UESPWiki:Community Portal

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

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

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

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

Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:

Specific requests can be made on these pages:

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

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

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

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

Location Date started Topic Listed here by
UESPWiki talk:Lore May 4 Loremaster's Archive and the Future of OOG Legoless (talk · contribs · email)

ESO: Generic NPCs with variable parameters[edit]

There was a discussion on generic NPCs whose race and gender vary. However, it does not look like it came to a consensus. As of now, we have a lot of pages (e.g., Online:Guild Savant or Online:Heritance Cutthroat) that hold very little usefull information, but produce lots of overlapping categories:

From what I observed so far, if I'm not mistaken, those characters are randomly generated (especially now, since they became killable) and we cannot simply list all possible variations, like this, for instance. So, this is what I propose:

  • create a page (e.g., Online:Generic NPCs), which lists all such NPCs. Perhaps, something like this?
  • do not use {{Online NPC Summary}} for each NPC
  • create redirects from single pages to that one page and add those redirect pages to Online-Generic NPC-Friendly and Online-Generic NPC-Hostile categories correspondigly.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions?   ~Shuryard (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2015 (GMT)

The problem with that would be the size of such a list. There are many types of generic NPCs in the game, and each have specific locations and appearances. The summary tables might be useless, but I still think separate pages are the way to go. Of course, a page at Online:Generic NPCs with links to all of these pages sounds like a good idea. —Legoless (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (GMT)
Ok, I think you are right, it is a long list... Any suggestions or comments on this layout?   ~Shuryard (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2015 (GMT)
Looks good. I was concerned dividing the types by zone would result in a lot of overlap (e.g. with Guild Savants, Pact Guards etc.) but it looks ok. I'd consider maybe trying to make the "neutral" table more open to change, so that Cyrodiil doesn't have to be listed separately and any future zones can easily be incorporated without adding another column. Maybe two separate tables would be the easiest way to go about it, unless anyone has a better looking layout in mind. —Legoless (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2015 (GMT)
I put Cyrodiil together with the neutral zones into the "Disputed and Neutral Territories" table for now. And I've started the page. Thanks!   ~Shuryard (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
I have removed the links to the categories which no longer have pages in them, due to the switch that was added to the template resulting in one category per race. --Enodoc (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Various and Varied ESO Suggestions[edit]

So, I've been coming up with a list of large changes to the ESO namespace that I wanted to discuss. Some of them are more straight forward that others. I fully expect some of the suggestions to be supported unanimously and others to be debated endlessly. I will put all of the suggestions here, and once we figure out which ones are the most contentious, it might be best to separate the discussions about them into separate CP posts. I would do them all separately, but there are quite a few of them and it seemed spammy to make a new post for each one. With that being said, here goes:

  1. New/Modified Templates
    1. I am proposing two new templates, or one new template and one modified template, depending on peoples thoughts. The first one is extremely non-contentious. In previous games we had a faction parameter in the data and used this to create categories full of people in that faction. Since the faction aspect of ESO is more lore-based than gameplay based, the current faction option is simply a link in the infobox. The category of people in each faction is still quite useful, however, so I propose either a new {{ESO Faction|Faction Name}} type template, or a modification of the current {{Faction}} template so that it won't just put everyone into the Online-Mages Guild category, for example. I would like some opinions on the best way to go about this, and I would suggest HnB be used for implementation, as it can simply convert the links currently in the infobox to the new format.
    2. The second template I am proposing is much, much more contentious and would require constant maintenance. I have mentioned it to a couple people before, but here goes. I am proposing an "Up-to-Date" template, which would take a patch number in and post a message at the top of the page if the patch number in the template does not match the most recent patch number on the Online:Patch page. this message would be something like "This page was up to date as of patch X.X. The most recent patch may have made changes to the information on this page." This template wouldn't go on every single ON namespace page, because that would be ridiculous, but I propose putting it on any page with a Sic tag (as they, at some point, fixed like 45 Sics. Every major patch seems to have the "we fixed various typos" note), and any page with numbers that are likely to change from patch to patch, such as the skill line pages, race pages, and possibly the champion system page. This template would not post any visible message if the patch numbers match, and could be removed from pages if the typo has been fixed. Also, pages that are out of date would be put into a separate category to make it easy to see which ones still need to be checked.
  2. Template Changes
    1. I propose several changes to the existing templates. The first is a change to the NPC Template to indicate if a person can be killed or pickpocketed. I don't view this as contentious really, since it is easy to check in-game and it is useful information, but it is a significant change given the sheer number of NPCs that need to be updated. I believe this is just one proposed addition since (I think at least, correct me if I'm wrong) everyone who can be pickpocketed can also be killed. This, obviously, doesn't apply to hostile NPCs.
    2. In a similar suggestion, this one comes with a question attached. Is the pickpocket difficulty set for each NPC, or does it vary in some way? I'm not talking about the success %, because that is affected by the Legerdemain skill line, but the actual stated difficulty of Easy, Medium or Hard. If it is set and constant for each NPC, I propose adding it to the template as well, likely on the same line as the above killable/pickpocketable variable.
    3. In another similar suggestion/question, I have noticed that some NPCs will attack you if they catch you pickpocketing, and others will simply yell at you. Is this also set and specific to the NPC, or is it variable in some way based on some unknown conditions? If it is set and specific, is it quantifiable? In other words, will we be able to come up with a value that we can add to the NPC template?
    4. Another question, this one stems from a change I saw a few days ago where the level and health for all three alliances was added to the page. Thus the level variable had values for Normal, Cadwell Silver and Cadwell Gold. Is this something we want to do, or do we want to simply put the main alliances info?
    5. Related to the last one, soon the veteran system is going to be removed completely. While we don't know exactly what is going to happen, it is likely that the stats of the second and third alliances will stay the same, just have a different displayed level/gold reward (or no level?) How do we want to deal with this, most importantly for the quest pages.
    6. Finally, do we want to add the lock level and trespassability to place pages for houses? Is the lock level constant across all levels, or based on your characters level?

I know that these are a lot of changes and some are more explained than others. Please comment on your support or opposition to them and ask any clarifying questions you may have. Also, answering my questions would be extremely helpful :). Thanks!!!! Jeancey (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (GMT)

If I'm understanding you correctly, for 1.1 the easiest thing is probably to just modify {{Online NPC Summary}} to spit out both a link and a category given a plain-text version of the faction. HnB would still have to go through and replace the links with plain text, but the existing template could easily do the rest, I think, with no need for a new template or modifications to {{Faction}}. Or am I missing something? Robin Hood  (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2015 (GMT)
Fair enough :P Jeancey (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (GMT)
1.1: Sure, that makes sense.
1.2: Theoretically this is a good idea, particularly with the sics. I wonder though whether it would be too cumbersome to include many other things under the same banner, and take the rest on a case-by-case basis instead. We would however have to be diligent to add {{Cleanup}} when a patch changes something (as we did with Update 6). My reasoning behind that is that things are "not changed" more often than they are "changed", so pages would say they are out of date when actually the information is the same. Although as I type this, maybe a shortlist of the most changeable things, like skills as you say, would be good to include.
2.1: Definitely a good idea. This was already mentioned above, but I don't think it got very far yet. I think the term for these white-glow NPCs is "Justice Neutral", so we could use that (or just "Neutral", which is a bit shorter), or take it in reverse and mark NPCs it doesn't count for as "Essential" like we have done before.
2.2; 2.3: Sorry, don't know.
2.4, 2.5: We had a bit of a chat about this on Blood and the Crescent Moon (for quests) and NPCs (for NPCs). I think it's a balance between avoiding unnecessary confusion, and ensuring necessary accuracy. For quests, I think recording the different gold rewards is useful, but other than that, only the main alliance info is needed; all the changes for Veteran versions are listed on Cadwell's Almanac. The removal of VRs won't remove Cadwell's, so I think leaving it like this would be best. When that does happen, all we will need to do is update the values and the details on Cadwell's Almanac. For NPCs, it would probably be more useful to display each different version of the stats, particularly for those NPCs that are enemies or neutral.
2.6: I'm not sure whether the lock level is constant or not, but the "owned" parameter I added in response to the above I think also indicates whether buildings are locked. If the lock level is constant, it could be added in the article text rather than in the infobox, like it is in other namespaces.
Since we're on ESO namespace suggestions, I had a couple myself that I have been considering:
  1. XP Values
    1. Update the {{Online Place Summary}} on pages to show the XP values for discovery and completion (just the first alliance ones for those places with veteran versions), and also tweak the Completion parameter to link to a specific part of the page so we can use more consistent wording and do away with the hover (which doesn't work on mobile devices anyway).
      • Objective (Quest Hubs): Remove hover, link to Related Quests where the Objective and its quests are listed
      • Dungeon Clear (Dungeons, Group Bosses): Link to a section where the enemies to be killed are listed, so they can be taken out of the infobox to make it cleaner
      • Destroy the Anchor (Dolmens): Just remove the hover, it doesn't really add anything (we could potentially add a link back to either Dark Anchors or Dolmens)
      • None (Landmarks, etc): Add this so it's specifically stated that there is no completion XP given
    2. Update the {{Online Quest Header}} on quests which scale so that XP Gain is given a class rather than a value, based on these XP multipliers, and add the relevant class alongside the value for other quests.
These would provide more information at-a-glance, and provide a better setup for future quest zones where the content is all scaled.
Enodoc (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (GMT)
I thought pickpocket difficulty was determined by the level of the NPC, but I may be wrong. Don't have much input on the rest, although if work is being done on the ESO NPC summary box, would someone mind taking a look at this? —Legoless (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2015 (GMT)

() The bot's working on 1.1 by removing the current links, temporarily leaving the displayed faction as plain text. Once it's done, I'll save the template changes, which should re-link them and add the appropriate faction category. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2015 (GMT)

Thanks!! :) Jeancey (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2015 (GMT)
The new change to the summary template seems to be causing the faction row to appear on all pages (see here). —Legoless (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2015 (GMT)
Fixed. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2015 (GMT)
It looks like faction doesn't get linked if the page contains multiple infoboxes, like this one.  ~Shuryard (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2015 (GMT)
I got it, never mind :) The faction page wasn't created.  ~Shuryard (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2015 (GMT)

() Once I've done a couple of final tests of XP values, I'll be ready to go on 3, if there are no objections. How are the other points progressing? --Enodoc (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A Case for Gallery Tags[edit]

ESO map sections consistently make use of embedded thumbnails rather than the gallery tag. I've been switching them over where it affects the layout of the page, but this is seemingly a contested issue. My main issue with embedding the images is that it usually causes weird spacing if placed anywhere but at the bottom of the page, and on smaller (i.e. mobile) screen resolutions it just outright breaks (see this). I think we can sacrifice thumbnail size for the sake of the normal gallery feature. —Legoless (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2015 (GMT)

I'm interested in the reasoning behind it as well actually. I only changed that one because it was inconsistent with the others, but I'd like to know why we seem to favour {{Multiple images}} over <gallery>, particularly when the former breaks the page like in the example. You get a nicer image size and border with the template, but it doesn't wrap like gallery tags would. Is there a way to change the style of <gallery>? If it could look like what you get with {{Multiple images}}, but function like the gallery tag should, I think that would be an ideal solution. --Enodoc (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2015 (GMT)
I just popped in for a few minutes, so I didn't play much, but if we want the galleries to look more like the Multiple images template, it's mostly doable (see here). That obviously still needs a bit of tweaking. Unfortunately, it looks like the gallery itself decides on the image spacing, so the gaps between the images would probably have to be what you see there unless I can find some kind of workaround. Being a CSS change, that would be global to all galleries across the entire site if we make that change (unless, of course, we want to let users just add it to their custom CSS if they want it to look that way). Robin Hood  (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2015 (GMT)
I like that example actually, it does away with those individual image borders and looks quite nice. If we found all the right elements of padding, width and margin we may be able to come up with a good spacing. Would it not be possible to define it as a new class, so it would only apply to those galleries that were given that class, eg <gallery class="fancy">? That way, it wouldn't affect all galleries across the site (I personally would be happy if it did, but others may not). --Enodoc (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2015 (GMT)
I had a look at the page style and it indeed seems the spacing is pre-defined by something, as it's directly in the style code for the individual elements, which can't be overridden as it's inline.
<li class="gallerybox" style="width: 155px;">
<div style="width: 155px">
<div class="thumb" style="width: 150px;">
Wikipedia now seems to have an option for gallery modes, one of which is called "packed" and shrinks the horizontal space quite a lot. Although that may only be an option from a later MediaWiki version (what's ours?). --Enodoc (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2015 (GMT)
We're way back on 1.19. :) I think the gallery options are the ideal solution, because my CSS-fu is really not that great. I'm pretty sure what you describe can be done, but I'd have to do some research to figure out how. Looking at the MW code, it appears to have been added in 1.22, so if we can convince Dave to do an upgrade soon, that would be an option with anything we would upgrade to. I know we put off upgrading to 1.22 because of ESO, but I think that's probably died down enough at this point that an upgrade would be doable, if Dave has the time. I'll send him an e-mail and see what he says. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2015 (GMT)

() So then, it appears we now have some more options in this respect, thanks to the MediaWiki upgrade. Using the same example as RH's concept, here's what the Bthardamz gallery looks like in different modes:

Both packed and nolines achieve the intended outcome of reducing the horizontal space as well as looking tidy. If we were to use nolines, we may want to consider setting li.gallerybox div.thumb div { background-color: transparent; } so there isn't a weird bit of lighter padding around narrow images (we could set that anyway, as it doesn't seem to directly affect traditional galleries at all due to the set colour for li.gallerybox div.thumb being the same).

What does anyone think of these alternatives? --Enodoc (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the packed look, personally. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Traditional would be my choice. Not sure if I'm a fan of the centring of the packed look. —Legoless (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So far, the discussion revolved around map images, so I hope it's ok if I jump in with a general thought about galleries and how they affect all kinds of images. What still bothers me about galleries is that the resulting images are smaller than our default thumbnail size, and, to put it bluntly, this is the reason why I believe that to end up in a gallery is the worst thing that can happen to an image. It's hard enough to create a screenshot that looks good in full resolution and in thumbnail size, but it's almost impossible to take the even smaller gallery size into consideration. Also, while I don't think that frames are always a good layout choice, in the wiki context I like the look and the functionality of the frames around the images in thumbnails and {{Multiple images}} - they have a pleasant distance from the image border and they include the captions, neither of which is the case in galleries. Would it be possible to create a fourth alternative that makes the size and framing of gallery images consistent with our thumbnails? --Holomay (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The small images is one of the reasons I dislike galleries as well. Is the default "Thumbnail"/"Multiple images" size 200px? It's possible in any gallery tag to set the sizes to be 200, so that would partly address that. These three options are the only available basic states that were introduced with MediaWiki 1.22, and it's not possible to change the sizing much (we tried), as widths and margins are defined inline directly by the gallery tag. Therefore something we can't do is define 200px as the default. We can set it per-gallery though. We should also be able to do some CSS that gives galleries a similar style to thumbnails. To avoid damaging the existing galleries, we could focus on experimenting with the CSS for one of the other modes. Regarding packed, it's possible to force it to the left with style="text-align:left" in the gallery tag. --Enodoc (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are a couple of design concepts for nolines and packed: 1, 2. The only difference between them is the second simulates a narrower screen where the gallery wraps with the page and adds a new line.
These are coded to simulate how they would look with 200px images, like Thumbnails and Multiple images.
<gallery mode=nolines caption="nolines" widths=200 heights=200>
<gallery mode=packed caption="packed" heights=200>
The CSS used is:
li.gallerybox div.thumb div  { background-color:transparent; }
ul.gallery.mw-gallery-nolines { background-color:#FDF5E6; border:1px solid lightgrey; padding:4px; display:inline-block; }
ul.gallery.mw-gallery-nolines li.gallerybox { padding:4px; }
ul.gallery.mw-gallery-packed { background-color:#FDF5E6; border:1px solid lightgrey; padding:4px; text-align:left; display:inline-block; }
ul.gallery.mw-gallery-packed li.gallerybox { padding:4px; }
One of the important parts here is display:inline-block, which overrides the default block display of galleries and therefore prevents the gallery container from spanning the width of the screen (unless broken onto two lines like in example 2). I think this design replicates the style of {{Multiple images}}, which is what I think we were going for, while eliminating the problem of the template not wrapping long lines. It's the whitespace that occurs within the gallery space when it does wrap that I like least. --Enodoc (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

() So... any further comments on this? I would like to propose that the above code be added to our CSS, as it won't affect any existing galleries, and then we can test the different layout modes directly on certain pages to see how they look in different contexts. --Enodoc (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a couple of galleries (to City of Ash and Chateau of the Ravenous Rodent) using the packed style if anyone is interested in seeing them in context. To see the intended style, since I don't think it has been added to site CSS yet, you'll need to input the above CSS in your own common.css. --Enodoc (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd forgotten about this. The CSS has been added now. I optimized it a bit, so let me know if I broke anything in the process. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pluralizing a Single Entity[edit]

It seems to be a point of contention which hasn't been discussed (or at least, I can't find the discussion). Take Silyanorn Ruins as an example, because that's where I noticed it today. Silyanorn Ruins is... was changed to The Silyanorn Ruins are.... This is a case of a single entity having a plural name, and because it is a single entity, I think it should be treated singularly. The ruins are considered part of one place, and the name of that place is Silyanorn Ruins. Hence "Silyanorn Ruins is over there" as a compound noun. In the real world, take Borobudur Temple Compounds; it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site containing three temples, so the word Compounds is plural, but the site itself is a single entity.

The addition of a definite article also changes the intent of the name; the place is named "Silyanorn Ruins", and "Ruins" is part of its name. Adding "The" in front implies the name of the place is "Silyanorn" and turns "Ruins" into an adjunct, which would be written as The Silyanorn ruins..., not The Silyanorn Ruins. A definite article should only be used in the case of ruins being an adjunct, not a proper noun. The only exception would be when the definite article and adjunct are both themselves directly part of the proper noun, like The Banished Cells. That would also be the only instance where the place would be treated as a plural.

Anyway, that's my little grammar rant. Discuss...  :) --Enodoc (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with leaving out the definite articles. It isn't "the ruins of Silyanorn", it's a proper place name, e.g. Dublin City. —Legoless (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with leaving out the definite article. As for whether to treat it as singular or plural, that varies from one English variant to the other. American English usually chooses the singular for a collective noun, where British English tends towards the plural. Since we generally follow the grammar of the games, and they use American English, I would say that we should follow suit here too and use "is". Robin Hood  (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, the reason is that they are the ruins of x. Every ruin existed as a non-ruin at one point, and generally they had the same name minus the 'Ruins' part. In the example, Silyanorn Ruins are the ruins of Silyanorn. Because they are the ruins they didn't want to label it as simply Silyanorn, so they added the ruins part, which because of game limitations appears as Ruins. I can't think of a single real-world example where the ruins of a place have 'ruins' as part of their given name, even where a new place built nearby with the same name exists. Any real-world ruins known as 'X ruins' or 'the ruins of X' will always have it written in lowercase. The only supposed ambiguity arises from Bethesda and ZeniMax's usage of all caps in place names. Establishing that the 'Ruins' part of the name is a game limitation, where in fact the actual name is 'X ruins', it is then proper to use 'The' and 'are'. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Silencer here (obviously, as this discussed is a result of my edits). Ruins isn't part of the real name. It's a description of the state of the site. Describing a plural as a singular without the definite particular sounds weird if you say it outloud. If you say, to use your example, Dublin Cities is, it just doesn't sound write. There is a difference between the actual name of the location and a descriptor of the same location. Jeancey (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
"The Silyanorn Ruins are..." is more grammatically correct than "Silyanorn Ruins is", even though Silyanorn Ruins is the given name of the location. If you take a look at the introduction for our article on Throat of the World, there's a similar pattern. We don't say "Throat of the World is the highest mountain in Tamriel," we say "The Throat of the World is the highest mountain in Tamriel." Even though it's a proper name, and even though the definite article isn't technically part of the name, the sentence flows better if we include it at the beginning. The proper name of the location is always in boldface anyway, so it's not like we'd be giving incorrect information. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
That may be the case grammatically, but take a look at Oblivion:Mines and you'll see a bunch of examples without the definite article. —Legoless (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the singular entity grammar rule is the same as the plural entity grammar rule? All those mines are X Mine, a singular entity. If any of them were named X Mines then it would use plural grammar (and a proper comparison), but seeing as they are all singular they rightly use the singular. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
How about Morrowind:Mausur Caverns, Oblivion:Worm Gut Channels, Oblivion:Rindir's Staffs, Dragonborn:Snowclad Ruins, Skyrim:Dead Drop Falls, Bloodmoon:Caves of Fjalding? Also, if we're arguing only for plural entities, the Throat of the World example is similarly without merit. —Legoless (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I give up, grammar is not this hard to understand. Context is everything. The use of an s at the end of a noun does not make it a plural entity, and the lack of an s does not mean it is a singular entity. Failure to understand that places can have very similar names yet are entirely different does not mean that bad grammar should be forced upon them by those that cannot understand grammar. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing to understand about the clear precedence at Snowclad Ruins being used to support Enodoc's original argument. —Legoless (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that you ignore the possibility that one example does not make a rule. Break down the name of the place to see how wrong you are anyway. They are ruins that are clad in snow. Was there a place called Snowclad that fell into ruin? Possibly, but highly unlikely. The probability lies with the name being forgotten and then having a generic name applied. You ignore the majority of places that are written correctly to support an incorrect position. Should all inns without The have them removed or applied, what about the ones with The in the name have that recognized by capitalizing all instances. Should it be The Rift, or the Rift, should this apply to every page that looks similar with no recognition of context, are there no exemptions to rules, despite that being a rule itself... Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) () While I do prefer the "are" form to the "is" form, there is certainly precedent within the context of UESP place articles to support the usage of "is". It sounds to me like what we really need is to decide upon a certain set of grammar rules to go by and just defer to those going forward. This isn't the first disagreement over grammatical issues that has popped up in the last several weeks, and the key issue here seems to be one of subjectivity in the use of language. As we've seen here, this can lead to conflicts between editors, so maybe it would make sense to come up with a clear-cut set of guidelines, or maybe decide on a single source to defer to in case of disagreements (like Webster's or something)? Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds OK, as an independent arbitrary when disputes arise. Are you referring to Miriam-Webster dictionary? I find it rather lacking in places compared to other online dictionaries/language sites. American English is of course the starting point, but uncommon usages should never be replaced with more common usages simply because they are uncommon. As an encyclopedia it has been pointed out that our style is (or should be) more formal than other places. Most recent 'developments' in language are frankly a laziness in language. This leads to ambiguity and outright false statements in common speech (I could care less is a rather apt example). We have a responsibility to be clear in what we say, to proactively prevent questions on the meaning of something written in an article. If this means that we end up using grammar oft less seen, it would only be following places such as wikipedia in being responsible for what we write. Choosing to use 'acceptable' grammar is not the same as using correct grammar. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I went Googling on this issue, and didn't find much by way of guidance (perhaps because I can never remember the various names for different parts of speech beyond the basics), but I did find one completely unofficial mention here. The OP makes a good point, as does the person in the accepted response.
As far as whether places like Silyanorn Ruins are proper names in themselves or whether they're intended to be descriptive (e.g., the ruins of Silyanorn), if we allow that they could be descriptive, then plural grammar is definitely the way to go, I think. But if we do go that route, it's going to require some tricky judgement calls. I believe in the past, we decided to treat everything as a proper name unless there was a clear indication otherwise, but I think Silencer has a point that locations like Snowclad Ruins seem unlikely to be proper names. But what about places like Anga's Mill, for instance? Is that the mill that belongs to Anga (in which case, where is she?), or is it officially known as Anga's Mill (c.f., Smith's Falls, which eventually dropped the apostrophe)? Robin Hood  (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Snowclad Ruins is an interesting example. I would see it as "Hey, look, there are some snow-clad ruins. Let's name that place Snowclad Ruins." From then on, Snowclad Ruins is the name of the single site, so I would ask you "Where is Snowclad Ruins?", because that is the site's name. When a plural description of a site becomes the given name of that one site, I would claim it loses its plurality. --Enodoc (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
That's about the long and short of it. "Silyanorn Ruins" should be treated as singular, and in this case, no article is needed. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 23:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It feels like whatever way this is explained no-one is listening. Go ahead and make up whatever rules you feel like, I for one will be using correct grammar on any pages I write. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Which correct grammar are you referring to? "Silyanorn Ruins is" or "The Silyanorn R/ruins are"? I was easily able to find real-world examples using both styles (e.g., "Luray Caverns is open every day of the year"[1] vs. "The Carlsbad Caverns are an extensive cave system..."[2]). Robin Hood  (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, Silencer, that context matters, but we have to agree on what the context is here. I think that you're treating "Silyanorn Ruins" as how people refer to a collection of ruins in the wilderness, which would support "The Silyanorn R/ruins are". I'm thinking of it as the name of a videogame location (this is a gamespace page, after all), so "Silyanorn Ruins is" seems appropriate. But I don't know what the best way to treat it is. I love lamp. I just hope someone let's me know when/if a rule is agreed upon; I'm good either way. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 01:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

() Seconded. This is way too much fuss over a single sentence for my taste. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 11:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at ruins and such on Wikipedia, there's a total mish-mash of styles there and nobody seems to really care. So, maybe the best way to handle this is not to, and just have a rule of not changing whatever style is currently there, unless it makes that particular sentence or article flow better somehow. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue here, RH, is that British grammar, by and large, uses is and American grammar uses are. That's why Wikipedia is such a mishmash. Half of the pages are written by British English users. We use American grammar here, which by and large uses the "what sounds right" rule. In this case, The Name Ruins are sounds better than Name Ruins is. Jeancey (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been discussed several times before, but when American English allows for two sets of rules and International English doesn't, we've gone with the International option to accommodate both variants. "Sounding right" is always going to be subjective. —Legoless (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What? 20 Years Already![edit]

Sometime this summer/fall the UESP turns 20 years old. I don't remember exactly when the UESP launched but it was sometime mid-1995. Since a few of our editors/users weren't born yet or don't remember 1995 this was:

  • 3 years before Google
  • 6 years before Wikipedia
  • 1 year before Bethesda's first website
  • Popular browsers were IE1/2, Mosaic, Netscape
  • The entire web was only 20-30,000 sites

For a little nostalgia you can still view the Old UESP Web Page as it looked in 2005 which is very close to how it looked since 1995. You can also see the even the older Daggerfall WWW Faq which was the precursor to the UESP.

For the first 10 years of its life I was the sole caretaker of the UESP. People would send in tips/hints/cheats and I would manually edit and organize HTML pages. Since we've moved to the Wiki format I've taken more of a sys-admin/developer role and managed the back-end and the site has evolved as a community effort.

I'm not sure I've mentioned this to anyone, but over the years I've talked to various people from Bethesda/Zenimax and the one constant thing they mention is what an incredible resource the UESP is for the Elder Scrolls. Developers from several ES games have used the site extensively to research various topics. The ESO devs joked that they were worried we would figure out what they were doing before ESO was made public due to the sheer number of page views they made! So I hope everyone involved in any way with the UESP is proud of what we've accomplished...I know I am.

I'd like to celebrate our 20 years somehow later this fall and have a few ideas but am welcome to entertain suggestions. Here's looking forward to the next 20 years of the UESP and Elder Scrolls games. -- Daveh (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on the twenty year anniversary of the UESP! Thanks for all the time and dedication that it takes to set up and make this phenomenal site possible for all of us! -damon  talkcontribs 22:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't for the UESP back in 2002, I don't think I would have ever had made it far past Seyda Neen. The UESP and TES are simply inseparable to me. I began making little adjustments here and there as a way of saying thanks to everyone who made this the best videogame fansite ever. My name is my way of recognizing that I'm merely polishing a diamond. Four years later, and I still can't thank you enough. As for how to celebrate, let me drink on that get back to you. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 23:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Heh, it was this site that saved me from the cryptic, but wonderful mess that is Morrowind. Congrats on having the patience and motivation for running a site as long as I've been alive! •WoahBro►talk 01:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Major tangent: Guys, Zenimax made a very, very good point. We should be able to tell whatever projects they might be working on based on what they search for on the UESP. All we have to do is create a log of any IPs based in known Zenimax/Bethesda areas, look at what they're searching for, and we will know exactly what they are working on. "Oh, they're reading a lot about Imga right now, I guess they're going to be a part of their next project somehow". WHY DO WE NOT ALREADY DO THAT. On the practical side, there isn't much of a clear benefit for us, besides pointing us towards areas the devs, and therefore we, should care about a bit more, but I think I speak for us all when I say we should definitely do this for the secret joy of being able to spy on the devs, based on what they look up here.
As for what we should do for the twentieth anniversary, I do believe the traditional twentieth anniversary present is China. Joking aside, some giveaways of some kind might be nice, I can chip in myself since we're planning a few months in advance. We might want to let Bethesda know, actually, they might (almost definitely, I would think) care, and might be willing to chip in prizes for whatever we intend to do themselves. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that the site is almost as old as I am. I've used the site as my go-to source for Elder Scrolls information since around 2008 when I got Oblivion. I only started editing on the site last year, but I plan on editing on this site for a long time to come. Congratulations UESP on 19 (almost 20) years and I can't wait to see where we go from here! I wonder what the 40th anniversary will be like? Lorenut (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
One thing that I can say that it feels wonderful to be a part of the UESP and work with you guys, even though I joined as an editor-lorist just last year. I don't know any ideas to celebrate, but my personal tribute to UESP is my main ESO character with whom I roleplay - an important part of his background is being a member of the United Explorers of Scholarly Pursuits, our in-universe equivalent. :P --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 03:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

() Besides being an inseparable place from ES universe, this site is also two more things for me. Firstly, an inspirational story: if you stick to your hobby long enough and faithfully enough, it can become your destiny and a full-time job :) Secondly, a great mix of the high standards and a supportive atmosphere here, which makes me not to just "add stuff", but to learn more and improve my methods, be it content-wise, template-wise, etc. Thank you, fellow editors! And let's party! :)  ~Shuryard (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It just goes to show what you can achieve with some passion and teamwork. So much has been done, yet so much left to do (un)fortunately. Maybe the team keeps changing over time, but the site keeps growing, the games keep coming. I've officially joined the site for almost 5 years now, but I'm not planning on leaving, I hope there will be many more. We should definitely make a newsitem for this at some point ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There's been one proposed for a while now. —Legoless (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Even though my career means I can no longer devote the same energy to the site as I used to, I'm still proud to be a part of the best Elder Scrolls fan community on the net (it's not bragging if Bethesda agrees!). Now if only I could find some way to work being a patroller into my resume... Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 14:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
A giveaway would be the simplest celebration. At the very least, we could make a ESO guild event, set a time and place to have a birthday party for the UESP in ESO. We could incorporate a giveaway into that, but I imagine some users would also like a way to participate and prizes which are not ESO-related. Another way to celebrate might be to expand the UESP's web presence somehow, like by making a Twitch channel. A phone app is another possibility, but that obviously would be way more complicated. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 17:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm totally for the idea of an ESO guild event :P --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 18:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I support all of what has been said before now. Jeancey (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mod Header[edit]

I've added Crown Store {{Mod Header}}s to a couple pages, although at the minute the icon appears too large and the strange caching is making it difficult to work through. It probably won't be needed as much in the Online namespace, but it might be a good idea to mark DLC- or Store-related articles with it. —Legoless (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I created a {{Crown Store}} template a while back as well, which pops up an inline CrownCrown Store that can be used like DG and DB. Would it be worth having different versions of Mod Header for each DLC later on, so that things that come with Wrothgar (for example) aren't confused with things that come with the Thieves Guild (for example)? --Enodoc (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if that's needed. Labelling all Crown content equally is how it's done in-game, and it seems the most aesthetically pleasing to use that Crown icon rather than trying to make new DLC-specific ones that don't always look so great. I think {{Mod Note}} will also work with this new setup, so we might want to think about using it for sections on pages like Online:Pets as well. —Legoless (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

() Continuing on from this discussion, does anyone have a preference for using DLC-specific mod headers or the current general Crown header? —Legoless (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm worried it's going to be too big with the cover art. If we could find a specific icon to replace the crown store icon, I'd be willing to consider it, but the proposed icon put forward by Enodoc just seems too big. I think if and when actual expansions are released for ESO, those should have their own specific icons, but right now we have 6 or 7 announced, large patches that would just cause confusion if we separate the icons. What happens if there is a Dark Brotherhood location in Murkmire. You need both DLC to access it. Which do you put? I think the current crown store icon is the best method for now. We can re-evaluate once IC is released if we need to. This isn't that hard of a think to modify in the future if needed. Jeancey (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, good point, I hadn't considered possible cross-overs. But in that instance, couldn't we just put both, by using two Mod Headers? They are designed in such a way that they could stack if necessary. So, for your example, we'd use the Murkmire icon and the Dark Brotherhood icon, and that way people would know that they had to have both, rather than just an arbitrary and indeterminate "Crown Store" icon which could mean anything from the store. The size of my proposed icon was random; it could easily be a bit smaller:
Imperial City
The design is such that it keeps the essence of the Crown Store icon, but also identifies the relevant DLC pack. --Enodoc (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If we end up using more than one mod header, then we could simply keep the Crown icon and stay consistent with pages like Online:Pledge of Mara, and add a second DLC-specific icon (e.g. this). I really don't think we'll be seeing any DLC overlap, but a third icon would also then be viable. That way, we provide visual cues and useful links for Crown-locked content *and* DLC-specific content. —Legoless (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That works for me! Before we decide on using the cover image over anything else, I would suggest waiting for the content to pop out on PTS, so we can see if there's any in-game icon for the "Imperial City DLC Pack" in the Crown Store or Collections screen. --Enodoc (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ESO Strongholds[edit]

I was about to go through and recategorize all Mages and Fighters Guild locations as "Strongholds" as was done for the Main Quest when I noticed that we have Online:Realms. Categorizing by place type isn't very useful in ESO at the best of times, but that page is an odd mixture of quest-specific Strongholds and already-existing places (e.g. Online:The Far Shores is just a part of Online:Hall of Heroes). I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but there's a need to separate these questline places from regular zone places and a single article seems like the best bet. Any thoughts? —Legoless (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Background to the current setup:
We decided before that Strongholds was specifically going to refer to the Daedric locations in Coldharbour (because "Daedric Ruins" didn't really fit for them), a name which was based on the loading screen of the Castle of the Worm. All other places on Tamriel would then be slotted into the existing types we had, and all of them fit well. Abagarlas and Mzeneldt, for example, can't really be considered anything but an Ayleid ruin and a Dwemer ruin (respectively). If I was looking at a list of Ayleid ruins, I would expect Abagarlas to be on it, rather than shafted into some other category. The same with Stirk (which does use the Ayleid Ruin icon). "Realms" was decided as a collective for everything outside of Tamriel. Personally I think it works quite well as it is, and I don't see the need to separate the quest line places from the others, particularly if the description already says it's quest specific (like Emeric's Dream). --Enodoc (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It works fine when viewing a page like Online:Dwemer Ruins, but there's no way to access Abagarlas, Stirk or Eyevea from Online:Zones. Unlike, say, Emeric's Dream, those places are all zoneless. Instead of changing the place types, perhaps it would be better to make a zone-style page for these places? For example, Online:Eyevea is categorized as "Places: Mages Guild / Towns", but our Mages Guild article describes quests and skills rather than places. For lack of a better term, I think something like "Other / Towns" would work as a hub page just as well. Ultimately, zones are much more important to ESO readers than big unsorted lists of places, and these quest-specific places are unique in being outside that system. —Legoless (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Could we not just add those places onto the Main Quest/Fighters Guild/Mages Guild pages? Otherwise sure, maybe "Online:Unzoned" (or some-such) is the way to go. I was thinking a similar thing when going over the Regions template, so thanks for bringing it up! --Enodoc (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
We could, but the faction pages already have their hands pretty full and don't even list named and generic members yet. Having separate sections on an Unzoned place page makes more sense to me. As far as the Regions template, a new row in the Neutral section (e.g. "Unzoned: Fighters Guild • Main Quest • Mages Guild") could help divide them up that way by treating the questlines as subzones, and could easily be expanded in future for TG and DB if necessary. —Legoless (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Online:Unzoned is created. Do we want to recategorise these places into Online-Places-Unzoned? It would make adjusting the trails easier if we used that instead of the existing Online-Places-Main Quest/Online-Places-Fighters Guild/Online-Places-Mages Guild. --Enodoc (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I also added Eyevea to the template separately, as it's acting as a subzone really due to all its associated shops and the like. Places like Abah's Landing and Clockwork City may follow suit. --Enodoc (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
If we're listing Eyevea separately, we'd also have to add the Earth Forge. Shops might make it an important location, but no more important than any other city and we can't list those separately. Also not quite sure about including zone-bound places like the Harborage on the page, but it does no harm. Nice catch with the World quest places, I had forgotten about them. Recategorizing to Online-Places-Unzoned sounds good. —Legoless (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Eyevea and the Earth Forge should be treated the same. Currently Eyevea is being categorized with zone tendencies which was why I put it there, but maybe it would be better to put Eyevea's stores in Online-Places-Unzoned as well, for consistency, since no other stores are categorized into their town. Yeah I wasn't sure what to do with the Harborage and Ragnthar, since they are zoned but still only accessible during their associated quest lines. Currently they're categorized into all zones and their quest line, so they would paradoxically end up categorized into three zones as well as "Unzoned". Probably won't hurt though. --Enodoc (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I've switched the Eyevea places over to Unzoned. —Legoless (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I've found the bit in the template that was keeping things in the quest chain categories, so they're empty now and I've proposed them for deletion. --Enodoc (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ESO Item Categorization[edit]

As of now, pages Runestones and Alchemy Ingredients, for instance, use trail which places them into Category:Online-Items. These pages are also listed on the Items page. So, it all makes sense. However, this category also contains a subcategory, Category:Online-Items-Professions, which in turn consists of subcategories that are supposed to list items related to various professions. All of them are empty, except for the Category:Online-Provisioning-Ingredients. So, for consistency we should either re-categorize provisioning ingredients like runestones and alchemical ingredients or vice versa, put those component pages (recipes, glyphs, reagents, etc.) into the corresponding profession subcategories. I like the first, simple way better. Any other thoughts?  ~Shuryard (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please ignore it, as it applies to individual item pages only :)  ~Shuryard (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls: Legends[edit]

Bethesda announced that The Elder Scrolls: Legends, an ipad/PC card strategy game, is coming sometime this year. So, as far as wiki work, here's what we need as far as I can think of so far:

  • Link to the Legends:Legends page on the main menu on the left?
  • What abbreviation should we use in image names and stuff? LG?
  • Licensing for images? So far I've just used the "Bethesda Softworks" one. In the trailer, they've got both Bethesda's logo, and also the logo for Dire Wolf Digital.

Anything else that needs to be done/decided? ~ Alarra (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We would need to create an actual namespace and move that page into it. Despite appearances, you didn't create a page called "Legends" in the "Legends" namespace, you created a page called "Legends:Legends" in the main namespace, if that makes sense. Creating a namespace isn't terribly difficult, but it's definitely a first step that should be taken before we go creating any more pages for that namespace. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Is that something the admins have to do? ~ Alarra (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's actually something only Dave or I can do, since it has to be done directly on the servers. Unless anyone sees a reason not to, I'll go ahead with that part of this later today. Robin Hood  (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Legends: and LG seem fine with me. —Legoless (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Legends and LG for the namespace. Images should also be LG. Based on what we know right now, Bethesda Softworks should be fine for the licensing, although we may need to set up one for Dire Wolf, depending on their involvement (we don't know all that much yet). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I believe everything's done that needs doing in terms of getting the namespace up and running. Since I was at it anyway, I added the link to the sidebar as well. If that's premature, any admin or patroller can readily undo that part. Robin Hood  (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
All right, thank you! :) ~ Alarra (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
{{esimage}} has a Dire Wolf Digital option now. —Legoless (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

() This is probably as good of a place as any to bring this up, but I think something's not quite right with the shorthand {{LG}} links. Legends:Legends will bring me to the title page, but LG:Legends does not. Instead, the LG link is linking to the Dragonborn namespace. Forfeit (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's all in your imagination, honest! <whistles far too innocently> It was just a cut & paste error when I created the namespace. It's fixed now. Robin Hood  (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

ESO Place Types[edit]

Stemming from this discussion, I think it's far past the time we should be rethinking our ESO Place lists. Firstly, I'd just like to point out for those who don't play ESO that places in the game are primarily zone-based, and therefore grouping places based on "type" is far less useful that it was for the likes of Skyrim. Currently, places are categorized based on the icon they use on the zone map, with a few carry-overs from other namespaces such as Online:Bodies of Water. These place lists also include unmarked places which logically fit into the category, despite having no marker at all (e.g. Online:Mudshallow Cave). However, it excludes places which have a different icon, e.g. Online:Yldzuun would logically fit into Online:Dwemer Ruins, but isn't (or shouldn't be) listed there because it's a delve.

This categorization makes sense and works okay, but is also unnecessarily confusing and frankly almost entirely useless to readers. There are a myriad of problems with the current system, which I'll outline below:

  • Sacrifices accuracy of the lists, e.g. Dwarven ruins page excludes half of in-game Dwarven ruins.
    • Running counter to this rule, unmarked locations are included.
  • Causes undue segregation of locations which are, in essence, very similar.
  • Can act as a misnomer, e.g. listing the ruins on Auridon as Ayleid.
  • A large number of exceptions exist, making categorization by icon almost useless.

The game has been out for well over a year now, and a pattern has clearly emerged when it comes to categorizing places based on gameplay. The majority of these different icon-based categorizations are actually all a similar type of place: quest objective locations. The only Dwemer ruins that use the Dwemer icon are the ones that center around a specific quest chain; other Dwemer ruins serve as delves or public dungeons, and are rightfully categorized as such.

Based on gameplay, the following are the place type lists I'd like to propose:

  • Trials
  • Group Dungeons
  • Delves
  • Public Dungeons
  • Group Delves
  • Dolmens (include Bruma, exclude Cloud Ruler)
  • Striking Locales? (currently "Landmarks", only include those which contribute to an achievement)
  • Crafting Sites
  • Wayshrines
  • Mundus Stones
  • Settlements? (overworld places with their own maps)
  • Quest Hubs? (all remaining overworld markers)
  • Unmarked Locations

The current categorization of PvP and service places are fine, since those places all serve a common purpose/feature.

The above list is obviously up for discussion here, but I feel it groups places based on their actual function rather than any perceived theme. Grouping unmarked locations together is already what is being done on zone pages, and makes a lot of sense to me. They'd also have nowhere else to go if we group all quest objectives together, and it would match how we've treated these kind of places in the other namespaces.

Finally, I'd like to point out that we've ignored icons before when they get in the way of common gameplay factors. —Legoless (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. The sub-types of the quest hub icons often do not correspond to actual places, and so grouping these separately creates more confusion than order. Only one note: there are some overworld places which have their own map and are not settlements (Arcwind Point springs to mind here), so "settlements" may not be the best name for that group.
Still, that does not fully eliminate the problem of icons: the category of a place, determined by the icon, shows up in the Online Place Summary table, creating nonsenses such as "Lighthouse: Greenheart" or "Ayleid Ruin: Labyrinth". --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 18:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you use the parameter to define it instead of the default, you can make it say whatever you want. That really isn't an issue in my opinion. In terms of the suggestion, I have no issue with the solution that Legoless has offered. Jeancey (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that would be changed to "Quest Hub: Labyrinth" or whatever. For the Settlements category, I meant places which highlight on the zone map. Each zone only has two of these. —Legoless (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. Some only have one, some have three. Off the top of my head, Malabal Tor has Velyn Harbor, Vulkwasten and the Baandari Trading Post, and I believe Alik'r has three as well, as does Stonefalls. There are likely others with three too. Jeancey (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Theoretically it's a sensible idea, and the proposed suggestion makes sense for gameplay. What would happen in the case of Daggerfall and Aldcroft, which are both quest hubs and settlements, compared to Marbruk and Belkarth, which are just settlements and not quest hubs?
I don't want to entirely lose the place types though, as whether it's useful for gameplay or not, there are really only a limited number of locations that don't work by icon, and we've already been calling some of them something more accurate (eg, Firebrand Keep was always called a Fort, even when it used the City icon). Most of the time, the icons do work: everywhere considered a Grove is a "natural wilderness"-style location, everywhere considered a ruin is in ruins, and everywhere considered an Ayleid Ruin, while not always Ayleid, does always have the same architectural style.
Would it work, instead of/as well as using "Quest Hubs" as a massive list of all of these, if we had grouped pages based on the icons, using the same names that the sections on the zone pages use? That way, we don't lose the distinction of what the place is in its type parameter, but it becomes a bit more generalized. Alternatively, we just take a bit more lenience with the icons and shift the types around to what the locations themselves represent more closely, like the Unmarked Locations.
In summary – gameplay-wise I like the idea, but I don't want to lose the distinction of what the icons represent. If that distinction wasn't important, the icons wouldn't exist, and there would just be one "Quest Hub" icon for everything. --Enodoc (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I also want to address each of the issues directly:
  • Sacrifices accuracy of the lists: True, but all things with the Dwemer Ruins type and icon are Quest Hubs. Something that is a ruin of Dwemer civilization, and thus a Dwemer ruin, does not have to be considered a Dwemer Ruin by type. Delves that are Dwemer ruins do not conform to the gameplay of a Dwemer Ruin-type location.
    • Running counter to this rule, unmarked locations are included: Yes, because while not quest hubs in the true sense, are all quest-related, and those that are not (eg Hfirorg Farm) correspond to marked locations that are also not quest hubs (eg Marbruk). The number of unmarked locations is comparatively small, and classing them visually by type based on the existing types seemed the most logical solution. Delves et al. are not included because their gameplay essence is different to that of these quest-based locations.
  • Causes undue segregation of locations which are, in essence, very similar: Similar in gameplay process, not in design. Nordic Ruins and Caves are quite similar in gameplay as well, but they're still separated based on icon and design.
  • Can act as a misnomer, e.g. listing the ruins on Auridon as Ayleid: We did say before that a note under the Auridon section explaining the difference would suffice.
  • A large number of exceptions exist, making categorization by icon almost useless: Exceptions can be considered individually, there really aren't that many of them.
--Enodoc (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with keeping around list pages for, say, bodies of water or Dwemer ruins. I'm sure people would be interested in seeing them all together on a page, and it gives somewhere to link to when describing places that use that tileset. What I am against is using it as the main form of categorization. A list page would be much more useful if it lists *all* Dwemer ruins or *all* natural caves, regardless of the gameplay encountered there, which can't be done with the current gameplay/icon hybrid system we have. All I'm proposing is organizing by zone and by gameplay criteria, rather than zone and place type. Places like Aldcroft are an exception to the rule, which is why the Settlement/Quest Hub divide is a little shaky, but I think it's one that's still worth making due to the importance of major settlements if nothing else. —Legoless (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Then could we do it in reverse? So the main list of Dwemer Ruins would be the quest hubs, and at the bottom there would be a list of "Other Dwemer Ruins" which would include Delves and the like. --Enodoc (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That would mean quest hubs would stay divided though. A single page listing each quest hub in each zone seems the most useful to me. —Legoless (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point there. So could we have a trail that says, for example, "Online: Places: Grahtwood / Quest Hubs / Groves" for Brackenleaf, and "Online: Places: Alik'r Desert / Delves / Dwemer Ruins" for Santaki? Then the type isn't entirely lost from the page, non-quest hubs are added into the types, and you still get the general categorization into Quest Hubs as well.
On a tangential note, where, under your proposed system, would you put Cyrodiil Ayleid Ruins or The Harborage? They're not quest hubs, they're not unmarked, and they're not settlements. --Enodoc (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The Cyrodiil ruins are future quest hubs I believe, but I see the problem. If there are marked places in other zones which similarly serve no purpose, it might be worth making a separate page for them, but nothing springs to mind other than Cloud Ruler Temple. The Harborage is totally unique, given that it can be ported to from the Tamriel map, but I don't see a problem with listing it as a quest hub rather than making a separate category for it. Maybe if anything similar ever gets added we can reconsider. A threeway trail sounds like a good compromise. —Legoless (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

() Just dawned on me, a page for Craglorn's Group Events would probably be a good idea. —Legoless (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that would make sense. According to ESOHead, the collective term for places like the Cyrodiil Ayleid Ruins and Marbruk, which also includes all Striking Locales, Mundus Stones and Crafting Sites, is "Explorable" Locations. Not sure if we want to use that or not, but just thought I'd mention it here. --Enodoc (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
So group locations based on whether they have an objective or not? The problem with that approach is that it would split up major settlements. —Legoless (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that's really unavoidable, otherwise we are creating an extra location class for our own benefit and splitting up some of the Quest Hubs. Hoarfrost Downs is a Town, a Quest Hub, and a Settlement. Marbruk is a City and a Settlement, but not a Quest Hub. Shinji's Scarp is a Town and a Quest Hub, and it has shops, but it's not a Settlement. Alcaire Castle is a Fort, a Quest Hub, and a Settlement. Wayrest is a City and Settlement, but it's an Unmarked Location and not a Quest Hub. Camlorn is a City and a Quest Hub, but not a Settlement.
If we are keeping the Types as a third trail parameter, there will still be an overall collection of Towns and Cities, so maybe a separate class and list of "Settlements" is actually not necessary anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds okay, but I'd rather not combine Mundus Stones, points of interest and crafting sites with these miscellaneous non-Quest Hubs like the Cyrodiil Ayleid ruins and Marbruk. I can't really think of a good name for them though, especially since "discoverable location" is already the name we give to places with a map marker. —Legoless (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that's fair. Not everywhere needs a three-way trail, and those can stay as two-way. I think "Explorable Location" is a safe cover-all for the non-Quest Hubs with icons. In that case, the main "class"-type list looks something like this:
  • Crafting Sites
  • Dolmens
  • Dungeons
    • Delves
    • Public Dungeons
    • Group Delves (needed? or will Delves suffice?)
    • Group Dungeons
    • Trials
  • Group Bosses
  • Mundus Stones
  • Striking Locales
  • Strongholds
  • Realms
  • Wayshrines
  • Quest Hubs (everything else with an Objective)
  • Explorable Locations (everything else with an icon and without an Objective)
  • Unmarked Locations (everything else without an icon)
And then we have the secondary "style"-type list, which is no longer restricted to just being Quest Hubs or limited to having the right icon (and so can include delves, crafting sites, and the like without conflict):
  • Ayleid Ruins (possibly change to "Elven Ruins")
  • Battlefields
  • Bodies of Water
  • Camps
  • Caves
  • Cemeteries
  • Cities
  • Crypts
  • Daedric Ruins
  • Docks
  • Dwemer Ruins
  • Estates
  • Farms
  • Forts
  • Gates
  • Groves
  • Lighthouses
  • Mines
  • Ruins
  • Sewers
  • Ships
  • Towns
So the last question is, how do we want to show it in the Place Summary? Should we use "Quest Hub", "Explorable Location", and "Unmarked Location"? Or would it be best to keep the "style" type in the Place Summary and just use those "class" types in the Trail? --Enodoc (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the class would be the best thing to put in the Place Summary. For Group Delves, I separated them because their gameplay is entirely different from regular Delves. Being instanced and group-bound unless soloed, they play more like a Group Dungeon than the classic open-world Delves. "Explorable Location" is fine with me; I was thinking "Miscellaneous Location" or "Major Location", but they don't really suit. I don't think we should be considering Realms as a class though. It's very much a "style" page, decided by lore rather than function. In function, The Refuge of Dread is a part of Firsthold and Chateau of the Ravenous Rodent is Unzoned. I think the easiest solution for those Unzoned places is to simply leave them with the current two-way trail and treat them similarly to other minor locations like "Homes". —Legoless (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
OK cool, I wasn't really sure what the plan was for Realms and Strongholds, so leaving them as they are is probably best. --Enodoc (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Break 1[edit]

() I've started work on Online:Unmarked Locations, Online:Quest Hubs, and Online:Explorable Locations. They only include Ruin and Ayleid Ruin types so far, and it's gonna be slow going. I don't trust a bot to assemble the list, since a couple Quest Hubs don't have their objective listed yet. I've listed Lake Mist Ruins as an Explorable Location, since it grants discovery XP even though its map marker is seemingly bugged. I've also done nothing with Stirk, since it seemingly acts like a Quest Hub despite being unzoned. I haven't actually seen how that functions in-game, so someone else will have to make the call on whether or not we give it a three-way trail. —Legoless (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Stirk works just like any other Quest Hub, so a three-way for that one would be Unzoned / Quest Hubs / Ayleid Ruins. I would also suggest that, for consistency, we use the current sectioning layout that already exists on the Stores pages, combined with the territory sectioning on the Zones page, to get something like this:
=== Aldmeri Dominion ===
*Place Link
*Place Link
*Place Link
=== Daggerfall Covenant ===
=== Ebonheart Pact ===
=== Neutral ===
I'll also add the editing of Place Summary to my list of things to do, as there are a couple of other things that I want to do with Place Summary in addition to this. If anyone else gets there first, the best thing to do would be to have |type=<class type> and |addtrail=/<style type>. --Enodoc (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mentor Program[edit]

There's a severe lack of available mentors right now, if anyone is interested in helping new members. —Legoless (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ESO: Locations of Crafting Materials[edit]

I have a request for those editors who play ESO. I hard-coded zones where crafting materials can be found into the template. I would really appreciate it if you could check those locations on the pages that already exist, {{Online Equipment Crafting Materials}}, and let me know if more zones need to be added for some of the materials. Thanks!  ~Shuryard (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)