UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 3

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Archive #2

I just archived this page to UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 2, as I was under the influence that there weren't any active conversations on this page. I'm not 100% sure if I'm correct, so if you feel any of the conversations that I archived were active, feel free to unarchive back to this page. Alternativly, if you have something to contribute to any inactive conversations, feel free to do the same. —Aristeo 09:19, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Noticeboards

I've noticed two systems of Wikipedia recently called "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard" and "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village Pump". These two places are message boards, similar to this talk page and the configuration talk page. Wikipedia feels that talk pages are for discussion of the respective articles only (see note), and I'm wondering if we should feel the same way. If so, we could move this talk page to UESPWiki:Community Portal, move the configuration talk page to UESPWiki:Admin Noticeboard, and make a lot of similar moves to talk pages that don't talk about their article. --Aristeo 09:29, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

I talked to Nephele through IRC and she said that she liked the idea. Does anyone else have any opinions? --Aristeo 16:35, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Done, just have to clean up. --Aristeo 17:27, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

Integrated Forums

With the parser functions, string functions, wiki upgrade, and the input box, I could develop a forum out of wiki code right here on the site. This could provide a clean, organized place to plan out decisions on the site. Tell me if this is something you all are interested in. --Aristeo 21:07, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

Sounds like it could be a useful way to discuss things sometimes, instead of some of the long discussions that end up filling talk pages (and then aren't really needed any more once the issue has been worked out). I think it would be most useful if it was a forum primarily used to discuss issues related to the site (format, content of pages, etc). The existing forum could continue to be used for more general game-related questions. My two cents. --Nephele 21:26, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

It's not a high priority for myself but feel free to play around and see what you can come up with if you want. -- DaveH 23:10, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

Not a high priority for me either. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought before I started. --Aristeo 14:06, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Yeah sounds like a great idea to me it would make it easier to use i think. Also, if it was used mainly to help newcomers work out the formatting and how-to-use the website basically that would be a big improvement i think.--Konnajb 07:04, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

File Management System

The last 'big' thing on my to do list is getting in place some sort of system for handling file uploads/downloads for patches, mods, utilities etc.... There are a few options here ranging from extremely simple to completely custom as mentioned briefly in the File Database Design. The simplest would just to use the Image: namespace in the Wiki although it may be too simple. While I don't intend to turn the site into a major file distributor I think there still needs to be a decent system in place for handling 1000s of files in some organized fashion. My main objective in the near future is to archive all significant Morrowind mods before the Morrowind sites start to disappear.

It will be mostly me implementing the system, whatever it is, but thoughts and comments from everyone are desired. -- DaveH 23:32, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

I think we could start by cleaning up that section using categories. The first major sections could be "File" and "Image", then we could further seperate it by game, etc. I've already started organizing everything by license. --Aristeo 06:15, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Morrowind Houses

Yesterday i created the page morrowind houses as i thought alot of people would benefit from this as it is a very cool part of the game, though not an official part like oblivions houses for sale. I have successfully done the Caldera part of this subject and will be doing alot more along the way starting with Ald Ruhn next. So i would just like to say that if any one else feels the need to add their own houses in Ald Ruhn or wherever can it be in the same format as the caldera one i.e. big and spacious as one title and small and cosy for another in the table style created to create easy navigation around the site cheerz peeps!--Konnajb 10:19, 11 August 2006 (EDT)

Cool. Can we have a link, please? --Aristeo 21:00, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

sure My houses section hope ya all like not much done at the moment though Sox peeps bin out a lot lately and i hav to go for a bit longer if any1 could finish the sadrith mora section in my formatting it would b appreciated

Title Capitalization

I think we're capitalizing headings and page titles incorrectly. I've noticed that Wikipedia, OblivioWiki, and other wikis have said that titles should be lower case unless the word or phrase in the title is always capitalized. What are your opinions on conforming to the styles of some of the other sites? [1] [2] --Aristeo 22:30, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Often the capitalization is done to match that used in the game, which I think should be maintained. For example, in the names of quests everything tends to be capitalized; names of effects are also capitalized in the game. --Nephele 22:29, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

I know what you mean. For example, "Repair Hammer" is capitalized in game, and I feel the same way about keeping the same capitalization as the game. What I'm referring to, are non-game related headings and article titles. For instance, I could have capitalized the name of this discussion in one of two ways:

1. ==Title capitalization==, or
2. ==Title Capitalization==

My question is: Which one of these are considered proper? (same thing goes with article titles) --Aristeo 22:34, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

I don't think there is a proper way to capitalise, but a choice to do it or not. In discussion pages it is quite clear, it should be the choice of whoever opens a new thread to use the title he/she wishes. I the case of article pages, there should be a site-wise policy on this. We should choose between one or the other choice, although the easiest would be to choose the most used, so that the editing required will be minimal. --DrPhoton 11:27, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

I vote title caps as the standard. My very quick survey indicates that's the way we're doing things now. And as previously noted it's often for consistency with the way the game does thing. Even for pages where it seems optional (e.g., Morrowind Mod:Mod Conflicts) title caps feel much more natural to me, since such pages typically are articles and the titles of articles should use title caps. --Wrye 17:46, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

In my opinion, heading caps should be the default, but should not be required on a global basis. Editors should respect capitalization trends that occur on similar pages (ex. "Detailed Walkthrough" is always capped), and also respect that sometimes heading capitalization is not ideal (ex. "Any changes will be visible immediately" on the bottom of the page is not capitalized). When possible, title capitalization should follow the format that we are most using (==Title Capitalization==), unless we have a reason to do otherwise.

As for page titles, I can't think of an instance where we would be better off using uncapped titles over capped titles. In general, we should also used capped titles unless we have a reason to uncap something. --Aristeo 14:45, 24 August 2006 (EDT)

Title Caps Are Preferred -- Looking at the complex rules for capitalization that some of the other Wikis have I begin to wonder why they don't prefer all caps. Also agree that heading caps should be flexible in this regard. -- DaveH 15:26, 24 August 2006 (EDT)

So it looks like we all want things the way they are, in regard to capitalization. :P --Aristeo 10:43, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

Tamrielic Dictionary actually a Dictionary

I would like to begin working on the dictionary section of Tamriel (that is, each individual entry), to create an actual dictionary out of such, as opposed to it's current format of a mere short-hand article compilation. In effect, it would appear like so with the Khajiit entry (this would not be the Khajiit entry, as I am throwing this together solely as an example so that you will be better able to grasp what I am suggesting):

Khajiit [caw-JEET] -noun 1. Intelligent, multi-formed race of feline creatures. 2. The title given to the native inhabitants of Elsweyr by other races. 3. Ta'Agra name meaning "Desert Walker". See: Lore:Khajiit

This would be a large undertaking, and would require the aid of a few other members (apart from myself), thus, I would like some input on the suggestion ere I attempt it. I suggest it primarily as the information in the current "dictionary" can be found on other article pages themselves (most notably as the majority of the current entries are mere transclusions), not to count, it would better fit the appellation of dictionary. -- Booyah boy 00:03, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

I agree, I think making the Tamrielic Dictionary an actual dictionary would be very nice. Allow me to give my suggestions to the above with first a sample entry, and then a couple bullet points:

---

Imperial – [im-peer-ee-uhl]

–noun

1. The diplomatic people native to the province of Cyrodiil.
2. Pertaining to the empire or rule of the empire: The Imperial Legion, The Imperial City

---

And my bullet points:

• I suggest that we use a spelled pronunciation key, not the IPA pronunciation key, because the IPA is too intensive for our purposes.
• I created my sample with simplicity in mind. Simplicity, from my understanding, is one of the founding principles of UESP.
• This method was inspired by http://dictionary.com. Check out their entry on the word "imperial".

I'm sorry that I don't have much input on this, but perhaps some other members can enlighten us with their thoughts. As I said before, I support this notion and I hope that we can improve upon our dictionary. --Aristeo 20:29, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Sounds good; I heartily agree with the element of simplicity and the use of a spelled pronunciation guide as opposed to that of the International Phonetic's. Furthermore, I'd like to thank you for chiming in on this discussion.

Anyone else?

-- Booyah boy 09:16, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Well, it doesn't appear as though there exists any opposition to such, thus, I will begin with the "A" section later this evening and see how it turns out (yes, I'm impatient).

Naturally, I would still welcome input on this subject. -- Booyah boy 05:04, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

I went ahead and posted the "actual dictionary format" page for "[[Lore:Dictionary A|A]]". Feedback on how it appears thus far would be appreciated. Kindly take note that I did not include any further entries in such than were already there (although I certainly shall), nor did I remove any pertinent information. -- Booyah boy 09:17, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

Do we really need pronunciation keys for words that exist outside of the context of the game? I can understand why people might have a problem with "Khajiit", but if you speak English and don't know how to pronounce "Imperial", you need to go back to school. Or maybe just watch Star Wars. Also, what do we do for words that have inconsistant pronunciations in the game? (Ayleid, Azura, Sheogorath, etc.) I'd say that both should be listed in those cases, even if one is perceived to be more "correct" than another. --TheRealLurlock 13:36, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

As regards pronunciation key for common words, I would suggest their continued inclusion, if only for the sake of continuity (that is, we will be providing them for Elder Scrolls only terms, hence, they ought to be available for others) and preservation of style.

The inconsistent pronunciation, however, is an issue to which I have yet to find a reputable solution. I would currenly maintain that the inclusion of both pronunciations would be best (as you noted), although there would be no harm in excluding those which are generally percieved as "wrong". -- Booyah boy 21:52, 1 September 2006 (EDT)

I just looked at some of the work you've been doing on this project, and it looks great! Keep up the good work! --Aristeo 10:28, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Thanks, Artisteo. I have not found the time to get past "A" just yet, but it's on the top of my list of "things to do once I feel better". Kudos must be given to Actreal as well, who recently jumped in to contribute with the "A" section. -- Booyah boy 11:02, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

One minor comment on the dictionary entries. I just noticed that the word "Alchemy", for example, is set up as a link to Oblivion:Alchemy. It seems to me that the main entry should only be a link when it's to a Tamriel entry, or when the word is only used in a single game. In a case like this, where Alchemy has substantial pages under both Oblivion and Morrowind, it seems inappropriate to give preference to one of the games in the title. I think it's more appropriate to provide separate links to each of the pages in the entry (which is already being done). --Nephele 11:40, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Sidebar Capitalization

Might I suggest that the words in the sidebar be held to the same principles of capitalization as articles. I raise this motion only as it has continually struck me as...odd, that the link to the homepage is capitalized in both words (Main Page), whilst no other two-word link is (Featured articles; Recent changes; Random page; Community portal; Chat and support; etcetera). I would like to suggest that the list be made to appear as follows...

general Main Page Featured Articles Recent Changes Random Page Donations Old Site Help community Community Portal Chat and Support Forums Links toolbox What Links Here Related Changes Upload File Special Pages

...furthermore, I would like to suggest that the "p" in the privacy policy link at the bottom of the page be capitalized as well (i.e. = Privacy Policy). -- Booyah boy 04:38, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Because of the previous discussion above about capitalization, I went ahead and make the changes that you have suggested. If feedback for the switch is negative, I can always rollback those changes rather effortlessly. --Aristeo 19:43, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Hmm, I'll begin the feedback, if I might: I like it. It appears better than I had previously imagined it would. Thank you for acting so quickly on the suggestion, Aristeo. -- Booyah boy 09:16, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Image Upload Inquiry

Might I inquire - to any who would know - whether there has been some change or error made in the image upload system, which prevents an image from being overwritten by that with the same name? Using the "Upload a new version of this file" link used to overwrite the old image with the new (at least, it did when I replaced the logo and CC images), however, of late I have been unable to have such work. For instance, in attempting to amend the mistake found within the Septim Lineage Chart, I was unable to upload the revised edition over the currently hosted image (making use of said function), and was forced to upload the image under a new name (oh, and thank you for deleting the old images, Nephele). I was just attempting to upload some new versions of the faction tags (mine being of better resolution and clarity, though modified to the same size; starting with the Arena ranks), but upon "uploading a new version" and ignoring the warning that "an image with this name already exists", I was greeted with the exact same image. Thus, again, I ask if some change has been made to the system, or does the fault lie with me/my computer? -- Booyah boy 05:50, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

I think it's a problem with the site, which is beyond my access level. Daveh would have to examine the PHP files involved and try to fix it. --Aristeo 11:16, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

Ah, very well. Thank you for looking into it.

Having said that, would it be permissible for me to upload the replacement images under a new title, then provide you a list - or post such on the Administrator Noticeboard, as with the SLC chart image request - of those which require deletion, having been updated? I am looking to replace the current rank icons for each Oblivion faction, the current ones being rather pixellated (the result, no doubt, of having been taken from a screenshot) with those ripped from the texture .bsa file, like so:

<--Current icon example.

<--Replacement icon.

-- Booyah boy 16:17, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

Odd. I just hopped over to the Faction articles at Oblivion - to begin listing the icons - when I noticed that the Pit Dog icon I noted above had sorted itself out! That is, it was finally displaying the proper image (the one I uploaded earlier). If any changes were made to amend such, I want to thank said person, otherwise, I am at a loss to explain such (I would say it was my cache, but I regularly refresh such on the half-hour, so that's out). Kindly do get back to me herein if anything is discovered regarding this conundrum, as I would like to prevent it occurring again; for now, I'll begin uploading the new images over the old. Thank you. -- Booyah boy 16:25, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

When updating images, you may have to refresh your browser chache before you see the changes. Press CRTL+F5 in IE (I don't know how in the other browsers). --DrPhoton 07:51, 30 September 2006 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice, DrPhoton, but - as I noted above ("I would say it was my cache, but I regularly refresh such on the half-hour, so that's out") - I periodically refresh my cache via the hard option (Ctrl+F5), and did so after each upload, but to no avail. Still, it is of little consequence now, as the issue has been resolved, the proper images now appearing. Thanks!

If there are no objections, I will remove this inquiry in two hours time. As the poster, I can faithfully consider the problem resolved - even if the solution is not apparent - and no longer see a need for it. -- Booyah boy 09:31, 30 September 2006 (EDT)

Deletion System Proposal

There used to be a time when there was no deletion system. People would just notify one of the admins if they wanted a page deleted, or use various other methods of flagging that proved to be ineffective. In early April, Endareth created a system in which tagging a page with {{[[Template:Delete|delete]]}} would add a page to the [[:Category:To Be Deleted|To Be Deleted]] category, where it could then be deleted. This method of deletion tagging is what we use to this day, but recently I have noticed that it has become ineffective.

This method is excellent at flagging and deleting uncontroversial deletes, such as unused redirects or redirects created from typos. The problem lies with potentially controversial deletes. There's no way to flag that a delete might be controversial where a discussion might be necessary to find out what everyone thinks. Just recently, there was a potentially controversial mass-deletion discussion, and it was talked about on my talk page! Because of this, I have developed (with a little help from Wikipedia and even more help from Nephele) a system that should take care of this problem. The system is divided into three general fields:

• Speedy Deletion – Speedy deletion is for the limited instances when someone creates a page that is pure vandalism, patent nonsense, or other similar reasons. These pages can be deleted on sight by an administrator, whether tagged or not. Users who contest with the deletion should remove the tag and explain why they contest the deletion on that page's talk page.
• Proposed Deletion – Proposed deletions is for pages that are uncontroversial, but don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The difference between proposed deletions and speedy deletions is that proposed deletions have a lag time of 7 days before being deleted by an admin, as long as the deletion was not contested. As with speedy deletions, users who disagree with proposed deletions should remove the tag and explain why they contest the deletion on that page's talk page.
• Deletion Review – Finally, there is the deletion review. At UESPWiki:Deletion Review, there is a debate arena that discusses potentially controversial deletions. If consensus is reached to delete the page after 7 days of debate, the article is deleted by an admin. If consensus to delete the page is not reached after 7 days, no actions will be taken with the article proposed. All active debates will be on the UESPWiki:Deletion Review page, and Wikipedia veterans will find that it runs similarly to their Requests for Adminship page.

The following are pages that the proposal would occupy or is occupying: UESPWiki:Deletion Policy, UESPWiki:Speedy Deletion, UESPWiki:Proposed Deletion, UESPWiki:Deletion Review, Category:Speedy Deletion, Category:Proposed Deletion, Category:Deletion Review, Template:Speedydeletion, Template:Proposeddeletion, Template:Deletionreview, Template:DR, Template:DRsubst, Template:DR Instructions

Of course, this proposal might need some improvement, so feel free to suggest your ideas. Also, let me know if you would want this policy implemented or not. I have a lot of work to do, and I'm only going to do it if this is something that everyone is interested in implementing. --Aristeo 00:10, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

I'm in favour of this idea. I think it will help to have an established way to discuss whether or not pages should be deleted, and as a new admin I also appreciate that it will make it easier for me to judge whether or not a page is ready to be deleted. --Nephele 00:22, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

This looks good to me. It makes the deletion process more organised, and will probably be a time-saver for you, the administrators. --DrPhoton 14:54, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

I added a page to the UESPWiki:Deletion Review that I felt should be deleted. Let's see if this works.. --Aristeo 13:28, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

I'm almost done with it. All I need to do now is finish up the UESPWiki:Deletion Policy, and you all can see what you think. --Aristeo 10:21, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Lore:Books

As the Tamriel:Books section receives very little, and even then, infrequent attention, I thought it best to recommend my idea for an overhaul of said section here - on the Community Portal - as opposed to the Tamriel Books discussion page. I do this not only to garner greater feedback, but also to guarantee myself more immediate feedback, as (should a favorable consensus arise) I would like to get started on this right away. For those reasons, I ask that this topic not be moved to said talk page. Thank you.

Now, that much aside, I would like to - as noted above - suggest an overhaul of the Tamriel:Books section to conform to a new style. I have recently spent a few hours filling in the blank descriptions and missing/incorrect authors, however, I could not help but feel that the very manner in which the information was displayed prevented me from creating a more content-laden article; thus, in accordance with the Content Over Style policy, I would like to propose that the pages be redone from their current state, like so...

...to something like this...

But a few of the benefits of such a layout are as follows:

• Whole titles may be displayed, not cramped within a table bracket (for instance, Interviews With Tapestrists, Volume XVIII: Cherim's Heart of Anequina may be listed in whole, as opposed to its current state listed not under I as it should be, but under C and the title of Cherims Heart of Anequina).
• No more columns with but a single heading. The data is always clearly appended its proper title (Author=___ and so on, not a mere name in a box).
• Room would be granted to write a more thorough description, when and if necessary.
• The inclusion of a graphic image to capture the eye, create a more stylisticly pleasing page, and inform the reader of what the book appears as in-game.

I currently retain the texture files for every book cover in both Morrowind and Oblivion (ripped direct in their proper resolutions from the .bsa files), and can create the books at any angle deemed appropriate (as I did those above). That's it. So, what do you think? -- Booyah boy 09:41, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

I am in favour of exploring a new format for the book listings, and in particular agree that it would be useful to find a format that works well with longer book descriptions. However, I'm not sure about all the details of your suggested format.

• For consistency with the rest of the site, I don't think a different font should be used for the books.
• Graphics do make the page more visually appealing, but I'm not sure that a picture of the book cover is important enough to be as large as the entire book description. Perhaps a smaller graphic would be more appropriate.
• I'm not sure why the new format needs to be so narrow: why not use more of the available width of the page?
• I don't understand your comment about a book being listed under 'C' instead of 'I': that is not imposed by the format; it is just a matter of where someone inserted that book. Also, I believe that when the inventory name from a book differs from the book's full name (i.e., as listed on the book's first page), the book should be listed under its inventory name. Most readers are going to first look for the book under the name that they see listed in the inventory. In cases where there are significant differences, a redirect from the full name may be appropriate.
• If we are going to set up a new format, I would like to also discuss a way to include information such as whether the book is a skill book (for which skill, and in which game, if there are differences between games). Also, there are some books which differ between games; there should perhaps be some way set up to provide that information where appropriate.

--Nephele 12:28, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

My apologies mate, but I'm afraid you took to my example rather literally.

First, I am not suggesting that a different font be used at all. I merely wrote with the default font in my version of Photoshop (Tahoma). That it is not the exact font used herein is the simple result of the graphic above being an example only, not a definite layout.

Second, The narrowness was also a result of the graphic being only an example (that is, I randomly cropped an 800x600 canvas and then wrote in a size fourteen font; that it overlapped is the result of such...my suggestion is to see that no such overlap occurs, as long strings of text are currently forced to do in the table format).

Third, the comment about "C" and "I" was merely to emphasize the point that full names are not listed, and was - like the image above - an example only.

Fourth, the idea of whether or not a book provided skills also crossed my mind, however, as I am referring strictly to the Tamriel:Books section, I did not believe it necessary to include such information in that library. After all, the Tamriel section is more a lore area, as opposed to gameplay related. Still, there is nothing to prevent another line being appended stating which attribute is affected by reading the book.

That much aside, thanks for your input. -- 12:38, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't mind it. I think you'll run into some problems, as I know from experience that there are several books in Morrowind that always appear opened, never closed, so you'll have to fake those graphics. Plus, what will you do about books from earlier games? Or books which have a different appearance in multiple games? (Many books are found in Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion, and use different graphics each time.) Plus, the graphics of a book are hardly identifying, because there's only about a dozen different book graphics in each game which are re-used over hundreds of books, so there will be many duplicates. As for the format, it is a tad bulky - might be better if you did the same thing only using two columns. Otherwise, some of the pages will get quite long. As for skill books, it's a bit iffy, because there are some books which appear in multiple games that are skill books in one game, and not the other, or possibly teach a different skill in one than the other. (Not sure on that, but there are several fewer skills in Oblivion than there were in Morrowind, so it's a possibility.) You'd have to come up with a concise way of dealing with that. Otherwise, I'm all in favor of a change. Just you might have your work cut out for you... --TheRealLurlock 12:52, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

I like this idea, but there's one fatal flaw in it: How are the other editors who have no skills in image design, like me, going to edit the list? --Aristeo 12:47, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't think that's a problem. There's a rather limited number of actual book graphics (maybe a dozen or so per game), so once somebody uploads all of them, you just need to link to the proper one and have it display. No graphics skills necessary. --TheRealLurlock 12:54, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

He's talking about replacing the lists at Lore:Books with images, not uploading the book graphics. --Aristeo 14:17, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

I believe, Aristeo, that is what TheRealLurlock meant, and in saying so he is quite correct. For instance, in Morrowind (without mods) there exist only sixteen unique covers of closed books, sixteen unique textures for open books, five unique closed scroll textures, five unique open scroll textures, three unique note images, and roughly ten unique parchment textures (with varying sizes). If you would like to see them all I can upload them here in a moment.

Now, as to your points...

(LURLOCK) I think you'll run into some problems, as I know from experience that there are several books in Morrowind that always appear opened, never closed, so you'll have to fake those graphics.

(Response) True. Still, for some of the books the correct cover texture may be discerned from the border of the "open-book" texture, whilst others are quite simple to make (I actually created a mod with extra book jackets once, so I could always rustle some of those up if necessary). Furthermore, if it becomes necessary (or a consensus on such should be reached) I can see no reason not to include open-book images as well.

(LURLOCK) Plus, what will you do about books from earlier games?

(Response) Include them, naturally. If necessary I can do my best to update the textures while retaining the original appearance, and, if all else fails, a slight difference in appearance shouldn't make too much of an esthetic affrontry.

(LURLOCK) Or books which have a different appearance in multiple games? (Many books are found in Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion, and use different graphics each time.)

(Response) I was actually thinking of creating a sort of montage of books for them, with the later books overlaid by the newer in a fan-like fashion...you know, like when you spread a deck of cards out.

(LURLOCK) Plus, the graphics of a book are hardly identifying, because there's only about a dozen different book graphics in each game which are re-used over hundreds of books, so there will be many duplicates.

(Response) True, however they are identifying in that they are never randomized. The same book will have the same appearance every time you play, thus you know that the image displayed here at the UESP (should it be) will be the same found in-game.

(LURLOCK) As for the format, it is a tad bulky - might be better if you did the same thing only using two columns. Otherwise, some of the pages will get quite long.

(Response) Again, quite true (especially once more of the Oblivion books/journals/logs/whatnot are added), however, I cannot foresee that posing too much of a difficulty. Stylisticly, it might even be a better choice to create a double-columned page...

(LURLOCK) As for skill books, it's a bit iffy, because there are some books which appear in multiple games that are skill books in one game, and not the other, or possibly teach a different skill in one than the other. (Not sure on that, but there are several fewer skills in Oblivion than there were in Morrowind, so it's a possibility.) You'd have to come up with a concise way of dealing with that.

(Response) Well, that's opening up a whole new can of worms (I just wanted to say that)...that is, I was thinking of revising the layout for the books content as well. As is, many of the content pages contain unecessary coding (HTML in the form of breaks and the like) that is frivilous on a wiki. As such, I thought it might be best if the contents were presented in the center of the article (with slight margins on each side) and any notes (such as the skill granted in each game) would be appended at the bottom...or perhaps at the top of the page in a small box that could be shown/hidden at will (much like a table of contents).

(ARISTEO) How are the other editors who have no skills in image design, like me, going to edit the list?

(Response) By linking to the appropriate graphic. As there are a limited amount of images for each book (open and closed) I should be able to throw them all together in a relatively short amount of time. Considering I do retain all the texture files from Morrowind and Oblivion (ripped from the .bsa files, and thus, I have the images necessary to create icons like those above at any angle or size desired), and can probably throw together any from Arena and Daggerfall in a matter of weeks, I can't see that it should pose any problem if you or any other editor lacks the necessary skill or software to render the images on your own.

-- Booyah boy 15:07, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

I would pefer a table style as it is more clear to read and faster accessible than your list, however i understand the reasons behind the points 2-3 (1 is imho not important). I think there should be no more colums added to the existing table (perhapes one or two should be removed, but which ?). Those and the closer information are imho nothing for a overview page but for the specific book's page itself. Also, except for the font, your layout including the book's cover image, is something i find very pretty. What do you think of making a info box in this style to put it on each book's page. I find the overview table pages fitting very well their purpuse, but the book pages lack of both content (information) and style. -- The Nerevarine 12:17, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I just spent some time looking at the current table format, and it's definitely got some internal formatting problems. For example, the narrow empty column at the left used to be for an ID code, which didn't get fully removed. Based on The Nerevarine's comments, I thought I'd put together an alternative table format, at User:Nephele/Sandbox/2. This addresses some of the points raised in this discussion: it allows for longer title names, and longer descriptions. And if implemented as a template it would be possible to make it more intelligent than the current template (i.e., alternate titles possible, skip the description box if empty). I thought I'd throw this into the mix, as a possibility of what a redesigned table format could provide. --Nephele 13:29, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

On the other hand, having that ID code might be information people would want. However, FormIDs are unique to Oblivion. Morrowind used a different form of reference similar to the Editor Names in the Oblivion CS. Not sure about Daggerfall, but I'd imagine it (and anything prior) is similar to Morrowind. I know the skill books on Oblivion:Books have the IDs listed, but none of the others do. Though perhaps that means that Oblivion:Books needs changing, rather than Tamriel:Books. --TheRealLurlock 13:48, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I'd vote for including the FormID on each book's page, rather than on the overview page. I'd guess it's something most readers don't need to know at first glance, and with the potential for a different FormID/Editor Name in each game, it could become unwieldy to include the information in the overview. It's could be added fairly easily to the "Book Info" template (although that template is currently missing from alot of the book pages...). --Nephele 14:24, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

That table format looks definately cleaner than the existing, what do you think of altering the background shading of even and odd entries? -- The Nerevarine 16:23, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I like the new style Booyah boy is proposing and I prefer it rather than a table. I find it brings style to a new level in the wiki and deserves much consideration.

As for the IDs and skills, I believe they are valuable informantion, but they belong to the game pages, i.e. Morrowind:Books or Oblivion:Books, not Lore:Books. --DrPhoton 15:24, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

(NEREVARINE) I would pefer a table style as it is more clear to read and faster accessible than your list

I'm afraid I can't see how that is true. While a table may be able to contain a small amount of information in a more concise format, it in no wise is the clearest manner of displaying information; for instance, on tables that span more than a single page-length, the title of each column becomes lost; a new format - such as I suggested - leaves the category of information the user is consulting always at hand (that is, Author: X, Found in: X, etcetera). Furthermore, a table would not necessarily be any faster to read, as doing so entails scrolling down the table to find the correct title, then reading the data from the proper column; the format I suggested would have the same result: scroll down to find the proper book title, then read the data.

The fact is, one of the primary reasons for proposing the new format is to move away from using a table (thanks for the support on that one, DrPhoton). The fact is, tables are one of the most commonly employed means of displaying large amounts of information on this site, and while I have nothing against them, certainly that doesn't mean they are the only thing that should be used...right?

Furthermore, making use of the images side-by-side with the listed information would create - hopefully - a feeling somewhat akin to perusing an online library (just one more thing I was going for, after all, it is listed on the Tamriel page as the "Library"; see the New York Public Library's online catalog for a look at what I mean), with the books content only a mouse-click away. Rather like checking out a book, in its own way. -- Booyah boy 17:03, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I think we have here a different understanding what the books table/list page should be for. If i understand you right, you see that page for giving the user the informations he looks for on a book, i see the use of that page in giving the user the information to quickly identify the book he wants information about and lead him to the books page where he can get the information he wants about that book. As we cant't get all information about the listed books on that page without making it unaccessible, why split the information between those on that page and those on the book's page? That would imho only confuse users which look for complete information and reduce accessibility of the table/list page. On the otherhand we would have a "quick find - click - get all info" situation. On that page we could have a info box, preferable in that very pleasing style you proposed, so users who want only a short overview about the book and not read trough lengthly text, and the more detaild description, pages images, etc. for those who wand in deep information without giving up accessibility to that informations. -- The Nerevarine 19:33, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Hmmm...not quite what I meant, Nerevarine. Still, your comments have merit, and I would like to thank you for continuing to give them.

That much aside, I am working on a few mock-ups in a sandbox (or two) to better illustrate my suggestion. I should have them up soon.

Oh, also, I would appreciate some feedback as regards changing the book content pages to look like this. I believe this suggestion has merit, primarily as the box and background color help define the book's content, and the table at the bottom allows the reader to garner all non-content related data in a swift glimpse. Comments? Criticism?

-- Booyah boy 10:16, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Looks fine to me. I'd maybe put the table thing at the top as some books are quite long. It could perhaps have the book graphic to the left of the table for further identification purposes. I definitely like the new-look listing idea, although adding skills to the listings might also be useful. Since the images are somewhat useful for visual identification ingame, open books shouldn't be shown closed. As for the angle it should probably be the same as the Morrowind inventory icons. Garrett^Talk 19:44, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Great! Thanks for chiming in Garrett.

I'll take a moment (some time this evening) and draw up a separate page with the skills included as well, just to see what it looks like. As to open books, no worries, I have already created all of the open books (and their closed version) and even entertained an idea of animated books that would open and close with a mouse-over or click (that would, of course, require the use of Flash images, however, I do not have the time to create such at the moment...nor am I even aware if swf files can be uploaded here; can they?). My apologies for the digression, the point being that I do have the open book images, and they will be used when appropriate, all at the proper angle (hopefully). -- Booyah boy 13:37, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Some random comments.

• I think with the new format for individual books that you're suggesting, having the information box at the top of the page would be more useful.
• I do like the idea of having a box that explicitly states the different inventory names in the different games. I've been putting notes about some of that info onto the book pages in the last couple of days (not that I think my notes are a better way to do it, just wanted to post the info in some form as I figure it out).
• In addition any change in format should allow for additional comments that may be to be added. For example, comparisons between Daggerfall and Morrowind/Oblivion versions of books (e.g., Lore:The Real Barenziah), or errors that editors have fixed (e.g., Lore:2920, Evening Star (v12)).

--Nephele 17:03, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

I'll move the info-box to the top of the sandbox page I'm using as a format template at the moment to see what it looks like and link it back here later.

As to your third point, what did you have in mind?

That much aside, I do apologize for the delayed response; I am still battling some rather ill-health at the moment and have not been able to stay on the computer as long as I would like. -- Booyah boy 01:22, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

I just spent some time making the King Edward books into a single-page transclude, like the other multi-volume books. I ran into your re-hash of Book IX of that series, and opted to leave it alone for the time being, but we need to come up with some means of making the two work together. Yours looks nice, but it's missing a few things that should be added to make it consistant with the other volumes. I'll let you do what you want with this, just the page looks kind of weird right now with just one chapter using a different format than the rest... --TheRealLurlock 13:55, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

Might I inquire as to why you did such? I didn't see a problem with the books being separate articles. Still, what's done is done.

On a more relevant note - to your post, at least - might I ask what the format I posted is "missing...that should be added to make it consistant with the other volumes"? I'll add whatever it is in, then revise all of the pages to reflect such (the format was made to separate the content from the info-box, as well as giving me an excuse to proofread certain pages, such as the noted King Edward title, that was a mess). -- Booyah boy 20:52, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

As the person who's been doing most of the work on the multi-volume books, I figured I'd chime with a response to your question on that subject. The way I've been doing the multi-volume books, they can now either be accessed as individual volumes, or as the entire book. So if you just want to pull up King Edward, part IX, it's still there. But in many cases, it is more convenient to just be able to refer to the entire set of books as one. For example, on Lore:Books_K, it is much more concise to just have a single link to King Edward, than have ten separate links to each of the individual books. If someone wanted to write a page about Barenziah, it is much easier to just refer the readers to The Real Barenziah for more information, than to have to provide readers with a list of all ten individual volumes. And I'm guessing many readers would prefer to just pull up the whole book and read it as one continuous book, rather than having to follow links from one to the next. So overall I think having pages that unify the multi-volume books is a very useful feature. --Nephele 21:19, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

"The way I've been doing the multi-volume books, they can now either be accessed as individual volumes, or as the entire book."

Wonderful! I have no problem with the pages being merged then, as the only thing inciting trepidation on my part was the fear that the ability to access a single book at a time would be lost. Thanks for clarifying that, Nephele. -- Booyah boy 11:02, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Profanity on UESP

From my understanding, it has been an unwritten rule that we should avoid profanity on UESP unless the omission of a word would cause the article to be less accurate or informative. So far, only the Lore:Books project has had the occasional bad word, simply because those are direct quotations from the books in-game. Currently, the IRC channel is enforced at "PG" level, G recommended, and the forum rules say "Don't use bad words." [3] [4] My question is: To what degree should we tolerate profanity, if any? --Aristeo 21:21, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

I'd like to chime in on this one: I believe the use of profanity should be restricted solely to direct quotations from the Elder Scrolls themselves. Having read around to discern the catalyst for this subject having been raised, I would like to say one thing on that subject:

• A user's page is their own. Edits to such ought to be circumspect (not detracting from the content) when minor, or necessitated only to prevent/remove acts of vandalism. (That much having been said, in the case of Wrye's talk page, I am going to agree with Nephele that the inclusion of a certain word was rather unecessary, and thus warranted removal/change).

That much aside, and back to the context of this discussion, I stringently support the enforcement of a "PG" level environment, in regards to language. Personally, I find the use of profanity (in any context) foul. Any emphasis (whether in anger or in hopes of inciting mirth) placed by the use of such may be equally obtained through other, more appropriate means. Furthermore, insofar as the UESP is concerned, the use of profanity would severly detract from the content and professionalism of this site. -- Booyah boy 22:21, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Yes, this discussion was based upon a hostile reaction towards an edit of mine. [5] [6] [7] I should have talked to the user through his talk page instead of making the edit myself, but I thought the edit would be uncontroversial. If anyone would like to give their two cents about this issue, I welcome you all to read and participate in the discussion on my talk page.

To get back on track, I want to bring to light a template that I have made a while ago: {{explicit}}. I made this originally to warn readers about the "The Real Barenziah" series of books, as well as any other book that had suggestive material on it. If we are forced to use "explicit" material on an article, whether it is because of profanity, content, or an image, we should either place this template on the page long term, or place it on a page until the matter can be resolved.

It is the responsibility of the editors here to make sure that we do not have to use the explicit tag when we don't have to. Using these words is considered rude and uncivil, and like Booyah Boy said, it detracts from the content and the professionalism of the site. If there is no equally suitable alternative than to include a bad word, then fine. But if there is no justification towards the use of a profane word, or worse yet, the word is used to personally attack another user, then it should be removed on sight. (And depending on how the word was used, the problem user should be reprimanded.) --Aristeo 22:58, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Morrowind:Monsters Redux

In another revamp suggestion, I would appreciate any input you - my fellow editors - may have as regards replacing the current format for displaying the "monsters" of Morrowind with this look. I ask as I spent the past few hours digging through the CS and extracting every piece of data pertaining to such, much of which is not listed on the current article (and numerous monsters as well).
Thoughts? -- Booyah boy 10:16, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Looks alright - but don't you think that's a little bit overkill? There's a lot of information that I don't think anybody really needs to know, and I think you can safely leave out in the interests of saving space. (Blood color? Really?) I think anybody that cares enough about the nitty-gritty stuff at that level probably has the wherewithal to look it up in the CS themselves. Plus, when you consider just how many creatures there are in the game, this could get huge pretty fast. (Most creatures have several variations, if as nothing else than just quest-specific ones.) --TheRealLurlock 10:51, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Quite true, on every point...however, isn't the compilation of all data as regards a specific subject the point of an encyclopedia or wiki? That much aside, the information may be useful to those who are unaware of how to navigate the CS, or, moreso, do not have access to such (either through some freak program error, or simply a lack thereof as a result of not owning Morrowind). As to monster variants, you could not be more correct in stating that "this could get huge pretty fast", yet, again, I come back to my point as regards the underlying premise for this wiki (do correct me if I am mistaken): the compilation of all data as regards the Elder Scrolls universe.

For instance, currently the Morrowind:Dagoth Ur Servants article lists all of the "Dagoth" character variants under the single heading of "Ash Vampires". This is utterly ludicrous to anyone who has perused the actual statistics of said characters in the CS, as there are more than thirty such characters, many of which have unique statistics (and, in many cases, are remarkable for the items they drop). Furthermore, along those same lines, even quest-specific creature variants have different statistics (Old Blue Fin the slaughterfish, for instance, or the Giant Bull Netch); also, in further support of a complete listing, the form currently lists only the regular variant of creatures. On the primary page you will note the listing for an "Alit", followed by a "Betty Netch", but nowhere do you see the "Diseased Alit" or "Blighted Alit", both of which have unique statistics and abilities from the regular Alit; what's more, they may also be encountered in other areas and will pursue characters for a greater distance.

In short, and to answer you hypothetical question, no, I do not find it overkill...simply, exhaustive. -- Booyah boy 01:18, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't see a problem with listing every variant of every creature in the game. In fact, if you look at my user page, you'll notice I've done exactly that for Oblivion. And I do agree that the current coverage of Morrowind creatures is a bit sparse. I just think there's some information that is just not particularly needed, and I don't think that this website is really meant as a place to put every single piece of information that can possibly be squeezed out of the games. If you followed that logic, we'd have pages describing exactly how many plates are on Crassius Curio's dinner table, and an ordered catalog of each of the shelves at Jo'Basha's Books, etc. A line needs to be drawn somewhere between what is likely to be useful and what is just wasting space. The only people I can possibly think who would be interested in some of the finer minutiae you've included on this chart would be modders, and they would of course be able to look it up themselves. Certain information is necessary - health, attacks, resistances, item drops, soul values, etc. Things you'd want to know while playing. Stuff like blood color or attributes like Personality (really, why do creatures even have a Personality attribute?), the exact settings of their AI, scale (I'm pretty sure it's always 1.0, with the exception of that one easter egg location.), movement type, etc. This is stuff that nobody needs except for modders who can find it themselves. I realize you've done a bit of work extracting it all from the CS, but just saying you might want to filter it down to the essentials, and leave out the stuff that's likely to be of interest to almost nobody. --TheRealLurlock 01:43, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I'll conceed that you do have some fine points, and certainly that your analogy is an accurate one (moreso, I have to agree with you on some very telling points, after all, why do monsters have a personality? So they can kill you in a cheery manner?). I'll take a moment or two and remove some of the less-than-necessary information and post a revised version shortly (say, in an hour or so). Thank you for your input, Lurlock, it is greatly appreciated. -- Booyah boy 01:53, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Okay, I removed the following elements:

• Movement Type: After all, there are few flying creatures, and those that do fly kind of give it away with their wings. Aquatic creatures also have a distinctive look that is not likely to be misinterpreted.
• Weapon/Shield: Much like the above, it is rather obvious which creatures can come equipped with weapons and armor.
• Encumbrance: As the creature's encumbrance level does not slow them down (and, most often, is neligible), it is frivilous information to most.
• Blood Texture: As TheRealLurlock suggested, it's inclusion is a trifle bit absurd. After all, to find it out, all you need do is hit them. Moreso, there are only three textures (gold sparks, white powder, and red blood).
• Scale: 1.00 is all anyone would ever see listed, so, what matter.

I also shrunk it down a bit, to better conserve space (90% to 70%). On reflection, however, I chose to leave the "Personality" trait intact, as it is a central statistic, and thus, should be represented.

Comments? -- Booyah boy 04:12, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Better. I still think there's more that can be pared down. The Probability and AI sections are not likely to be necessary. (There's basically only two behaviors out there that anyone cares about - monsters that will attack you, and those that won't, and this information can easily be included in the description.) Also, some information could be removed on a selective basis. For instance, there's really no need to know how much Magicka a creature has if they don't actually have any spells. As for Personality, I'm almost of the opinion that NONE of the attributes need to be listed with the possible exception of Speed, and maybe Agility. The others are all irrelevant. Strength? Doesn't affect how much damage they do, and as you said, encumberance is pretty much negligible, so why bother? Intelligence, Willpower? Doesn't seem to stop them from casting spells if they have them. Endurance? You know how much health they have, why do you need that? And I think Luck is likely to be 50 on almost all of them, but nobody really even knows what that does. (I think in all of Morrowind including expansions, the only time Luck ever comes into play on an enemy is that one guy in Tribunal.)

Another point is that it might be possible to combine several similar creatures on the same chart. If there's 12 variations on the Skeleton which differ only by location (and relation to quests), why not list them all in one place and save space? Take a look at how I've arranged the Oblivion creatures to see what I mean. For example: Creatures Undead. I listed every single undead creature in the game, but in a format concise enough that I don't end up with a miles-long page of mostly redundant information. Only thing missing from the page that I might consider adding is images, but one image of a skeleton is enough - they all pretty much look the same anyhow. --TheRealLurlock 09:44, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Well, the Probability does factor in on some of the creatures (specifically those meant as "bosses", the netches, and some of the Dagoth variants), thus I thought it best to leave such. The AI section was also left as certain creatures pursue for a markedly different space/time (blighted cliff racers, for instance, will pursue 2000 for 6 seconds). Still, on reflection, I suppose all of that information could be worked into the description, either as a statement (Alit's are ninety-percent likely to attack passersby, and thirty-percent likely to flee, although they will pursue fleeing opponents for up to a thousand yards at a time) or in a round-about fashion (Alit's are highly aggressive creatures, given to attacking any who stumble upon them. Furthermore, most will pursue an enemy for great distances). What do you think?

I'd go for the latter approach. We don't need to know the exact percentages. (Oh, and get rid of those extraneous apostrophes. The plural of "Alit" is "Alits", not "Alit's". Just a minor pet-peeve.)

Ha-ha! Same here. I offer my apologies, as it was not my intention to make the Alit a possessive. Kindly consider the frivilous apostrophes as the result of undue haste in phrasing a reply. That much aside, I shall modify the chart as noted. -- Booyah boy 11:16, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

As to the attributes, well, I am still rather adamant about listing such; after all, these are the central statistics of the creatures, and vary wildly from one to another (even within each variant).

But really, what do these statistics actually DO? Try this. In the CS, make an Alit with 5 Strength, and another Alit with 200 Strength, and everything else the same. Then go fight them in game. They're essentially identical. The only statistics that have any visible effect in-game are Speed (how fast they run), Agility (how often they hit or dodge your hits), and maybe Luck (which affects everything in a small way). Strength doesn't change the damage of their attacks. Endurance doesn't change how much damage you do or how much health they have. Intelligence and Willpower do not affect their spellcasting ability in any way. And Personality doesn't do anything whatsoever. (Even on NPCs, Personality is useless, I think.) Strength could possibly come into play if you were to cast a very powerful Burden spell on them, though by the time you got a Burden strong enough to actually stop them from moving, you might as well just use Paralyze instead.

I assure you, the underlying functions of the stat-based combat system of Morrowind are not lost on me, and each of your points is - as I must admit - both well-stated and true. Still, if only for the purpose of absolute completion, I would prefer listing such. That, I am afraid, is the best arguement I can make as regards the statistics. -- Booyah boy 11:16, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Finally, insofar as multiple variations on the same statistics are concerned: worry not. I assure you, I am not so insane as to desire the posting of every single separate creature, nor even those that share the same statistics and have only differing names (for instance, Dagoth Fandril, Felmis, Goral, Irvyn, Malan, Molos, Rather, Reler, Tanis, Uvil, and Vaner all have exactly the same statistics in every way, even down to the items they drop; as such, I would list them all in one; however, others, such as Dagoth Gares, would need to be listed separately, so as to display that they not only have unique statistics, but also drop unique items). -- Booyah boy 10:12, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Well, that at least is good to know. Though you could still save space by putting similar creatures, even with different stats, onto a single chart, and using chart headers as I have done, so that 50% of the screen isn't taken up by just headers. My goal when creating the creature pages for Oblivion was to get as much useful information on the screen at one time as I could. By separating them out as you are proposing, you'd have to keep scrolling back and forth to compare two similar creatures, as each entry takes up about half a page by itself. I hope you don't think I'm being overly critical. Your format looks good, but it just seems like this kind of flash-card like layout will use a lot of space and not be very practical for somebody just wanting to compare the stats of similar creatures all on one page. --TheRealLurlock 10:41, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I'll take a look at the Oblivion page and see what I can do.

Oh, and there is no need to concern yourself that anything you might say would be taken as "overly critical". It was with the foreknowledge that opposition might be encountered, and with anticipation of constructive criticism such as your own, that I posted this suggestion herein. Frankly, I would invite you to say whatever you wish, even if your only suggestion is "it sucks, do this instead". -- Booyah boy 11:16, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Oh, and don't look at Oblivion:Creatures. That has mostly the same problems as Morrowind:Monsters, and is long overdue for a format re-work. (Particularly the Bosses section.) After creating my individual categorized creature pages, my intention was to convert the main Creatures page into just a main directory leading to the others with more detail. However, then people started adding images and stuff, and I didn't have the heart to take it down. One of these days, though, that's got to be cleaned up. Instead, look at the examples linked from my user page. Also occurred to me that if you were to take a similar approach, making a single page for each category (Undead, Daedra, Animals, Ash Creatures, Dwemer Constructs, etc.), there'd be one more field you don't need on the chart. If you make a page just for undead creatures, you don't need to mention that they're undead on the charts, obviously. --TheRealLurlock 11:34, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I took a moment to look over Creatures Undead (that was one of the pages you referenced, was it not?) and, generally, liked what I saw. There are a few minor things that would need to be changed - purely as a result of the differences in the games - however, it appears to be a clean and space-efficient format. I'll take a moment later on and see what I can do about modelling the sandbox page I linked herein to resemble such and get back later with the results. -- Booyah boy 13:27, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

My apologies for not having posted a revision yet, however, I am still feeling rather ill, and so, have procrastinated on many projects here at the UESP. I'll get it up as soon as possible. Thanks for understanding. -- Booyah boy 11:02, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Categorization System

I've been loathing the categorization system that we have been using for a while now, and I've begun to plan a way to do something about it. In its current state, the parent-child hierarchy subsystem it uses is separated, categories are orphaned with no parent or child categories, and for some reason, the spaces are replaced by dashes. I have written a system draft on my sandbox that lists a single categorization hierarchy where people can browse through the automatic system to find their desired page. Tell me what you all think about what I've done, improve and increase upon my work if necessary, and give me your thoughts on whether or not this change is desired. --Aristeo 19:52, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Hmmm, you may want to shift the "Oblivion People by Race" category up under number four "People in Oblivion" (a minor typographical error).

That much aside, might I ask for some elaboration on the underlying premise of this suggestion? I'm afraid I am simply not grasping what it is you are proposing. -- Booyah boy 01:34, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

I'm proposing to gut out most of the categories from pages and replace them with the system on my sandbox. I'm doing this for cosmetic purposes (the dashes in the names annoy me), and for organization (replacing it with a hierarchy tree). --Aristeo 01:44, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

I'm still not completely clear on the scope of what you're proposing to do. Is this primarily just a suggestion to replace the page that comes up at Categories? Or you thinking of a more complete revamp of the category system? Would category tags be changed on most pages? Some pages?

Also, I'm not sure why some existing categories have vanished in your new list. Oblivion-Items, as one example, since I've added a few dozen pages under that category to this week. And I think even the existing categories are probably incomplete (I know Werdnanoslen has created a lot of new trails lately; probably most of those trails should have corresponding categories). Do you think the list of categories needs to be reduced? Or just reorganized? --Nephele 17:29, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

My plan is to replace the categories that we have with the category system on my sandbox. By replacing, I mean moving categories like "Oblivion-Items" to "Items in Oblivion" or "Oblivion Items", deleting unneeded categories, and creating new ones. To address your second question, some categories have disappeared from the list I'm working on because I started that list from scratch, and I simply haven't gone through the current category system to see what I unintentionally left out. And finally, I'm not sure exactly how detailed we want to be with the categories. Some games with less pages should definitely have not as many categories, simply because there's not as much to sort through. --Aristeo 19:23, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

My only concern is - this is a major amount of work, for not all that much pay-off. Just changing the categories on all the NPC pages alone would be a huge job. Then all the quests, all the item pages, etc. You really want to shake all that up just because hyphens annoy you? Just seems like the current system is so entrenched it might not be worth it... --TheRealLurlock 00:06, 23 September 2006 (EDT)

It's not as much work as you might think. A good majority of the categories are transcluded onto a page from a bread crumb trail or other source, and I'm not planning on touching a few of the categories. This would also be a good project for me when I need something that doesn't require too much thinking to accomplish. Also, my reason for doing this is not only because I dislike dashes; this would also better the organization of the site. --Aristeo 00:35, 23 September 2006 (EDT)

Prev: Archive 2

Up: Community Portal

Next: Archive 4