UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 24

Featured Image
 

Lore Overviews/Overhaul

I recently created an overview for  that generally explains the contents of the sub-pages and what flora is. The other main sections (Bestiary, Factions, Geography, History, Library, and People) in Lore space still need overviews though. So if anyone wants to get to work on this feel free to. I'd of already started another but I've been caught up with my other interests. I believe we should figure out if we want an overview for each section and what it should contain first.

 
Factions
What qualifies as a faction? Does a Guild? a brotherhood of knights? A drinking club that the only general connection between the members is the love of alcohol? This needs to be defined. Maybe an explanation on faction relations might be good as well.
Geography
No idea what should be done here.
History
Maybe an explanation of Elder Scrolls history in general? With a bit of information on grey areas in history.
Library
What do we consider to be a book? A textbook grossly defining an entire area of in-game lore? a short novel found in bookstores everywhere? A scroll containing ancient information? A random scrap of paper with no relevance to anything what so ever?
People
What qualifies someone as a notable figure? We should define what counts as a notable figure, though besides that there isn't much to say about people in general.

If anyone has any opinions on what should go on these proposed overviews please say so, and feel free to work on any of these. As I said I've been to busy to really dedicate time to it. --AKB   17:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:: The first thing to say is that, while CP was the best place to raise this discussion, it's not where we want to be having it in the long term. I'd suggest the creation of "Lore:History/Sandbox", "Lore:Bestiary/Sandbox" and so on, and the appropriate discussion could take place on those articles' talk page until they were ready for publication.
:: If that sounds acceptable, the subsequent sub-topics should be moved into the new pages, with links. New links should be added here as and when the new sub-pages are created.
:: Or, to keep it simple, if this idea sounds okay, create new subpages for each topic then add links to those from this topic. Sounds okay? rpeh  23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Seems a bit weird to make a sandbox out of userspace but I guess that is the best way to organize this. I'll make the pages in a second so in a second. I'm also assuming that they will be deleted after we are done with them (No point in still having them) so I'm adding a notice noting they should be deleted when all work is done. --AKB   20:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord of Souls

I just wanted to point out that Amazon.com has updated the status of "Lord of Souls." It now has its cover, basic info, and a short summary. Where, if at all, should we note this? Here is a link:  -----   00:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:I think it's being worked on here. In any case, it isn't a new discovery. But good find! Legoless 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

::Ah, well as long as it's being looked into and covered on the site :D Thank for informing me.   02:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  This brings up one of the reasons I suggested a "Novel:" namespace.  While writing the blurb for the front LoS page (which, by the way, is probably ready to go live), I've had to link to TIC subpages.  This isn't really appropriate, and could cause confusion over where to place articles.  Any other suggestions?  --GK  04:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

:I'd support a new name space. If we are going to see more novels in the future, and if the second one coming out, we are going to need an obvious place to organize them, and lore doesn't really fit a novel as much as its own space would in my opinion. --AKB   04:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

:: I didn't support a separate namespace at the time because I expected the two books to be separate entitles rather than two parts of the same thing. The assumption was that there would be no (or very few) common characters so it didn't seem to make sense to create a common namespace. Since it turns out that the two novels are inextricably linked and share many different features, it's probably a good idea to create a new namespace because, as GK points out, it's not appropriate to link to TIC from LOS. Now you see why I insisted on using a template for the links! It shouldn't be too tricky to move everything to a new home. rpeh  06:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

::: I fully support a new namespace. However, how will we document the lore? Do we only write about the main people/events/places/etc? And in the novel namespace, do we create TIC and LOS subpages (what I'd prefer) or do we fuse them? The former will mean readers will have to (for example) go from TIC/Annaig page to LOS/Annaig page to get the full overview. As they're separate books, I think we should treat them as we do separate games. Which is, link to each other and mention important things, but otherwise only mix them in the lore namespace. Legoless 09:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: I'd prefer to create "Novel:The Infernal City" and "Novel:Lord of Souls", and a single article for things like people and places ("Novel:Annaïg Hoïnart", "Novel:Umbriel").  Sort of like treating the series of novels the way we treat a game, and the two individual novels the way we treat games' quests.  I don't really see any good reason to duplicate information when it's clear the novels are each two halves of one story.  And, yes, the template was a wonderful idea and should make it much easier to make whatever change we decide on.  --GK  17:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

::::Just to note, I've just sent the sandbox live, to .  Easy enough to move to the new namespace later, since it's just the one page.  --GK  18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::In the absence of any objections, I'll ask Dave to create the new namespace.  --GK  18:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I forgot about this discussion, but overall, I agree with the creation of the Novel: namespace, especially since we can include older releases as well. I haven’t read TIC, but GK’s suggestion about keeping the overall Lore on the same page (e.g. Novel:Annaïg Hoïnart)  sounds like a plan; it will get less messy this way, also if Annaïg pops up in a third novel in the future. --Krusty 19:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::: Actually, if we're going to include the Daggerfall Chronicles etc, "Novel" wouldn't be the best name for it. Would those books go there, though? They're reference manuals and HowTo guides rather than novels - kind of like the Prima guides, but these are official since they're published by Bethesda rather than a 3rd party. Oh dear... too complex for me right now. rpeh  20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: What about 'Literature:'? Legoless 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 I agree with rpeh; I'd already mentioned that including others would make "Novel:" less than accurate.  I'm not sure if I like "Literature:", though.  We could really simplify it to just "Books:"... ?  Oh, and the Prima guides are official- approved by Bethesda.  Technically, we could use those as "sources" in our articles, too.  --GK  21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

: "Books" or "Book" is probably the way to go. We already use the Prima guides in one or two places, and I suppose we could give each of them a page too. rpeh  08:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

::Last call for objections; tomorrow, I'll ask Daveh to create the new namespace "Books:".
::rpeh: Can you ready the   template changes that will need to be made?  Also, can RoBoT generate a list of links to TIC and its subpages that don't use the template?
::As a sort of checklist:
::* move all pages to new namespace 
::* 
::* 
::*change links that don't use the template
::*check for any changes that might need to be made to the trail(s)
::*update sidebar with new namespace
::* 
::*check categories (I don't think anything has to be changed, but I could be wrong)
::And, while we're on the subject of the texts, here's what I see that could be documented:
::*Codex Scientia
::*The Daggerfall Chronicles
::*Battlespire Athenaeum
::*The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard: The Origin of Cyrus!
::*The Morrowind Prophecies (and GotY edition)
::*The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Official Game Guide (and GotY edition)
::*The Infernal City
::*Lord of Souls
::Have I forgotten anything (in either list)?  --GK  06:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::: I have a stub for most of those guide books in my sandbox (excluding the Redguard comic, but with a few others not on your list). I have yet to work on overviews for Morrowind Prophecies GotY and Daggerfall Chronicles, both of which I have, but unless anyone has a copy of the older ones (i.e. Battlespire Athenaeum) there's no way we'll ever get a full review on it. However, I have all the basic info and pictures for each edition of each book, so they should be good for launch where they can get worked on by others. Legoless 10:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: No problem on my end. In the short term, the template is really, really easy to change to direct links to the new namespace. In the longer term, RoBoT can expand it with a direct link once we're sure of the final page locations. After we've changed the template and the job queue catches up, a list of pages is fairly easy to do, although it doesn't really need RoBoT to do it. rpeh  10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  New namespace is up, but we need to agree on a shortcut: How about BK? It's either that or BO, and I think that stinks.     rpeh  20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

: BK is good. But does that mean all the images need to be moved? Legoless 20:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Eventually, but that's low priority. Leave it to RoBoT because bots can skip redirect creation and save a deletion job further down the line. rpeh  20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::: BK is fine with me. Oh, and I think we should put the book section into the sidebar when it is up and running. --Krusty 20:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: It'll definitely go in the sidebar when we're ready. Okay - three votes isn't many but given we can't use BS and BO has other connotations, I'll ask Daveh to use that. rpeh  20:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 

::::: BK sounds good.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Kay, I've moved most of the pages and posted the stubs from Legoless' sandbox.  I fixed the redirects and checked the links to LoS.  I also posted the namespace front page here.  I'll wait a little while until we get things straightened out before I put it on the sidebar.  Once we get the template changed we can see what pages are linked to TIC and subpages with regular links rather than template links.  My apologies if I've screwed anything up- it's hard to spend any extended period of time on one task these days!  :)  Anyway, let me know if I missed anything/messed anything up.  --GK  01:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

: Whoops - sorry. I forgot about this or I'd have got RoBoT to do the move. I've changed the   template though, so all the links should be okay now. rpeh  06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

:: I wasn't actually finished working on those game guide articles. Some of them need some serious attention - the Codex Scientia page doesn't even have any content beyond the table. Many of the pages also contain copied-over blurbs without quotation marks or proper formatting. Legoless 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

:::S'alright Legoless; they're marked as stubs.  You can continue working on them where they are now, I just didn't want a page full of redlinks as our namespace front page.  Thanks for fixin' the template, rpeh.  Do you know if any changes will need to be made to trails or categories?  --GK  20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

:::: The Trail should be okay. I got RoBoT to recat the character and place pages earlier and created new categories for the various maintenance stuff. The main problem right now is 116 double redirects. We'll eventually want to prod those, but right now it's probably best to keep them as double redirects so that we can easily see what's still linking to them. rpeh  21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

::::: I just checked those double redirects. As far as I can tell, only four of them have links: The Infernal City and Umbriel, which I repointed since we'll probably want to keep them, and two others, the links to which I've pointed directly to the new articles. I think that means we can prod the rest. rpeh  21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note before I forget, we need cats for the new books pages.  --GK  00:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming Mark Jones interview – let’s hear it!

Hey everybody. A few days ago, during what I thought to be yet another fruitless search for Dawnstar-related material, I stumbled upon the Online Portfolio of Mark Jones and was incredibly surprised when I saw the huge amount of rare Elder Scrolls related info on display, including lots of nicely rendered images not yet spoiled by video compression and a video game artist willing to talk about his work with both humor, irony and reflection. Surprised by the discovery, I e-mailed rpeh right away and we quickly agreed that this guy was worth looking into. So I wrote a mail to Mark Jones and suggested a UESP-exclusive interview covering the ton of work he has done on the Elder Scrolls games, from Daggerfall to Morrowind, from the hand-held environment of Dawnstar to the huge landscapes and numerous creatures of Vvardenfell.  

I am most happy to report that he accepted to do the interview, so now I’ll invite all of you, as a Community comprised of die-hard Elder Scolls-fans, to write down your intelligent and heart-felt questions and E-MAIL them to me. Please, do not add your questions here, as this is not a “is-this-a-good-question” type of discussion and it doesn’t matter who wrote the questions anyway – just send them to me as fast as you can and on Friday the 15th, rpeh and I will go through all the questions and forward the best bunch to Mark Jones. Hopefully, we will get the rare treat of real insight from an experienced art designer who played a big part in developing the ES franchise, as we know it today.
 
Mark Jones is a freelance artist with over 20 years of experience and his creative output can be seen and enjoyed in Elder Scrolls games such as Daggerfall, Battlespire, Shadowkey, Stormhold, Dawnstar and Morrowind, including the Tribunal expansion. Check out his page and the related game pages for inspiration!
 
Let’s hear it! --Krusty 14:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Map Issues

While on IRC today, me and rpeh got into some testing with the google-maps style maps of Oblivion and Morrowind. Using FireFox 3.6.16 both the Oblivion and Morrowind interactive maps would not load past this. When I tried using the link in my audio player, SongBird, it loaded right up and was fully interactive. I am using version 1.9.3 of SongBird. I tried loading the maps up with my normal FF and with FF minus my addons. If anyone else can confirm this bug, please do so here.--             00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

: My problem is that the map takes a long time to appear at first (40s+) but after that it's fine. This doesn't happen every time, but frequently enough over the past couple of weeks that I asked in IRC. Does anybody else have problems? I don't want to bother Daveh with something that might simply be a temporary problem for a couple of people. rpeh  09:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Hmm, it's a bit odd. Just tested it on 10 different maps and 5 of them appeared right away; the other 5 froze the loading session (e.g. Rotten Den) and I had to press the "View on map" button once again, then it showed up. --Krusty 10:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

::: Sometimes the map never loads for me, while other times it works perfectly. I'm on Chrome 10.0.648.204, if it matters. Legoless 15:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IGN Shoutout

Not important enough for a news story, but I thought people might like to know that UESP just received a shoutout on the IGN Top 10 Gods of The Elder Scrolls list. Nice of them, although we did provide them with their images for the Ring of Phynaster and Vivec, so it's only polite :) rpeh  06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daggerfall Chronicles

I've recently gotten my hands on a copy of The Daggerfall Chronicles, an official game guide for Daggerfall which contains unique tidbits of lore and which is currently used as a reference for several Lore pages on the site. With the upcoming release of the second novel and the suggestion of a new 'Novel:' namespace, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to document the Chronicles there as well.

I was thinking something along the lines of a chapter overview, with summaries of important bits (such as the unique narrative of the Main Quest). I think to at least give the book its own article explaining what it is would be better than the current situation. That way, interested readers will better understand where all the info comes from without having to go off and google it.

I would gladly take suggestions as for what I should do, and I encourage anyone with a copy of the guide to help out if the project picks up. Does anyone have any thoughts? Legoless 15:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

: I agree it's a good idea, but care has got to be taken for copyright reasons. This isn't like the PGE, which came with a game, it's an entirely separate entity with its own copyright. I asked Bethesda some time ago if we could include just the Timeline on UESP and was (politely!) told "no". Summaries will be fine, but nothing much more than that. There's a Battlespire book too, but I don't have that one. rpeh  15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Yes, I was thinking to do something similar to The Infernal City, with as few direct quotes as possible. Copyrights are nasty things... Legoless 15:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know about The Daggerfall Chronicles or the Battlespire book.  I agree that it woukd be nice to document these, as well as the Redguard comic, and it makes sense to do it in the same area as the other printed media, but that makes the namespace "Novel:" less than accurate.  Should we just go with it anyway, or does anyone have any other suggestions?  --GK  23:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: It should be ok. More appropriate than Lore, and better than General. But there's not much hope of getting a decent article on the Battlespire Athenaeum - apparently even fewer bought the guide than bought the game, so it's selling for crazy bux on eBay. Legoless 23:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've begun work on the strategy guide articles here. I'm wondering if I should include Prima's unofficial Daggerfall guide. I think it would be nice just to have it for the sake of having it. I'm also wondering about the 'Codex Scientia', a guide that came with the deluxe edition of Arena. I haven't been able to find a single cover picture, but there's a rather long review of it on the old UESP site. I think it might deserve to be brought over, as it's not likely any of us newbies will ever get our hands on a copy to do such an in-depth article. Does anyone have any thoughts? Legoless 14:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

: It's already on the wiki -   - with all its flaws. It's probably worth rewriting to remove all the 1st person comments and other cruft then posting in the Books (or whatever) namespace. I've never found a copy of it either... rpeh  14:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Clans

I'm just throwing this out there, but wouldn't it be cool to have a clans section where players can make their own clans and/or join other ones? I know Elder Scrolls isn't an online game, but if anyone is interested, check this page on the Adventure Worlds Wiki (an online game I used to play before Elder Scrolls) I think this would be awesome to bring to Elder Scrolls Fans. You can reply here or on my Talk Page.

Savlen Maros 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

: This kind of thing would be better to do on the [ forums. Otherwise the wiki would be clogged up with dozens of clans. Legoless 14:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

:: As Legoless said, this would be appropriate on the forums. In fact they already have clans on the forums. (Ex. Xbox Clan, PS3 Clan) We really don't want this kind of thing on site, like the roleplaying pages the only people who will care about them will be the ones involved. --AKB   14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I just thought it would be cool. Do you know any sites that have Oblivion clans? Every time I google it it just comes up with the Guilds walkthroughs.

Savlen Maros 15:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article

I have noticed that the featured article has been  for about four and half months. If there is no one assigned to this, I would love to be in charge of changing the article every month. All I would need is quick walkthrough on the editing details.

Savlen Maros 12:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

: See this page. Legoless 12:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Good" Articles

Sorry if this conversation has already happened and I missed it. Okay, this is a bit in the spirit of the above. Wikipedia has an article status known as "good" which is generally awarded when an article is:

Almost ready to be featured
Is of a high quality, but for one reason or another will never meet featured status

If we do this it will be much more clear which articles are on the verge of qualifying for featured status. This would mean that it would be easier to find, and improve, these articles meaning it is less likely for articles to sit on the front page for several months after their time has passed. Also it would serve to award editors efforts, showing they are appreciated for doing the work that raises the sites standards by working on the less important pages that are less likely to get the attention they need to be featured.

Anyone else think this is a good idea? Any thoughts on this, or links to relevant conversations on why we can't do this? --AKB   19:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

: I like this idea. For one it will stop people nominating complete but not exactly over-achieving articles for featured status, but it will also help readers find top quality pages and give editors a goal when improving an article. Legoless 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

:: I'm not sure. Won't this just push the discussion down a level? It's okay at WP where they have thousands of active editors, but we never have more than a few dozen here. rpeh  07:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::I'm not entirely sure by what you mean. If you mean that you are worried about the practicality of doing this due to our lower number of editors, than I have to disagree with you. Of course it is obvious that Wikipedia beats us out in editors, featured articles, good articles, and pretty much everything except information about The Elder Scrolls, as they are maintaining a lot more of all of those. However arguing we can't compete with Wikipedia is pretty unfair in all terms, and yet we continue on. Yes we have fewer editors, meaning that it may take longer for a good article to be examined by a peer for its new proposed status, but these are one of the things that should take time to come to a decision. Also we shouldn't have that many get nominated anyway, judging by how many featured articles we've had I wouldn't expect to see more than 100-200 ones be proposed for this status.

:::Another possible argument I could interpret would be that it would draw away attention from, say Featured Articles, which is partially my purpose. With this we would have a way of honoring good articles that aren't likely to be featured, and avoiding someone nominating an article that just won't make the cut.

:::The final potential argument I drew out of this is that you would fear that it would push down site standards, and I disagree with that notion as well. The idea here was to ensure that good articles, the ones you wish other articles were more like, would be given a spotlight. While there can be only so many featured articles due to the nomination process and how long they sit on the front page, we could have many many more good articles in a single style of article. This would provide a more clear cut example of what an article should be for those who are looking for the guidance. --AKB   16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: Okay, I don't know where that last idea came from. I never said anything about standards. What I meant by "push the discussion down a level" is that instead of having disagreement on what constitutes a "Featured" article, we'll just have it about what constitutes a "good" article instead.
:::: The reason I mentioned the number of users is that for this idea to be practical, you're going to have to actively search out articles, nominate them, vote on them and then mark them somehow. This seems very time consuming to me.
:::: If there's support for the idea then I'm not going to stand in its way, but I have to say I really don't see the point. rpeh  16:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::I have to agree with rpeh. The number of articles we have right now is too low to really create a tier of articles like WP has. ''   ( ) '' 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fair enough, maybe someday but as it is this doesn't seem to be the most popular idea. Though I still like the idea it isn't really worth arguing for. --AKB   02:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

: With something like this, it's always a good idea to provide some examples so it's clearer exactly what you're proposing. Could you perhaps find three pages that you think would fit into the proposed category? rpeh  08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Just noticed your reply here, off the top of my head a good example would be Anvil Mages Guild, the Oblivion overview, and Countess Millona Umbranox's page (Note: I tried to choose pages that I offered no major contributions too on purpose, it is harder too judge somethings quality when you were involved with creating it, I also tried to choose three different pages that covered different types of subjects). The reason I would consider these too be good example is because they are all more or less completed, there is no notable way to improve any of them,  and these all would be a good example on how to write an article for an article similar to each of these. But it is also unlikely (too me at least) that any of them will meet featured status. 

::Of course this wasn't the most popular too begin with, and I dislike creating a lot more unnecessary work. But I'd imagine quite a few people would enjoy the extra guidance of knowing that there are good articles too base yours off of for a page you are making, and in return being told your work was good as well if it up to par for the jobs to not likely see someones efforts rewarded in any other way. --AKB   02:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible Tables

Well that was easier than I expected. UESP now supports Collapsible Tables as defined in later versions of MW. This means two new classes can be added to tables when you create them:   and  . The former means that a table gets a [show] or [hide] button in its top-left cell that shows or hides all rows of the table except the first. The second means that a table starts off in a collapsed state rather than being visible when the page first loads. To demonstrate:

 


 


It only works if there's a header row, ie one defined with "!" rather than "|". See the source if you don't know what I mean. Hopefully this'll be useful in a couple of places. rpeh  15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try seeing how this feature looks in Oblivion's Clothing, I recently made the tables there sortable. Should take 10 minutes tops, but I hope it looks Ok in the end. - Neural Tempest 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

: I Checked out the one you did on the Patrollers talk page, and needed to F5 before it showed as collapsed. --Brf 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:: Yup, I should have said - you'll probably need to hard-refresh a page to get the new code to load. rpeh  16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Oblivion's Clothing looks so much better. Easier to search for good enchanting gear! - Neural Tempest 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

::::Give me a list (or table) of tables you want updated, and it will be done, I promise. - Neural Tempest 16:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::Just finished Oblivion Potions, I'm running out of tables to update. - Neural Tempest 17:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::Right... We don't necessarily want every table changed to a collapsible one. rpeh  18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I understand that, that's why I don't change all of them, some are best left large. It's just useful for HUGE tables, like potion/alchemy ingredients. Making these collapsible allows easier navigation. That's why I say I'm running out of ones like these to update.- Neural Tempest 18:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::::I have to say I don't know why you'd visit, for example, the Ingredients page and then collapse the table of ingredients... Still, it doesn't harm anything, I suppose. rpeh  18:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::It is probably most appropriate on a page with a lot of text, and a table in the middle. A page written just for the table would not. --Brf 18:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edittools Links

At the moment we have an incomplete list of namespaces that appear underneath the edit area when you're editing a page. We currently have Lore, Oblivion, Shivering, Morrowind, Tribunal and Bloodmoon, but obviously the large number of namespaces that have been created recently don't feature. A couple of years ago, removing these links was discussed and a couple of people (myself included at the time) objected because they found the links useful. These days, I simply don't touch the namespace links - although I occasionally use a couple of the others.

So the question is this: are there a couple of different people who find the links helpful, or has the time come to remove them? If we decide to keep the links, which of the new namespaces should be added to the list? rpeh  19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

: I can’t even remember the last time I used the Wiki Markup links, but I DO remember them being incredibly helpful when I made my first edits. With that in mind, I think we should remove everything but the game-namespaces. --Krusty 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

::The links serve a purpose, and we all know how incredibly helpful they can be when you're beginning.  Would it be possible to shorten the links to the shortcuts and insert hover text of the full namespace name?  I don't really see the use in the links for strikeout/superscript/subscript tags, but I'd suggest even adding a link for nowiki tags.  Basically, though, I'd prefer to have all of the namespaces' listed, but using the shortcuts instead of the full namespace name.  --GK  23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

New tag for "WIP in Sandbox"?

This question is for everyone involved in complex pages and I’d like some input and thoughts. These days, I’m working almost entirely on pages, which takes forever to complete, and I always use one of my Sandboxes for the task. Once or twice, I have experienced other editors suddenly pops up and adds useful info to the pages, sometimes in vain, because I already have the stuff in my Sandbox. This is basically a waste of time for me and, especially, the editor. While we have the wip-tag, it doesn’t really work when you are doing something in a Sandbox for moths. So basically I have a few suggestions how to make life easier;
A newly designed variant of the wip-tag, including “in his/her sandbox” with the appropriate sandbox link and an invitation to send a message to the editor in question.
Permission to add a regular notice on top of the pages, stating the same as the proposition above. This could be a bad idea, due to how easy a notice can be ignored, but it is quick and easy. 
That’s about it. Thoughts? --Krusty 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

: I think it would be a good idea, especially if it's a community sandbox such as this one. I don't have a lot of time for reworking it, so I think letting people know where to make their contributions would be smart. Your current substitution, the   tag, could potentially scare off editors who didn't want to intrude on the project. Legoless 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 

:: Sounds good!--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        22:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Makes sense to me.  --GK  23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:::: @Legoless, major rewrites shouldn't be done in community sandboxes - they're for people to learn about editing. I believe Krusty meant that while he's working on page A in his sandbox, somebody comes along and makes a useful edit to page A rather than the copy in Krusty's sandbox. Thus, Krusty has to incorporate the new information, and it's easily overlooked unless he watches RecentChanges like a hawk.
:::: Assuming I've got the right end of the stick: yes, it's a good idea. I've never liked the seriously formal tone of some of our templates ("It currently falls under the jurisdiction of the Oblivion Places Redesign Project"!!!) which is why I opted for the somewhat softer "This page is currently being rewritten as part of the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project" for the OBNPCRP.
:::: Would you prefer an additional parameter for the existing   template to indicate where the page is being reworked, or a whole new template? rpeh  00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::::: Sorry, I didn't mean the public sandboxes for testing. I just meant userspace ones that anyone could edit. Legoless 00:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I meant something along the lines of the existing wip-tag,with the added feature of “…being worked on by [User] in [Sandbox]. If you would like to help out with the page, please send the editor a [message].“ Something like that. Rpeh is right; I’d rather not invite everybody to participate in my Sandbox work, as things tend to become complex and I often keep notes and thoughts out of the public eye. The result is that while I work undercover for months in my Sandbox, we invite other users to work on the “official” page (example), sometimes resulting in some time-wasting edit conflicts that could have been avoided with a tag. And yep, let's avoid the formal tone! :) --Krusty 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::: I didn't realise, but the existing wip template has an extra parameter that can be used for this purpose. For instance, you could use   or something like that. rpeh  07:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::: I'll take a look at constructing a new template based on the current WIP layout. I'm not that great with functions yet, but here it goes...- Neural Tempest 08:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: Wow, that parameter is new to me. I'll test it right away. --Krusty 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  I tried putting up the tag in my sandbox here. The basic idea is a good one, but it is rather long and confusing. Most simple solution would be to remove all text between the first “Krusty” and “a new version”, thus making a new “wip/sandbox”-template. I know that we can run into tags getting “old”, but if patrollers and administrators keep an eye out we should be fine. NOTE: Just noticed that User:Neural Tempest is doing a mighty fine job here. --Krusty 10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::(Screaming:) IT LIVES!!! (Maniacal laughter in background) My Template is functional, I tested it on my own page. I gave it a snazzy, bright green outline, and reworded a bit of it, but it WORKS! New parameters, new variables, old format, I was going to put a smoked baliwog leg on it, but I wimped out. It is open for editing, revision, and use, and as a bonus, it is most likely safe! - Neural Tempest 13:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

:::''(Look at the example here to know what I'm talking about)'' Good work! We’ll have to hear some more opinions, but my immediate thought is that there is probably a bit too much info; the entire “Please review the edit history if you would like to see whether this page (Oblivion:Modryn Oreyn) is still being worked on. If Krusty has not made any changes in a while, please contact the editor or, if they're inactive, remove this template.”-part could be misleading for people not looking at Recent Changes every day, as it invites them to remove the template – right now, actually. It should probably be replaced with a link to “my” talk page, like “Please contact Krusty on his talk page”. Also the “Krusty has taken it…” part is probably a bit redundant, but overall it looks good. Lets hear some more opinions! Btw, I really like the green color – it makes the message hard to miss! --Krusty 14:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::::I pretty much followed the existing outline, but that "Krusty" tidbit is just in the notes. It can be modified on-page. The whole main paragraph is the template, which is quite similar to the Wip template. Have a gander at the original, and you can manipulate it a bit, it's always revertable. I'll change the username to User:talk though. - Neural Tempest 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::::: The existing wip-outline functions much better with Quest Walkthroughs and the like; nothing wrong with inviting people to participate and remove the tag in case of inactivity, but the purpose of this new Temp is let let people know that 1) The page is being worked on elsewhere; 2) That they are more than welcome to contact the editor on their talk page if they want to help out. But we are definitely on the right track and with a few minor tweaks, we should be ready to go. --Krusty 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

::::::I understand, you want the "inactivity bit" removed, so the tag is more for the prevention of disorganized edits. I thought since the existing Wip had it, I should probably include it in the new one. No problem. I thought it got a bit long-winded anyway. The "inactive" bit was for editors who post the tag, and forget about the project at hand. Since people are likely to comment about inactivity anyway, this phrase is a bit useless. I'll trim the fat.- Neural Tempest 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Heretic in Imperial City???
:moved to  by Brf, 25 April 2011

Check first, then undo

We just had two edits - this and this that each changed the id on a Morrowind book. I was a bit surprised to see either edit, but checked in the CS and found they were both correct, only to discover that both edits have been undone because the new spelling was wrong.

There are hundreds of spelling mistakes in ES, and reverting an edit that you think looks wrong is not the way to go. Yes, if someone were to change the id to "boobies" then it's a fair bet that it's nonsense, but if you don't have the game, and can't check, it's better to err on the side of caution. rpeh  08:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

:Yeah, thats completely my bad. I dont have CS, and I pretty much figured that things like that would have been correct from the beginning. I was worried about it slipping through the cracks. I left an apology on the IP addresses page, hes since created an account as well. Sorry for that one!--Catmaniac66 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

::I'm bringing this up again, I noticed that one of our editors undid an edit with the note that they believed that the editor could of been a vandal. To check this edit I booted up my copy of Morrowind and traveled to the bustling city of Balmora. After a long journey on the back of a Silt Strider I then spoke to the first person I saw, asked them about latest rumors and got the result that the anon claimed would happen (I also couldn't get it through asking about little secrets though, might of not just asked around enough though). This took all of five minutes. Don't just assume that the article is correct, check it unless it is obviously wrong. Claiming someone is a vandal when they added what turned out to be a correct edit will inevitably drive away good editors who just wish to contribute positively. So please, for the last time, do not undo without a proper check. --AKB   02:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Glitches Pages

Now the  page has been split (with no discussion, incidentally), this might be the ideal time to end the silly page/proposed/talk split that has caused such confusion. What do people think about moving all of Glitches/Proposed to the talk page and marking it for deletion (or permanently protecting it if there are too many links), then using all the new talk pages for glitch submission? The /Proposed split has never worked and just causes more trouble than it's worth. rpeh  18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with you , because all it causes is hassel , and don't produce any clear results. Delete it , in my opinion. JackTurbo95 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

::I fully support this idea as both seem to serve the same purpose. I'd be glad to see Glitches/Proposed go away, if for no other reason than it will make the glitch pages slightly more organized. --AKB   05:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

:::I think we should redirect the Proposed page to the talk page and protect the proposed page. However, we should also work towards changing the links. I am guessing that is something RoBoT can easily do. ''   ( ) '' 01:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree it is time we rid the pimple on the face of the wiki--70.67.52.64 02:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Well I've taken the first step and killed the /Proposed page - it now redirects to the main Glitches talk page. I think the guidelines could do with a rewrite - they definitely fall into the TL;DR category at the moment. If somebody wants to take a stab at that, feel free. rpeh  08:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the Did you Knows?

I havent seen a knew Did you know is like years... are they manually changed or is something wrong on my end?--Catmaniac66 05:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:They are actually located on :Main Page/Did You Know. It is something that has gone untouched for awhile, unfortunately. ''   ( ) '' 05:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Website Design Proposal

If any of the UESP webmaster's are considering updating the look of the site or improving the graphics, I've put together my proposal for a face-lift. I've themed it towards Skyrim for its impending release later this year. I'm sure a new theme is already being considered and/or implemented so there will be no hard feelings if my proposal is rejected.

Here you will find a snippet of what I envision the site to look like. It contains no major changes other than color and the addition of three images, details of which you will find below.

 thumb

Here are the three images: the background and two logo images.







The new colors are as follows:

Main Content Background: #cccccc 
Main Content Border: #ffffff 
Inner Content Background: #eeeeee 
Inner Content Border: #999999 
Active Tab Border: #99ffff 
User Bar Text Color:	#ffffff 
User Bar Text Visited Color: #eeeeee

Basically anywhere else these replacement colors would occur, sub them in. But that's it. Could take a day to root through the css. If further explanation or assistance is required, let me know. If you want to see something different, or a different theme, let me know and I can work on that as well.
Pardot 17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

: My opinion:

: Anyone who wants to change UESP's design is to﻿ be tarred, feathered, and hanged like a pinata for children to beat on.

: I like the current design and I wouldn't change it for anything. Thanks for the proposal though, it's interesting to see that people what to put their touch at UESP. 

: --Rigas Papadopoulos  17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

:: I think it looks nice. Anyone who wants to change it back could do so under their preferences. Legoless 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

:::I must say that a skin like that would be epic. With a capital epic. Although it would probably be better to have it as an alternate skin, rather than the default at the time if implemented. --  19:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

::::If I'm understanding correctly, Rigas, you like the current theme because its light, or more Oblivion-esque? It can't be because of the current graphics as all of them besides the sidebar logo are awful in my opinion. Thinking about themes, I'd like to make more for each of the Elder Scrolls games, so that fans of each could customize the wiki towards their favorite game. I just wish I knew how to build the themes. I'd have to hear back from an admin that is willing to build the themes using my graphics before I went forward in the design.Pardot 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::This new theme is decent, and if fully developed, should be implemented as a skin option in each Editor's personal preferences. As much as I like it, we can't simply switch the default settings without upsetting a huge number of users, so new users would continue to see the current "Monobook" default. That being said, I'm not quite sure how to actually add a new skin option for everyone, and it probably need to be added by a high-level administrator. 64.231.249.140 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  I must say, that is one smokin' hot theme! While the current theme is alright, I'd prefer yours any day! I would appreciate it if was turned into a theme, even if not the default one.  
:While I don't really have a desire to see the theme changed, it has been the same for a really long time, now.  I'd prefer a change that wasn't so drastic, but this is a good start to help us imagine some changes.  Our site logo makes me think of the elder scrolls themselves, which makes more sense to me than a shield(?).  Also, the front page image was brought over from the old site, so I'd like to see it incorporated in some way as a nod to the UESP's pre-wiki origins.  --GK  19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

::I've been playing around with these images and while it might be possible to hijack one of the existing settings to use them, I'm going to speak strongly against doing so. The least important reason is that I personally don't like a shades-of-grey style. Slightly more important is that a lot of our pages are designed with the current gold scheme in mind - there would be a lot of work involved in changing them. Yes, these things should have been done through the style sheet rather than the page, but there's no point in assigning blame at this stage. Last, and most important, MediaWiki is looking to move to the Vector skin. There has been a lot of criticism about the new skin (not least from me) and a lot of feedback as to how it can be fixed (also not least from me), but there's no way MW are going to ditch Vector. Any decisions we make about the future look and feel of the site have to bear that in mind, and I don't think we can really move forward until after we upgrade to the latest version.
::In other words, I am utterly against any kind of change at the moment. Pardot's new images are definitely worthy of consideration, but until Daveh can upgrade the site I will vote "nay" to any change to the current style. rpeh  21:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I'd just like to point out to everyone in general (no one in particular) that "???", "what?", "huh?", and other similar things are not appropriate edit summaries for reversions.  Please, even if you don't think it's necessary, take the time to type a proper edit summary.  Even if it's just, "rm nonsense" or "not sure what the point was there" or "revert pointless change", it's better to at least have some type of description of what reason the editor had for reverting.  --GK  22:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As a wiki, this place is awesome.

I figured this was the best place to put this. Looking at other game wikis, even popular ones, this wiki completely owns every other wiki. Congratulations to everyone to helps here! (You dont have to reply, it clogs up the recent changes, but feel free to)--Catmaniac66 13:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

:Just wanted to say thanks.  It's not always easy to maintain a quality wiki and a happy community (and that's where most of our troubles start from), but I think we do a better job than most others.  --GK  23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Adds Once More

 This one appeared in a lone add.

 and  These 2 appeared in a multi-add which included 4 adds in total.

 also appeared in a lone add.

--Rigas Papadopoulos  21:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

:You'll need to leave a note on Daveh's talk page.  --GK  21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
:But... have we decided to ban dating sites' ads?  Or is there something I'm missing?  --GK  21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 

::I don't think that's policy, but don't qoute that. :)  

::Also, if those are inappropriate then the most recent Cesary ad certainlyis, and it might be even if they aren't.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        23:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Personally, I wouldn't like our sites to be associated with dating service ads. I also really hate the ones that put scantily clothed models as a banner for browser games and such. But I have my ads blocked so it only bothers me when I'm on another computer, like at school. --  01:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Im basically being a bot right now, so...

Ill wait till its like 1 AM here since no one is ever online at that time. Unless Rpeh can put his bot on it. Right now Im currently just updating all the glitches links that now link only to the glitches page instead of a specific section like they used to. So if a bot cant do it, Ill continue to do it but I realized that the time right now is a bad time to do it.--Catmaniac66 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

:Ok, Im now going to begin doing this, if anyone has a better idea or if I need to stop till later leave a message here or on my page. Fun time!--Catmaniac66 02:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

::Ignored talk pages, archives, and user pages, left links that were supposed to be there, I feel I did this adequately, and it wasnt actually too many of them. Yay! (Sorry patrollers!)--Catmaniac66 02:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Good work! I've had to change a bunch of links before and it really sux. I marked them all as Patrolled. I was a bit surprised when I opened Firefox to be greeted with 25 changed page notifications though. :þ --  02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

::::Haha, Im surprised it wasnt more. It was no problem, Id come across the links like 3 different times and they were annoying so I fixed it. Glad to help!--Catmaniac66 02:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My fault, sorry. Didn't think it'd cause so much work. Datacaust 05:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New - Shivering Isles Redesign Project

Basically just wanted to point out a new project: the Shivering Isles Redesign Project. All editors are welcome to join in! --SerCenKing   11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Spacing/formatting question

An older English staple of writing is to add 2 spaces after a period to begin a new sentence. However, I dont believe anyone has actually adhered to it for many years. Some of our articles are written in this format. Do we have any specific policy on how to deal with it? I assume it is left up to the author if they want to do it, but if one is already making an edit to a page is it acceptable to remove one of the spaces? Especially to keep an article consistent?--Catmaniac66 17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

: I was always taught to leave one space after a period. --Brf 17:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::Yeah, thats what Im saying. But countless times Ive finished a paper and my mom (lolinoright) would rush in and add a second space telling me I was going to fail the paper. So at least a few decades ago Americans (which is the spelling we use, only reason Im referencing it) were taught to use 2 spaces. As if the period signifying the new sentence wasnt enough :-D--Catmaniac66 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::: I've never used two spaces after a sentence, and I would automatically fix it as a typo if I saw it on the wiki. I'd vote for ignoring this rule. Legoless 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::::Yeah, as I said, I think it used to be a rule but no one uses it anymore, therefore making it basically not a rule. Though to avoid clogging up the changes page I wont fix it unless you guys think I should or if I am making an edit anyways.--Catmaniac66 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::::: What Lego said, although I have seen two spaces numerous times on the Wiki. It is nothing serious, though, and I usually correct it if I'm doing something on the page anyway. --Krusty 17:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Guess that settles it then! I wont do anything unless I am already editting a page. Thanks for the responses!--Catmaniac66 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

:: Good idea. No reason to clog up the Edit History on the pages because of two spaces - and if it looks REALLY ugly, check the page for something else to do. ;) --Krusty 17:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Ive actually noticed that it doesnt make a difference at all visibly. I was trying to figure out what an IP had changed on a page, think he just added in the second space to keep it consistent. I had to actually edit the page to see that it had multiple spaces. So it isnt noticable at all, so its all good!--Catmaniac66 17:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::::Sorry to keep adding, but I just discovered that it doesnt matter if there is one or 2 spaces, the wiki shows it as one. So I just made a big deal out of nothing because even adding or removing 1 of those spaces doesnt actually change the look of the final product at all.--Catmaniac66 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::I was taught to type that way, and it wasn't "a few decades ago"!  I was taught to add two spaces after sentences in keyboarding class in high school.  I can see that it's not really necessary, but there's no way I can stop doing it like that, now.  Besides, to me at least, it makes it easier to identify individual sentences in the edit window.  --GK  23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

::::::As Catmaniac says, it doesn't matter on the wiki because HTML filters out multiple spaces. The two spaces rule dates back to typewriters with monospaced fonts, where one space was never enough after a full stop. With computers and proportional fonts, that's no longer the case so it's not necessary. I typically remove and double spaces when I see them, but it's not a problem if people use them. In the meantime, here is an article on the subject. rpeh  10:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)