not possible to compare follower's stats to see which one suits your playstyle. --Jimeee (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) So, the consensus appears to support this info on a sub-page to the Followers page. Is somebody volunteering to create this page ? --Xyzzy ^Talk 18:48, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

Already on it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:00, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

Creation Kit Information Requests

In my opinion, it's necessary to create a Creation Kit Information Requests page, just like the Image Requests page we have now. I've get it done in my sandbox and feel free to edit them. As a matter of fact, many editors (such as Dreamshadow, yeah) have limited knowledge about CK. However, they may also need lots of information that can only be found or checked in CK to improve some pages. At this moment, for myself, I have to ask RH to do some "homework" for me. In fact, I'm so sorry to keep bothering him with too many such questions. Some other editors may fail to find someone to give them a hand. So, they may just leave incomplete, cursory, even wrong information there. This page would help us a lot and any editors who are knowledgeable about CK may provide their help more efficiently. If possible, many links to this page would be welcome and necessary. Dreamshadow (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I don't think this page would be useful. That's stuff that belongs on talk pages. Sometimes people assume the information may only be found via CK or in-game methods, when sometimes it's both or the other one. Images help make a page look nice; this information, on the other hand, is necessary to have, and can be brought up on the talk pages of the articles you're worried about. Vely^►t►e 14:43, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

This may not be a bad idea. Just as people who are good with images and like uploading them will watch the Requested Images page, people who are good with the CK and want to help would probably watch the proposed page. For the most part, the average site user would never see it until they started contributing to the articles, at which point it would become very useful to them (me).

In response to Vely, the talk pages are unfortunately already littered with comments like "Hopefully somebody who is familiar with the CK will look this up". This may help to clear up some of those old questions. --Xyzzy ^Talk 15:05, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

The idea behind the Images page was that really only PC users can get good screenshots. There are fairly expensive tools that allow PS3 and Xbox users to also screengrab images but only a few those users would have one. Most CK info is already available to anyone with the internet, found at CSList. Yes this tool is hard to use, a message displayed on the main CS pages also says this, but it is not limited in its usage, being available to everyone who wants to edit the site, unlike the CK which is limited even among PC users. As a mainly PS3 user, most info that is needed on a page is easily determined by the use of two save files and some repeated reloading. The CS/CK is only a back-up that supplements this detail. There is a small demand for people willing to use the CK to aid other users, which could easily be accomplished through a Category from a Userbox, or even just a category. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 15:11, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

First, it's not a good idea to post your requests on the talk page. In fact, many people wouldn't pay much attention to these talk pages. It's hignly possible that you may not get the answer you want for ever. Second, few people would check CSlist themselves to find the answer they want. Please take a look at the examples in my sandbox, how could a common editor get the answer he wants from the CSlist? That's almost impossible. You may check the talk page of RH to get a idea how many requests we have recently. Most of them will make our pages more professional and reliable. We need to use a specific page to catch the attention of editors who are knowledgeable about CK and they will fulfill lots of requests efficiently and in high quality. What's more, many projects are running now. CK work are of the same importance to ingame work, we do need a proper place to place our requests. Dreamshadow (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

The CSList is great for reading about leveled lists, character and item stats, and quests, but if you want information about the specific instance of an object within a cell, the CK is your only option. Having said that, though, I'm not sure about the usefulness of this page. This certainly would've been useful a while back, but now we're down to polishing our existing articles. There simply aren't lots of requests; typically, it's Krusty asking RobinHood70 about information for his latest article. Of course, the person that this would affect the greatest is RobinHood70, so I'd like to see his input before making a final decision. • JA^T 15:38, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I think this is a good idea. It might not be super useful right now, but eventually they'll make another ES game and it will become much more used. Asking on talk pages can work sometimes, but often there's nobody looking at them or the people who do look at them don't have a PC (like me). I personally have several questions that I would post on that page, were it established. And while it is true that you can figure most things out on a console, we don't all have time or patience to play through the game enough to test these things. It's a heck of a lot easier on the PC. --~The wind, forsaken~ (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) I'm a big fan of this idea, because I know I'm not the only one with CK skills, as demonstrated by Roger having answered one of my questions long before I had the chance about a week ago (and in more depth than I likely would have). I don't go through RC much anymore, just my watched pages, and this would definitely be a page I'd watch, as could others with CK skills. That's also the reason that I think posting on the talk page of a relevant article is less effective: if someone with the needed skills doesn't happen to see the request, it'll go unanswered; a page like Dreamshadow is proposing would draw much more attention to needed information by those who have the ability to get it.

Jak's also got some great points about the limitations of CSList. The ability to cross-reference information (e.g., which quests/locations/whatevers is this item involved in?) is another place where the CK excels over CSList.

Another benefit of such a page would be that those with either CSList or minimal/moderate CK skills could answer the questions that are more easily answered, leaving those with more advanced skills the time to really delve into the harder stuff. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:31, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

I'm still a bit hesitant, but I'm chill with the age being implemented. We can see how it works out. Vely^►t►e 02:42, 9 May 2013 (GMT)

If no one opposes, I'd like to launch this page in a few days. A detailed review and more links to this page are needed then. Feel welcome to give me a hand. Dreamshadow (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2013 (GMT)

Is this page already up? You may also put a link to it on UESPWiki:Helping Out like is done with UESPWiki:Image Requests, or on UESPWiki:Task List. SarthesArai (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Thanks for your reminder, already done now~ Dreamshadow (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Bestiary

I was very dissatisfied with the Lore:Bestiary page (having the Bears all scattered arround, entries for both Centurion Spheres and Robots, but none for Dwarven Spheres,...) and therefore tried to redo some of the stuff in a Sandbox. However, Jeancey pointed out that I should leave a message here for the community to discuss the matter. SarthesArai (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Copied from my Talk page so far:

Are you trying to redo the bestiary by type rather than alphabetically? Just wondering what you are doing :) Jeancey (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2013 (GMT)

Yes, I was planing something like this, not sure wether or not to leave the alphabetical list... It just bothered me that all the obviously related monsters (like bears for example) were spread so far from each other. SarthesArai (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

I may also add pages like Lore:Dwemer Animunculi or Lore:Golem in my project if the wiki community allows it. SarthesArai (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

While I like your idea I don't think it should replace the alphabetic bestiary. Alphabetic list are a style of this wiki and shouldn't be deleted. However nothing stops us from having various styles.--Ashendant (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Suggestions:

I wouldn't put Soul Cairn Undead in the same place as regular skeletons.

Try to remove Found in as a sub-category. So it doesn't appear in the ToC.

Be careful with sub-categorizing stuff. Like Bristleback as a type of boar or Lamia and Medusas as the same being.

I think you should dump domesticated/prey/aquatic terms and go with mammals, reptiles, fish and birds. It's a much more cleaner division. --Ashendant (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

I've been thinking about the Soul Cairn Undead myself, as well as the Shivering Isles Animals (see Lore talk:Daedra#Creatures native to Oblivion), and the Bristleback entry says definetly Boar in its description...

Additionaly, its a bit hard to say what type Alits, Nix-Hounds, Durzogs, Netches,... are SarthesArai (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Well, The reason I asked is that something this large would require consensus from everyone on the Community portal. I can see a generalized page like Dragons or Draugr for major species like bear, but not simply a reordering of the list along different lines. I just think it would be redundant to have the same organized in a different order. Jeancey (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

I'm just starting to develop some kind of concept to clarify my intentions, so everyone may judge about something they can see. SarthesArai (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Yep! When you are ready, post on the CP so that editors can comment and a consensus can be reached :) Jeancey (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) Bristlebacks well there's no reference in the game for bristlebacks being boars... So i'm going to correct that. Same with Ash Hoppers, Ash Spawn and Ash Guardian, there is no reference to them being linked to Dagoth Ur or the Blight except by having Ash in their name and that section should be renamed into something more lore appropriate, Like House Dagoth creatures or Blight creatures. Anyway This list can be integrated into the bestiary. Add a entry in Bestiary U saying undead that links to a list of undead creatures.--Ashendant (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Bristlebacks are boars, for sure. There is nothing saying they are different from them. They drop boar meat and boar tusks. Also, Ash Hoppers are essentially scrib, ash spawn and ash guardian are simply made out of ash, rather than related to the blight. Jeancey (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Oh they do then sorry I was wrong.

Exactly which is why we shouldn't be directly relating them with House Dagoth or Blight creatures.--Ashendant (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Basically, I completely disagree with what you're doing. When I redid the bestiary in the first place, it was done so that it was inclusive to all critters instead of exclusive. Creatures like Dwarven Spheres aren't there simply because no one added them, not that they were purposely not added in for whatever reason (I redid them the first time before Skyrim was released). What you're doing here is redundant to the extreme with the existing list. Instead of making maintenance for the bestiary even more complicated than it is what with the constant interest in changing into in one way or another, I propose a different approach to this. Instead of merely listing critters in your proposed additions, why not make additional articles about those creatures? For example, have an article on animals, which would go on to describe the relations between the fish, bears, deer, etc. This would actually serve some purpose for the bestiary by helping outline the different kinds of creatures that exist, instead of just regrouping them because you don't like how it is now.

Just to point out the most glaring issue with this, this does not make searching the bestiary any easier. The bestiary is the way it is to avoid any bias or argument over how it should be sorted. By making it categorical instead of alphabetical, you create unsolvable issues. Take for example, the Death Hound. How do you sort it? With dogs and wolves and foxes as that is what it is? Do you put it with vampires as they are related to them? What about undead (as you are right now)? All of these are valid options, but by reorganizing it so it's categorical you create so many arguments or ridiculous redundancy. Now let's look at the canines as a whole. You have dogs, foxes, wolves, skinned hounds, death hounds, plague wolves, etc. So let's say you sort them together, and now you've created even more confusion if you don't make it far too redundant to be conceivable. Dogs could be sorted under domesticated animals, foxes and wolves under predatory animals, skinned hounds and death hounds fall under the undead umbrella, and plague wolves might be a better fit with plague bears. How do you possibly fix all of the infinite challenges with categorizing this? With alphabetical sorting and fervent linking to related critters (and maybe an index), you could at least find what you're looking for, but not with this where it's simply a challenge to figure out where editors ended up putting everything.

So to summarize, what you're doing can't be done without your personal bias creeping in, and it becoming more difficult to search the bestiary. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:51, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Flora is sorted alphabetically, so it makes very much sense to sort the bestiary that way too for consistency. I also prefer it being alphabetical; if one gets lost between "sabre cat" and "snowy sabre cat" or "vampire" and "ugly vampire" (for different letters), there's variations (for some) and "see also" (for others, like between dogs and hounds if necessary). That links some of them together while still keeping them well sorted. Vely^►t►e 19:02, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

I don't really like the See Also: in a entry, it's a very broad category that implies relation, but never explains minimally how.

I however would wish for more articles. I was planning to start with Lore:Spriggan and Lore:Dreugh. But I know very little about them and how to start these kind of articles.--Ashendant (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2013 (GMT)

Now someone reverted it without addressing my concerns... I hate it when people do that.--Ashendant (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a discussion on the matter before I started re-adding the links. Frankly, though, as I said in my edit summaries, I don't see why the links to other types of the same creature (or other very similar creature) hurt anything. It make it easier to find more information and helps people navigate to something else that they might find interesting, which I think is kind of the point of the Lore section. ⇠eshe^talk 17:14, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

It provides no context and such thing should be provided in such short entries, Example: People would assume that Rieklings and Goblins are related because of the See Also entry. However we know that so far that it is only speculated. same thing with skeevers and rats. "See Also:" Is very broad and implies things that might not be true. This might work in big articles because there is a lot of information there, in the smaller articles it doesn't, because people most of the times will have to assume the connection.

Also Cave Rat was removed because it didn't differentiated between normal rats in Morrowind. .--Ashendant (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

I understand, but even so, it seems like I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with the changes that have been going on with the section. Perhaps we could get something together in a sandbox so we can come up with a solution that works for everyone (or well enough, at least)?⇠eshe^talk 17:46, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

My suggestion was simply replace the see also, with the reason why that was a see also. In the case of Bone Hawk it would be something like "Hawk is the living version of this creature" with Hawks having the reverse... And then there's wolves with see also being bigger than the entry itself... A lot of these problems could be solved by creating one big article for wolves but I don't know.--Ashendant (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) I fail to see how that is an issue. The simple fact is that they're many creatures that are rather similar. People constantly act like there needs to be a fine line for so many things, but it's just not true. We don't need to define explicitly what should be included under "See Also". It's a matter of common sense. Do these creatures have some kind of clear connection between them, along with a risk of some confusion about the difference between them, that should be noted? Then link to the other creature! While I agree that having pages on specific groups of creatures is a decent idea, links to existing entries in the bestiary should be encouraged and not removed. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:53, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Edit: While I'm glad that the bestiary is getting the attention it deserves, I can't help but feel that many of the efforts to do so have been trying to reinvent the wheel instead of just improve what already exists. Any efforts put forward should be focused on improving and expanding existing content, not removing it or reorganizing it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:58, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

That's the thing people are adding connections, without there being one there officially and without explaining people will assume those connections are indeed there. Goblins and Rieklings are such example, another example is Skeever and rats

Some stuff there needs(or needed) to be fused, other removed, because it contradicts current lore.--Ashendant (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

The difference here is that we also list things that people might reasonably get confused, like Skeever and Rats or Goblins and Rieklings. It doesn't actually NEED to be a verifiable connection, just a reasonable link that people might make. Jeancey (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

"Hey, so what's that big rat thing I saw in Skyrim?" "Those things look sort of like goblins, but I think they have a TES-specific name..."

In my opinion, I don't think there needs to be a strong connection. If they have similar names (like hell hounds and death hounds), they're probably easily confused and should be linked. If they are similar creatures (like goblins and rieklings, alit and kagouti, oxen and cows, scrib and kwama, dark seducers and golden whatsits, different kinds of atronachs...), they should be connected by a "see also". The section's there to help you find things that are similar or that you may be searching for, not to communicate a fact. Vely^►t►e 22:22, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

But they implicate such when all references are a "See also". By removing all distinctions and having every entry reference variables as a "see also" it implies things that are not true. In a big article this would usually not happen, in such short entries it does.--Ashendant (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) First off, the bestiary doesn't use much in the way of references (they very rarely have them). I also don't think anyone here has said don't have an article that goes into depth on this kind of thing. If you want to do that, you'd surely get support if you were to try to create it in a sandbox. That doesn't mean we have to molest the bestiary due to some that haven't been an issue until now. It's not implying anything that isn't true as there would be a reason someone would connect the two. No one saw a Skeever and didn't think "Giant Rat" (or some other variant of rodent). We're saying "You might also want to look at this creature" by having a link to it in an entry, not trying to overthrow the established lore. I can't see it as anything but a stretch to claim that's a lore conflict on our fault. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:38, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Nobody, is saying that the "see also" is providing wrong information. I'm saying that by having a few like the two examples noted there with the same labels (see also) without clarification, it indirectly informs something different than what is intended. There is potential for confusion there, that shouldn't be in a wiki.

I could try my hand at a wolf article... But it would probably be very poor in information--Ashendant (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

I do not see the possible confusion. Only someone really reading into it could possibly get that impression, and if they were to do that they'd almost surely know better. The error that you're trying to come about seems to only be able to come from someone who is familiar enough with the material to see anything wrong there. I have never seen any example of actual confusion that could realistically be linked to those links, so I would call it a non-issue. The only thing that the "See Also" links are implying is that you should also see those entries. Nothing else. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:12, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

I actually see a ton of confusion without the see also links. Imagine someone wants to look up a skeever, but all they think is "What is that rat from skyrim?" So they look up rat. Without that link to skeever, they would be really confused as to why it doesn't say appears in skyrim, why it isn't describing what they remember. With that link, they can realize what it was they actually were looking for. Jeancey (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

That's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind, Jeancey. Some of us don't remember every detail, especially if we haven't played the game in a while. Plus, sometimes it's interesting to see what was in games you haven't played, and more associations with the See Also links helps facilitate that. People work hard on the Lore pages; we should take this easy opportunity to show off the completeness of our pages.⇠eshe^talk 01:20, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

As an addendum, can we please stop making major changes to the Bestiary pages while there's an ongoing discussion about how to handle them? I know I was guilty of missing the discussion myself, but we need to keep a handle on this. If we decide to leave things how they were it's going to be very difficult to restore all of the information that's being removed. These pages are going to turn into a huge mess if people keep fiddling with them before we come to a decision. ⇠eshe^talk 13:49, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

Oh my God, what avalance did I set loose by that little stone Sand Grain? Well, I now see your point in the alphabetical order, and will no longer try to force to change that. But I would suggest some "Umbrella Articles" for creature groups like bears or wolfes that have many different sub species. And i would also like to hear the community's opinion which creatures could be assumed the same despite different names (for example Land Dreugh, which are only Dreughs emerged onto land during their one-year Karvinasim, Fire Daedras and Flame Atronachs, or Redguard's Robot, Morrowind's Centurion Sphere and Skyrim's Dwarven Sphere.) In my opinion, linking with "See Also:"'s is a possible solution, although it would be better to describe the kind of connection (Either in a flowing text or by saying "This is a variety of That" or so).

Until now, I will do a further bit of sandboxing without making changes to anything not clearly wrong on the Bestiary Pages

I hope I've answered to every problem that arose and everyone understands what I mean ;-) SarthesArai (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

I think in the case of Dreugh they should be fused, The hard case is Grummites, Ballywogs and Pollywogs. I also support you on Umbrella articles.--Ashendant (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (GMT)

Bot Policy

The Bot Policy has been a "proposed" policy ever since the page was create 4½ years ago. Does anyone feel there's anything that needs to be added to or addressed on the page, or can I go ahead and make it a full-fledged policy? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 00:56, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

The Bots is still in its proposal state. It has basically been used as the guideline for bots since its creation, and the only reason it was never fully adopted as a Policy seems to be a fear that it would exclude the type of bots seen on Wikipedia. We are a small site and there has been no hint of a bot of this type in the 4.5 years since the page's creation. Also, if we ever become so large that bots of this kind are needed then all we need to do is have a new set of Bot Policies written that does not in any way hinder the use of such bots. Therefore I am proposing that we have a vote on whether to accept the current page as the Policy that meets our demands and usage at this time. I changed two things from the long standing proposal, I bumped up the owners number of constructive edits to 500, and added the requirement "Displayed a working knowledge of the UESPWiki's coding and formatting". Everything else has been there for years. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:59, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Can we also remove the safety function that "The bot will make at most one edit every 10 seconds." because none of our bots do that, and I'm not even sure that the WP bots do that. It seems silly, because with that restriction, *I* could perform tasks faster than a bot. Is it supposed to be swapped? 10 edits every second? Also, "The bot account must have "bot" in it's name somehow, or otherwise define itself as a bot, rather than another human editor. This is simply to prevent confusion." Wabbajak doesn't and I don't think it is needed, since the edits are hidden for most people, and the edits are clearly marked as bot edits. Jeancey (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

I un-struck-out your comments, Jeancey, since I'm responding to them. :)

Actually, the ten second thing comes from WP, but the reason it's that way on WP is that they may potentially have several local and remote bots running simultaneously. (Nowadays, there's another method on WP that works better, but we don't have that method available here.) I've amended it based on what I believe Dave said, but Jak may need to refresh my memory, as he's the one who actually had the conversation with Dave, not me.

While I was there, I made a number of other minor edits, including the other one you mentioned, but they're substantively similar/the same as what was there previously, just reflecting what's generally been agreed to over the years. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:12, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Oversight Policy

The Oversight Policy is still in a proposed state. There doesn't seem to be any reason why it was never accepted as Policy, so can we have agreement on that too. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:12, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Support: This is an easy support for me. Nothing seems out of place, and if anything comes up, it can be added. Jeancey (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Just to confuse the issue, the administrators all have Revision Delete available now, which is functionally similar, but I'm told it's easier to use. My suggestion would be to delete Oversight itself from our servers, since we have precious little need for both, and make whatever minor changes to the Oversight Policy are necessary to make it compatible with Revision Delete. Glancing at it quickly, I think it's just a few wording changes here and there, or we can just scrap the page altogether and point to Wikipedia's Revision deletion page, if we think that's sufficient. (They've got much more detail on their page than we're likely to ever have, but on the other hand, they reference things like the Arbitration Committee on their page, which we don't have...unless we want to change Dave's name to ArbCom. <g>) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:21, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

I am all aboard the "change Daveh's username" train. As for the rest, I'm in favor of scrapping the whole system. We have other methods that work just as well. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:50, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, I'm fine with that, RH. RevisionDelete works quite nicely and should serve in place of Oversight. ⇠eshe^talk 17:17, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Oblivion-Creature Images

Just upon randomly searching through the Oblivion-Creature Images category, I noticed a lot of the creature images themselves are of a 1:1 aspect ratio, with a few being of 4:3 ratio or another. I was wondering (seeing as the majority of images were of a 1:1 aspect ratio), if it would be correct to go ahead and add the {{cleanimage}} tag to those that aren't 1:1 aspect already - unless they are a creature image of more than one creature within the image itself. What do you guys think? -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 03:33, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

That's true, here is the link to the Category page. Some of them can be fixed with some tools easily, just cut the original images into proper size. However, some may need a new screenshot. I'd like to do some fix work. Dreamshadow (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Daggerfall quest links?

I've noticed a strange occurrence that happens after I edit quest pages for Daggerfall quests. Once I edit the pages, the quest description seems to disappear from the main quest page, although the quest link template hasn't changed. Most recently this has happened with these quests, but I've noticed it once or twice before. ThuumofReason (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2013 (GMT)

It's just a caching thing. A null edit on the quest page will fix it. Jeancey (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (GMT)

Oh, alright. ThuumofReason (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2013 (GMT)