UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 21

Policy Question

I just reverted   on the grounds that we have no way of confirming that the e-mail address actually belongs to the poster. To me, that seems like a sensible thing to do, but I can also see how it could be taken as an assumption of bad faith. It's kind of a tricky issue, so I'm posting here in case anybody else has opinions about it. If so, let's hash it out and come up with a policy on what to do in those cases (unless we already have one that I've just never come across).  &ndash; Robin Hood    08:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

: While it has been considered incredibly bad netiquette since Usenet was first created to ask for replies to be posted to an email address rather than the location where the question was asked, we have many, many examples on UESP where people have done so and their email address has not been deleted. rpeh  09:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, it seems like a huge leap of bad faith to remove it on the grounds that it might not be the poster's email address.  Along that line of reasoning, we'd also have to delete any user self-images, too.  Posting email addresses doesn't violate any policies, nor should it, so I think the addresses are fine left on the pages.  --GK  12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I agree with rpeh that leaving an e-mail address for people to reply to is bad netiquette, but we haven't removed addresses before. I don't think RH's revert can be considered to be bad faith, as his main intent was to protect the (possible) owner of the e-mail address, i.e. the revert was out of caution rather than attempting to accuse the editor of anything. --Timenn-  12:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Okay, I think the trend here is clear. I was iffy on the removal, and everyone else agrees it's best to leave it, so I've restored the edit. Do we want to add this to our policies somewhere (where?) just as basically a summary that it's considered acceptable? Or just let it pass, since we've now all read the discussion anyway, and trust that we'll all know what to do?  &ndash; Robin Hood    18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 

Signature Policy?

Where exactly is this located? Also why is it policy that a signature be related to the username? I was using        which includes a link to my userpage and my talk page. By the way Ghurhak gro-Demril is related to my username, albeit in a somewhat odd way: He's one of my Oblivion characters and... an Albino Orc! Since I created my account before realizing that it could be named after an Orc (not to imply that UESP has a prejudice against Orcs just that they have long names) I named it TheAlbinoOrc rather than Ghurhak gro-Demril. While I have no desire to rename my account I don't see a reason why I can't use Ghurhak gro-Demril for my signature. Anyone have thoughts on what our policy should be on this?--       03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:So far as I know, we're falling back to Wikipedia's signature policy, rather than duplicating their efforts with our own. Assuming I'm correct in that, while it's strongly encouraged that you use a name that closely resembles your username, it's not absolute. Provided there are no other users on the site with the name Ghurhak gro-Demril, or anything close enough that it would be easily mistaken, I think you're okay to change your signature. If you're consistent about it and don't change it to one of your other characters, we'll all get used to it eventually anyway...and still refer to you as TAO. :Þ  &ndash; Robin Hood    04:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::In my honest opinion, I think it's unnecessarily confusing.  I'd never make a big fuss over it but if we're taking "votes", I say the signature should at least resemble the username.  --GK  12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Hmm. Is Wolok gro-Barok close enough to be confusing? I know he exists already. Also what would happen if a someone created an account with (for example) Garhuk gro-Demrul? Would I have to change back?--       22:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::That would be quite a problem...I think we would have to change ALL of your signatures to your username...you can see where that would be a problem.--             22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 
:::::Not really. We could just have a bot search for all instances of          and change them to         .--       22:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::That also brings up why I registered the account GK.  Not only is that the initials of my username, but many started using it to refer to me before I registered it, so it made sense to get it "off the market", so to speak.  So, when it at least resembles the original username it makes sense, but other random names are just confusing, without a good reason for it.  Depending on the outcome of this discussion, if we decide to allow unrelated signatures, there should be some sort of policy that says that the user has to register the alternate and redirect/make note, simply to avoid further unnecessary confusion.  --GK  22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)--GK  22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::In conjunction with GK's suggestion, I've now imported the Doppelganger template from Wikipedia and modified it for our use. Just add   to the new User page and/or Talk page. Alternately, you can ignore the template and just redirect them to the appropriate pages.  &ndash; Robin Hood    23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

    While it's true, we could do that, that's probably not a good trend to start. Changing every talk page you ever signed with a given signature could be a lengthy operation. I think the gist of the discussion is that while you're technically allowed to do it, it's probably better if you don't. :)  &ndash; Robin Hood    22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 

:What about this:  Ghurhak gro-Demril       ? Since it includes my name it should be less confusing even if someone does create an account with a similar username right?--       23:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::That's a great deal better, but I'd still suggest you register that name as an account... RH is working on a template for that purpose.  Your new sig and the registered account with redirect/template would address the concerns I had.  --GK  23:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 

:::Hmm. I wish I'd read this before creating . I would have waited for the template to be created. I'll hold off on making Ghurhak gro-Demril until it's finished.--       23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::::The template is now done (added above, just under GK's post about the concept). You can either add the template to the top of the page (as I've done at RobinHood) to display the message, or add it below a #REDIRECT command (as  's done) to just have the page added to the category.  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel this entire signature business is getting a little out of hand. They are only meant to identify the poster of a comment. Some formatting can usually help make the signature more recognizable (the visual cue), it makes it easier scanning an entire discussion for participants. But remember this is not a social platform! We are not a forum where you can customize your avatar. 

If you are unhappy about your username you can make an Rename User request, in which case your username itself will be changed. Signing your posts with anything other than a name that clearly identifies you just causes more trouble for other editors. I don't want to hover over links all the time to identify people who suddenly change signatures.

That being said, I would like even less to see an entire enumerated list with limitations on signatures. That will only cause endless talk page notifications about signatures to people who are not fully aware of the entire list. People should evaluate their own signature and keep in mind what other editors would like to see. --Timenn-  09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Real Names

While doing some research for HotnBOThered recently, I discovered that a method exists for anybody, even anonymous users, to access the "Real Name" you enter into your preferences. I won't detail the method (except to Daveh and Nephele if they wish, since they might be able to disable the method), but I thought I would let everybody know that it's possible, in case they wish to change or remove that entry in their preferences.  &ndash; Robin Hood    22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:Hmm, whatever the cause, this ''   '' should be reported to a MediaWiki staff member.
:If the cause is exclusive to this wiki, then it will be patched and the MediaWiki staff will presumably take measures to prevent it from ever occurring.
:If it isn't, then we likely have an urgent problem that will likely require an immediate patch.
:The best outcome is that it isn't possible, in which case it'll just be a relief.
:BTW though, what DOES happen with the real name for attribution?
:I doubt it is meant to be accessible, but what purpose does it serve?
:    Special:Contributions/The Ashborn|   

::It's not that big a deal. The method isn't too obvious (assuming it's the one that I knew about) and there's a simple rule anyway: If you don't want your details around on the internet, don't put them there. I believe the name is there so that if somebody did UESP: the book (say), the real names of contributors could be used to fulfill the license conditions... but I could be wrong. rpeh  16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I believe rpeh's right in thinking that it's intended to attribute your work if desired. Heck, it even says so right under the Real Name box in your preferences. It's clearly a feature that they intend to develop (or perhaps intended and then abandoned)—it's not some oversight or hack or anything like that. My guess is that they've abandoned it, but that's based solely on the fact that it's in the code of at least a couple of versions that I'm aware of, yet it remains relatively undocumented anywhere that I've found.  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dawnstar to Sidebar?

Since Krusty seems to have finished work on Dawnstar for now, I'd like to propose that we either add it  to the side bar directly or put an ES Travels (that is the name of the group that Dawnstar is in right?) link there. What does everyone else think?--       21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:I think Daveh has said that mobile games are not important enough for the sidebar. (Wiki, yes, but not the sidebar) --    21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
::I don't recall that being a decision made by Daveh.  I'd support having an "ES Travels" or "Mobile Games" link in the sidebar.  --GK  22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:::(e/c)It wasn't Daveh.
:::A couple of years ago (and I have no idea where the discussion was), some people (I recall it being Nephele and Ratwar, but I might be wrong) wanted Redguard and Battlespire taken off the sidebar. I managed to stop that happening, but it was clear that Shadowkey wasn't going to make it on. I imagine Dawnstar will face more opposition.
:::Personally, I think all the games (for which we have content) should be on the sidebar by default. If that doesn't happen, a Mobile Games section might work. Of course, anyone can override their own sidebar by using a custom javascript file such as this one. rpeh  22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
::::My response didn't have much background knowledge - I think I read that somewhere on the AN. --    22:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 
:::::(Edit conflict) Just as a side note the discussion here has a little more information about this.--       22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::: For obvious reasons, I think the mobile games deserve a spot on the sidebar as well. It does not have to be individual titles - they could just be added to the bottom of the list as "Mobile Games" or "ES Travels". I really think it is ridiculous that we have a completed Shadowkey namespace with lots of pictures and a wealth of info - and then it is hidden away like a dirty secret. As for Dawnstar, I would like it to land on the sidebar as well - but only after I have added at least another wave of info to the pages. It still seems a bit "empty". --Krusty 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
: The mobile games deserve as much attention as the others, especially if they have complete namespaces already. Arthmoor 00:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:: At the least, I'd agree that we should add an "ES Travels" or "Mobile Games" link, as several people have suggested now. I wouldn't complain at having the individual games listed, though we'll need to keep an eye on just how long our sidebar is getting.  &ndash; Robin Hood    00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think adding them is going to make it over-long, as IIRC there are only four mobile games in total. Although of course, presumably ES:V will need adding within the year as well. Jadrax 00:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
::::And we only have content for two of the games at the moment. TESV would go above Oblivion at the top of the list, so it would stand out anyway. An admin just needs to edit . rpeh  06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Done, I think.  I've rejigged a few categories, too, for consistency.  Let me know if there's any issues.  --GK  21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Additionally, I have created logos for all 4 Mobile games and they could probably fit in on the new TES page somewhere, just to make it a bit more attractive. The logos can be found here: Dawnstar, Stormhold, Shadowkey and Oblivion Mobile. Feel free to get creative! :) --Krusty 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Looks great. It needs move- and semi-protection to fit with the standard for the other sidebar pages, but otherwise it's perfect. rpeh  08:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: I like it as well and it was about time the Mobile Games found their way into the sidebar. TES Travels semi-protected and pad-locked. --Krusty 08:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Userspace Content Editing

Well with the consensus being to userfy the Roleplaying page we now have a problem. Specifically it's against current policy to edit another users page. But now that we keep actual content there (or will in the near future anyway) we may need to edit spelling, grammar or first-person-ness because that content affects our "image". So do we want to change that policy (in a very, very restricted way, that only applies to actual site content of course) or rely on the goodwill of adopters?--       20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

: Please can we keep this on the one page? The discussion is still ongoing at  - it's still a Community Portal discussion, just one that has been subpaged because of its length. rpeh  20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Userspace Patrollers
 

Etiquette Policy Change

I made a small change to the Etiquette Policy to bring it into line with previous policy on voting. I hope it won't be a controversial change, since the consequences of the alternative - allowing every IP address to vote - should be evident. rpeh  19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Permanent 3-hour Blocker Rights to Rpeh

Just to let everybody know; GK and I have decided to give Rpeh permanent three-hour blocking rights. Why? We need another european to watch the Recent Changes and prevent vandalism and the like. Since Rpeh watches the page all the time (and because RobinHood70 needs to sleep every once in a while), it is only natural that Rpeh is able to stop vandals temporarily until an Administrator comes along. --Krusty 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:Just to confirm.  --GK  22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Thanks to both of you. Just to clarify: I don't actually watch RC all the time... although the sooner the MediaWiki people come up with a cranial implant, the better. rpeh  22:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Morrowind Stat Problems

This is just a heads up to notify everybody that many of the magicka values on Morrowind (+TR, BM and TR3) are wrong. I've been looking into getting RoBoT to add the missing values to the non-relevant NPCs and while working on the formulae for health and magicka, decided to do a quick check on Altmer and Bretons to make sure we'd added in the birthsign bonus for magicka. The short answer is "No, we aren't", and the longer answer is "No, but there's another problem too". An NPC's magicka should be twice their intelligence plus any bonus, but it's not quite like that.

The birthsign bonus is easily done, although not quite in the way that would seem logical. The Altmer ability is supposed to fortify their magicka by 150%, i.e. if they had 100 base magicka, they should end up with 250. Bretons get a +50% boost (so 100 -> 150). In-game, however, the effect is halved so the Altmer would get a 75% boost (100->175) and the Breton 25% (100->125). This was tested with the   console command, in case you're wondering. However, those of you with experience of the MW CS will know that there's an option you can tick to "Auto Calculate Stats", and this all only applies for certain to NPCs that use this option.

For fixed-stat NPCs, things seem to be much more complex. Aldaril, an Altmer, should have 301 magicka according to this formula, and indeed he does. Arnand Liric, a Breton, should have 41.25 magicka according to this formula... and he has 165. Interestingly, 165 is equal to twice his intelligence +50%, so it seems as if he's getting the correct racial bonus but ignoring the fixed magicka value.

I doubt this is going to affect many people, since it seems unlikely that many users check an NPC's health and magicka before doing battle, but in case anybody is relying on these figures for some reason, treat them with a little caution. I'm going to do some more research but anybody else should feel free to tell me what I'm missing. rpeh  10:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Project Review Process?

I was thinking about creating a "Project Review" process so that it's easier to see what the community thinks about a project and also so that creating a project is easier (how would you go about that anyway?). What I'm thinking of is: you make (for example) /ProjectReview/OIRP (Oblivion Item Redesign Project) and put what it would do. Users would then vote (I'm thinking Support and Oppose would work fine but suggestions on the wording are welcome) to either start or not start the project. Then periodically (every three months?) a new section on the Project Review page would be started to see if everyone thought the project was meeting its goals and if not what could be done to fix it, including starting over. Any thoughts?--       22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:While I think the idea is good, I don't see why this would be necessary. Projects here on UESP are very rare, and whenever one pops-up very few people actually stick to it until it has been completed. I think that in the case a new project showed up, it would be simply better to bring it up here on the CP and have the people express their ideas about it, instead of going through such process. --   •   02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

::I believe deliberately not having an easy process for starting new projects safeguards us from having to deal with editors who start new project without giving much thought about all the work it would require. As can be seen from articles like  it is really easy to start a new concept, but actually working out the details is the main task for any project. If someone has a real intent to start a new project he/she should already be able to create a new article for it and describing the project in detail. When the project is interesting enough, editors will jump in automatically. 

::When I look at the projects that succeeded or are succeeding, I see they are successful because the involved editors kept it alive, not because a standardized format forced it so. --Timenn-  10:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Exactly. The OBNPCRP is taking a little break since its editors are busy with other things, but we constantly review and discuss progress on IRC to make sure things stay up to date. The Image Cleanup Project should never have been a project in the first place, since it's all about good editing practice. The OPRP is pretty much dead but there's no easy way to administer a coup de grace short of just removing the templates. The DRP is pretty much all down to PLRDLF.
:::For new projects, as I said relatively recently, just starting a project isn't enough. You need to have enough people to make it workable - and remember most people who add their names to project pages never do anything on them. If people can't be bothered to expend a decent amount of effort in setting up a project, they probably won't be bothered to expend the effort involved in following it through either. rpeh  12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 

::::Having to actually be willing to work at it a bit to create a project makes sense I suppose. The problem is what is the existing method? Start the page and see what happens? Start a discussion here? Start one on the AN? Discuss it on a relevant talk page if one exists or another user's page if it doesn't? 

::::Also I'd like to propose that the Project Review process be implemented in reduced form. It would be used to ensure that projects stay useful. If an editor has concerns about a project, (for example "The OPRP is pretty much dead but there's no easy way to administer a coup de grace short of just removing the templates.") they would start a Project Review page with their reason for believing a review is needed. A project could also choose to have reviews periodically in addition to those started because of concern for the project. All Project Reviews would take place on the same page, which would be archived on an as needed basis.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Even with the second proposal I'm not sure what the reasons are for setting up such a procedure? So far you've told us what the procedure should be, but not why it should be implemented. The existing procedure is the lack of a procedure. Projects usually evolve from single discussions growing out of hand. You can't start one from scratch if you still need to be explained how you can contact all your fellow editors and make them enthusiastic. 

:::::Project Reviewing sounds unnecessarily bureaucratic to me. Review processes only become interesting when you are working with isolated editors, or when you have a certain deadline or standard to take work to. --Timenn-  11:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action

Please, people. I know at least one person has the odd idea that they're helping by spending their time on talk pages rather than adding content, but they're wrong. As another editor just pointed out, there are FA votes that need considering (and you can vote on as many as you like - they go in series, not in parallel). For people who want things to do, there are many items on the Task List and more in the Needs Maintenance category.

If you can't find something to do, it's down to a lack of imagination, not a lack of outstanding tasks. rpeh  22:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

:I don't think there's any need to encourage people to do any more or less than they wish, or contribute in a manner other than what they're good at. Some people help out by answering talk page questions, some people help out by fixing grammar and spelling, some people add or verify content. I don't really see a problem with doing or not doing any of these things. This is a volunteer-run wiki, not a place of employment — we each contribute in whatever ways we feel are most appropriate for our skills and the time we have available.  &ndash; Robin Hood    23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I'm pointing out lists of things that need doing, of which people may not be aware. And this is a wiki, which is a content-delivery system. If you aren't interested in content, you're in the wrong place. rpeh  06:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

::: It isn't a matter of not finding something to do. For me, it's a matter of where to focus my time, and I prefer to do that modding, not editing wiki pages. Where the two overlap, I'll likely continue to contribute. However most of the stuff on the task lists requires way more time than a lot of folks are going to put in. The FA status of articles isn't something I feel qualified to make a judgment on since honestly it's hard to tell what's "merely good" and what's "great". Arthmoor 07:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:::: That's what I mean. You've focused on the things that particularly concern you - the problems fixed by the UOPS. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's useful new content. rpeh  07:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

::::: I'm confused then. Everyone that I can think of focuses on improving the wiki in whatever ways they're capable of, be it templates, spelling and grammar, adding content, verifying content, or whatever. What exactly is it that you think needs to occur, besides those that have the time, energy, and skill focussing a little more on the Task List?  &ndash; Robin Hood    07:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Some people don't add content. I'm sure you know what I mean. rpeh  07:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::: I'm not sure I do know what you mean, no. Are you saying that any and all contributors must add new content or be deemed to be "in the wrong place"? I think you'll find that there are a great many editors, both among the regular contributors and the infrequent ones, who have little or no skill at content-creation. That doesn't mean that they stick to just talk pages, as you stated originally, it means that they find other ways to contribute such as those I've mentioned above and many more. And let's not forget about the Patrollers and Administrators who frequently give significant portions of their time to the various functions that they do.  &ndash; Robin Hood    07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: If all people want to do is complicate existing templates, this isn't the wiki for them and to pretend otherwise is another example of behaviour that has nothing to do with improving the site. rpeh  07:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Articles - please vote SUPPORT or OPPOSE and nothing else

Can we please just vote "yay" or "nay" (support or oppose, in case somebody takes this the wrong way) in the voting section for Featured Articles? All the unnecessary words like "Conditional", "Temporary" and what have we, makes it very hard to do the count and decide which article should be next on the main page. Also, voting "Weak" or "Strong" support is not really needed, as everybody have a right to explain their vote. A "Weak Support" is a "Support", no matter how weak it is. So please, people - make up your mind and be clear. --Krusty 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 

:My use of conditional (and rpeh's and SerCenKing's also) is saying A. I don't currently support this but will if X is cleared up (rpeh, and those VN tags do need clearing up) or B. I currently support this and will unless Y is raised (me and SerCenKing and we were saying that we couldn't speak for the accuracy of something since we'd never played it so if someone else raises questions about accuracy we'd change to an oppose).--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
:: Yeah, that is all very cool, but instead of all that rambling simply vote "Oppose" and explain why you voted like that - or even better; Improve the article in question so it deserve your vote. As administrators, we really can't use all that weird voting to anything when we do the count. Which reminds me; When we are voting for patrollers, it seems like it is the new black to write "VERY STRONG SUPPORT" and stuff like that. I know it is a statement, but a support vote is a support vote, no matter how strong it is. --Krusty 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 
:::Two of were simply voting when we'd change and why. I can't improve the TR3 article more than I did already. I wrote an entirely new description section about Kwama since there was nothing. I voted Temporary Oppose rather than just saying Oppose because I wanted to make it clear that as soon as the issue was cleared up it would be a support. Also since all the requirements have been met for  to be an FA can you please add it to the main page?--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: I think we have a tendency to overcomplicate things around here. Other opinions before I get all confused and declare Ghosts of Vitharn the winner? :D? --Krusty 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::His most exalted highness Amm, The most high Lord-Magister, Arch-Mage of Cyrodiil and other assorted titles has spoken. Seyda Neen is judged worthy rounding it out to five votes even if mine can't be used.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'd give it until tonight or tomorrow to declare featured status, just because of the surge of late voting. But as the white orc above me said it meets the criteria so far. -- Jplatinum16 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

\=> I partly agree with your request here, Krusty. The tendency to use the "Strong" adjective always felt to me like someone considered his/her vote more important than that of others. "Conditional" and "Temporary" are indeed vague descriptions. I do think we need to give people the opportunity to express their indecision. If you have something to say about the subject of the vote, use "Comment". 

Having said that, I do think that sometimes you might want to differentiate between "I think the idea won't work" and "I don't like the new idea, but that's my personal preference". It should be clear you're (practically) always allowed to change your vote later on, in case you feel that your vote is not having the outcome you'd like to see. --Timenn-  21:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
:TAO, you should not have done that. You know have to refer to me as that for the rest of your life. ;) --    23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 

::Really? (scuttles off to his userpage to revise the lore on palefaces).--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

New Project?
 

Cartographer Needed

Since it's a little out of the way, I just wanted to bring this to the Cartographers' attention.  &ndash; Robin Hood    20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:It's probably not that big a deal since Graring has a link to his house on his page but I'll message Rpeh. I'm fairly sure he still has cartographer rights.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I figured rpeh was the most likely candidate to fix it, but of the active users, Daveh, GK, and Timenn all have Cartographer rights as well, so I figured a general post would get the attention of whomever came by first. And Brf has apparently found a bunch more.  &ndash; Robin Hood    20:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::: Ya. Timenn told me to post those there. So they were in one place. --Brf 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 

::::  Update: I've let rpeh know. Just wanted to let you know that I did message him since real life does happen to people occasionally, and they end up not doing stuff (for example this).

:::: (Response, I.E composed after the (first) edit conflict) You're right that a general post will atract the attention of whoever sees it first, also. I just thought that since rpeh was the most active he should know. He may have some other stuff going on though since he se to have been somewhat distracted recently (see here and the above section). 

::::You know you take too long to type your response when your EC has an EC.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

::::: All done. rpeh  08:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Colouring the Map

Please can people pop over here and let me know what they think about the proposed map changes. Thanks. rpeh  14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Would Anyone Mind If

I change the rules for patrollers so that if a consensus is reached to allow someone to "try again" in less than three months it doesn't break policy?--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

:Actually, yes, I would.  It's a guideline (not a rule), so if the community decides to act differently in an individual situation, that's perfectly fine.  I rather like the three-month restriction, though.  In any situation I can think of, any user whose nomination was rejected should definitely wait at least three months before renominating.  --GK  23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

::I agree with GK: it's probably unnecessary, since it's not a hard rule, and most of the time, three months is a good time before renominating. I have visions of "Am I ready this week?" situations arising otherwise. :)  &ndash; Robin Hood    02:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 

:::Ah. I hadn't gotten the guideline bit. I just wanted to see since AMM said he didn't want to have t wait three months in a "wait a month" situation. Since I'm fairly literal most of the time I decided to ask what would happen in a a Consensus: Wait a month situation.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        04:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

MW vs Morrowind

Just to bring up a couple of recent edits of Brf (which were perfectly fine by the way), where he uses links starting with   , I wanted to ask is there any problem using the abbreviation MW instead of Morrowind? I haven't seen abbreviations used on other pages, even Oblivion ones, but I don't know if there was anything on which one was preferred. -- Jplatinum16 01:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

: They've been used once or twice. I prefer the full namespace in links - I thought the abbreviations were designed for edit summaries and other places where space is tight - but it doesn't matter too much either way. rpeh  08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I had noticed a few links made by other users that used the MW namespace, rather than Morrowind. I was using it simply because it is shorter (less chance of typos). I have not gotten into the habit of using those handy edit shortcut links below this box yet. --Brf 11:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 

::: I often use these also - I had the understanding that as long as the link worked either one was fine. I'll have to dig up the discussion at some point...--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New User Group?

I'm thinking about those like Brf who don't want to have to patrol but whose edits can be trusted. Maybe Patrolled instead of patroller? Thoughts?--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:To me, that seems just like lazieness, not wanting to patrol someone's edits because they make them in bursts like that. Besides, every editor can make mistakes and automatically marking it as patrolled wouldn't be good. --    20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 
::That's not what I said. Brf doesn't want to be a patroller because he doesn't want to have to patrol. However his edits can be trusted. Why shouldn't they be patrolled?--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::: I agree with AMM. I do not guarantee all of my edits are correct or proper ;) --Brf 20:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::::But it seems unnecesary; an editor could still make a mistake or do something that others don't approve of. And Brf, I'm not talking just about you. I've made hundreds of mistakes on the UESP. :) --    20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::This suggestion has come up before, though it's been quite a while since I last remember seeing it. The gist of the replies was that if we trust someone's edits enough that they're auto-patrolled, then we trust them enough to make them a Patroller, even if they do little or no patrolling. Back when I became a Patroller, I remember warning that I might not be able to patrol much due to the combination of work and my CFS, and was reassured that that was absolutely fine (and look how that turned out! :Þ). Even if all that happens is that a person's edits become auto-patrolled and they never patrol anything themselves, then at least it's that much less work on the existing Patrollers. And if they happen to patrol a few things too, so much the better, but that's not absolutely required. So creating a new group would be redundant, when we could simply make him a Patroller (once we've had more time to get to know him).  &ndash; Robin Hood    21:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

HotnBOThered Job

Just to let everyone know, HotnBOThered is running its first "real" read-write job. I'll be keeping an eye on it fairly closely while I do other work, but if anybody spots any major issues, please don't hesitate to post to its talk page to make it stop. For minor issues, please just post a summary to my talk page instead.  &ndash; Robin Hood    10:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

:Looks like the write delay could use some tweaking, as it's currently only doing a few every minute, but it seems to be off to a good start. Better the edits are too far apart than too close together! (I know others in the house are using some heavy bandwidth, and our connection generally sucks, so that's probably not helping.) At its present rate, it should be done around 4:00 or 5:00 pm UTC.  &ndash; Robin Hood    11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)