Open main menu

UESPWiki β

User talk:Nephele/Archive-2007-11

< User talk:Nephele

PicturesEdit

Hey Nephele, I've been trying to do the Flora pages in the Tamriel namespace and do we really need two different pictures of the same plant when one is named Image:OB-flora-Alkanet.jpg and the other is Image:Tamriel-Flora-Alkanet.JPG or can I just link it to an already existing image? Every plant in Oblivion has a picture of it; should I use it in the Tamriel Flora page or go out and take a different (similar) picture and name it Tamriel-Flora-_______? Vesna 19:05, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I think using the existing Oblivion images is completely appropriate. A few images, such as Image:Tamriel-Flora-Alkanet.JPG, did get uploaded using a Tamriel name, before all of the Oblivion flora images were added to the site. But the image is fundamentally of an alkanet flower in the game of Oblivion, even if it's being used to illustrate a Tamriel article. In cases where two redundant images do exist, I'd say use your best judgment as to which image works best. If you think that one of them is clearly inferior, feel free to propose deletion.
And thanks for noticing that these images need to be added to the Tamriel Flora articles! --NepheleTalk 19:32, 5 November 2007 (EST)

A doubt...Edit

I tried adding images there but they also appeared in Tamriel:Daedric Princes! Can you tell me how to make it work so they don't appear there? --Mankar CamoranTCE 11:41, 9 November 2007 (EST)

That's what I just did. You just have to make sure that the images are surrounded by noinclude tags: <noinclude> before the images and </noinclude> after the images. Also, the gallery tags need to be paired, with both <gallery> before the first image and </gallery> after the last image. --NepheleTalk 11:45, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks. I had missed one of them. --Mankar CamoranTCE 11:51, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Untested practice weapon enchantmentsEdit

Hi Nephele,

You removed an edit I made here for a weapon enchantment with the comment "Please do not add enchantments that have not been tested."

As I no longer have suitable hardware to run the game, I cannot test this effect. Still, I think it would be a very useful sort of enchantment to have, and something that readers should be able to see and try out for themselves.

What I ask is, could you test the effect in-game with one of your several characters, and prove or disprove whether it works?

This would be more fair and useful to readers of the wiki than to just wipe out my edit, for a number of reasons:

1. It was correctly placed in alphabetical order in the correct category.
2.a) It showed a new trick not formerly shown on that page,
2.b) which would not be normally noticed or thought of,
2.c) is useful,
2.d) and could enable a new dimension to game play (namely low-risk Strength training.)
3. It was clearly named and labeled according to function.
4. I stated openly that the effect was not tested and should be verified.
As a result, you chose to delete that particular effect, as opposed to many effects on that page which obviously have never been tested and a glance at relevant wiki pages shows would not work or could not be made, and also meet none of the above three or six criteria. This implies an order of priorities which I find confusing.

First test the effect, be sure it doesn't work or can't be made, and then update the Oblivion:Restore_Health page to include the "(no enchantment)" notice. I have gone to some effort to be sure that this should work effectively to help players with all the information available to me at the time (e.g., I would have preferred a "calm" enchantment but that was marked as unusable for enchantments.) To delete it as you have done without further explanation on any talk page, from that page especially, reeks of hypocrisy.

It's not too important to me other than spitting on my effort (and that's a risk I accept when I write to a wiki) because I will test it first chance I get. But it seems wrong for an admin to deny users potentially useful information without making sure it's misinformation, or if he's sure, to explain himself and safeguard against future such misconceptions.

Thank you,
--Potion Addict

Just my 2 cents, but it seems to me like that it would be better to have a request for someone to test that enchantment placed on the talk page. That way it gives people that are comfortable with editing the page access to the suggestion, but it doesn't compromise the encyclopedic (fact-only) format of UESP's pages. --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 23:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)
I appreciate what you're saying. But I don't personally have the time to test every single suggestion that gets made to the site. I try to test a fair number of issues, but I don't think it should be my personal responsibility to test the validity of every claim that is made. There are on the order of 500 edits made to this site every single day. I'm not paid for the time that I put in here, so I definitely do not have the time that it would take to test every questionable claim by going to the game and testing what happens.
Rather, I feel that it should be the responsibility of editors who add statements to first make sure that the information is valid. In particular when information is added with multiple statements that it has not been verified, I don't think it belongs on the site. Some reasonable effort should be made by editors before telling all the readers of the site to go and do something. I'm only asking you to apply the same standards that I apply to myself before I add new information to the site. So I do not see how my actions are hypocritical, and I don't appreciate being accused of being a hypocrite just because I expect others to apply some standards before adding information to the site.
I realize that your honesty in saying that it is untested contributed to its deletion. And I agree there are contributions that have been made without being tested that don't bother to state that fact and tend to get left in place just because the original contributor was not being honest. When I know that contributions make claims that are false, I try to clean them up. In other cases, I end up having to spend a lot of time apologizing to readers who complain about false information on the site.
Also, you may want to read over some of the site's guidelines. For example, on the Style Guide it states, "gaps in the article should not be filled in with with approximations or best guesses. It is better to have no information than to have inaccurate information". Consensus provides information about what is considered to be standard practice with contested edits. --NepheleTalk 23:32, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Thank you GuildKnight for your suggestion. I would post it there now but I see you have already done so. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and fair solution. One I should have thought of myself.
Nephele: I said it was hypocritical because it was not "false information": there was a clear warning label and softening words so anyone should have been suitably informed of the reliability of the information. I don't want to belittle the hard work you're putting into the site even if I do think in this case it was poorly directed. Due largely to my interest in evolution, I just get a little steamed whenever I see what I think of as "good deeds going punished," which is all too often. --Potion Addict

Re: Ingredient redirectsEdit

Hi there, I'm aware that you've deleted a bunch of the ingredient redirects I created earlier today. I understand that you don't want redundant pages, but I don't really consider them redundant. Not all players who visit this site will know offhand that the Aloe Vera plant provides Aloe Vera Leaves. (I certainly didn't.) Those who know how URLs work might want to just go straight to the ingredient's page instead of visiting the Ingredients page to be directed. Thus those Redirects. And for the Wisp Stalk Caps (you gave the reason as "don't want a plural and non-plural version) I only put that there because other Cap ingredients use the singular. Please reconsider the deletions you've nominated. Ong elvin 01:32, 10 November 2007 (EST)

The vast majority of the pages that you created I left in place and in fact further added to them, in particular by placing them in a newly-created Oblivion-Flora category. Oblivion:Aloe Vera, for example, has not been proposed for deletion. I made these changes for exactly the reason you provided. As for the pages that I speedily deleted or proposed for deletion:
  • I speedily deleted pages that were created in the main namespace instead of the Oblivion namespace; game-specific pages do not belong in the main namespace and their existence would override redirects existing in all namespaces, forcing readers in any game to end up at the Oblivion page.
  • The "go" feature is already designed to work for either singulars or plurals of names. So typing in either "Wisp Stalk Cap" or "Wisp Stalk Caps" will take you to the exact same page. Ditto for "Primrose" or "Primroses". So there is no reason to create twice as many redirects just to cover both singular and plural cases of every page in the game.
  • I proposed for deletion pages that do not correspond to the names of any plants or items in game, for example "Spiddal". I think trying to anticipate every possible permutation of every phrase in the game is overkill. Yes, having any phrase that a player sees in the game set up as a redirect is reasonable. But going further than that will just lead to thousands of additional redirects. Anyone who types in "Spiddal" in the "go" feature will end up at a search page with "Spiddal Stick" listed right at the top of the page. I don't think it benefits readers or the site to do more than that.
I hope those explanations make sense. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. --NepheleTalk 01:57, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Yeah, the Aloe Vera was just an example. I didn't actually check all the changes you made, so I assumed they were all going up for deletion. (The lack of a nice edit summary is helpful. :P) The ones I check just happened to be the ones going for deletion. >.> You're right about the Redirects in the mainspace, I did those wrong when I was jumping about. As for the "Spiddal" search, yeah, does work in search bar, but I personally like to type it straight into the URL. (It's way faster to just go straight there if you're not already on the UESP site.) :P Anyway... sorry I didn't check every last one of them. :X Ong elvin 04:09, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Shivering:CreaturesEdit

I didn't realize that was your edit I was reversing, I thought it was just some random "huh," didn't realize it actually did something. Sorry. --GuildKnight (Talk) contribs 11:54, 13 November 2007 (EST)

We all learn something new every day :) And it turns out I was wrong, too... I'd just been too lazy when dealing with the obsolete patrolling to check the facts myself! --NepheleTalk 12:43, 14 November 2007 (EST)

SorryEdit

Sorry, Nephele. I had absolutely no idea. I just thought someone had forgotten to remove Aristeo's name. --Mankar CamoranTCE 12:38, 14 November 2007 (EST)

No problem. The permissions actually should be removed, but in the meantime it seems best to have the correct information on the page. --NepheleTalk 12:41, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Whoops! Caught red handed!Edit

Hiya Nephele

Sorry about the sloppy edits I had made, haha. I've been trying to understand the namespace system here to help improve a wiki I'm working on. I thought a quick lil creation/deletion would go unnoticed, lol. That will teach me. I'm ready for my wrist slapping now!  :D Schot 04:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

On Mage's Hoods as Valuable Treasure and What Warrants Bug SectionsEdit

mages hoods are not valuable treasure

Clearly, that assertion is subjective, but to me, semi-rare zero-weight enchantable hoods seem pretty valuable—much more valuable than weak weapons with weak enchantments such as the War Axe of Jolts. Not in terms of gold, perhaps, but certainly in terms of usefulness.

difficulty activating minor items is not a problem warranting a bugs section

Again, that assertion is subjective, but I thought the work-arounds for the bugs—especially the one involving the inaccessible Mage's Hood—were enough to warrant the section.

I noticed that you left in place information about such common and highly unremarkable items as a lockpick, a steel dagger, and novice alchemy equipment. Since you were already deleting information about items you personally consider to be not valuable, I do not understand why you did not also delete all mention of such insignificant items as a single lockpick or novice alchemy equipment, all of which are unlikely to be of much use to a player by the time Fort Rayles is discovered. I do not understand by what standard you determine what stays in place and what gets deleted.

My attempts to contribute both content and ideas just seem to meet with unexpected disapproval from senior users. What an unfortunate waste of time and effort. Brian Sexton 05:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Nephele will be able to explain better but let me have a stab now. The items described by the Oblivion Places Redesign Project are ones that are always to be found in the zone. In the case of Fort Rayles, there is one Mage's Hood present in the dungeon and two more that are present because they are being worn by conjurors. The place pages do not describe treasure possessed by random enemies - that is done (in theory) on their respective pages; so Oblivion:Marauder lists the different types of marauder and the items carried and Oblivion:Conjurer will do the same (eventually) for conjurors.
The Bugs section you added is an example of information overkill. It's a pity because it was a well-written and detailed bit of information, but a) if the site starts listing all objects like this and how to reach them it'll double in size for not too much gain, and b) it's much easier just to use tcl to reach the items mentioned. The (rough) policy is to mention facts specific to a given place, and misplaced items don't qualify.
Lastly, I think it's a bit unfair to talk of "unexpected disapproval from senior users". Looking through your edits, only the Fort Rayles one has been reverted and I responded to your request on Oblivion Talk:Oleta "asking for opinions" in a perfectly friendly way. We always welcome people who want to make helpful edits to the site and you obviously want to do that. Now you have a bit more background on how the site works I'm sure you'll be able to do so. --RpehTCE 06:05, 20 November 2007 (EST)
Sorry it's taken a couple days to respond, but real life has been keepin me fairly busy. Plus rpeh did such a good job (again) of reading my mind and saying what I wanted to say.
I'm not disputing that Mages Hoods can be useful items, and obviously your style of game play is one in which they are particularly valuable. That's an aspect of Oblivion that I find very appealing: every player really can play the game his/her own way and decide which items are useful and which aren't. It also makes trying to maintain a wiki on the game particularly challenging. There is no single objective way to decide what information should be emphasized and which information should merely be included in an article. However, an arbitrary decision does have to be made, and that decision needs to be applied uniformly.
In this case, a decision was made on UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project#Motivation (under "Better information about important treasure") about what treasure in a dungeon should be emphasized, i.e., which items should be listed under "Important Treasure" and which items should be shown on the map. In my opinion, the items listed there represent those that will be of interest to the vast majority of readers. And I don't think that Mages Hoods deserve to be added to that list. Only players with a very specific way of playing will find them useful (e.g., only mage-style characters who choose to wear no armor and wish to save 1 pound weight; or characters who rely on reverse-pickpocketing NPCs). A critical difference with, for example, the War Axe of Jolts, is that even players who have no interest in the weapon will stil be able to at least benefit by selling the weapon. Mages Hoods, on the other hand, are of no value to the majority of players who do not choose to play in a way that makes them useful.
Therefore, in accordance with the existing guidelines on what does and does not belong, I deleted Mages Hoods from the "Important Treasure" section. I also moved the Mages Hood added to the "Treaure" section for Fort Rayles Hall of Winter for the same reason. Items listed on their own lines are items that are shown in some way on the map. The Mages Hoods is not shown on the map and I don't think it qualifies for addition to the map. Therefore, I moved the Mages Hood to the list of other items that can be found in the dungeon. I did not delete all mention of the Mages Hood, and I did not give preference to other items such as lockpicks and novice alchemy equipment. I gave them all the same consideration. And in the process I took into account that not all players will happen to visit Fort Rayles late in the game, as you evidently did. Players can visit Fort Rayles any time they choose; many will happen to visit it early in the game and those players should be given as much consideration as players who choose to visit it late in the game.
As for the bugs you added to the page, that type of information would be appropriate for a required quest item, for example. But for a book that can be found in 173 places in the game? The information you added was definitely well-researched, it's just very unlikely that other readers would want to know the information. For those few readers who really wanted the items, only a fraction will be PC players with access to the console. And as rpeh said, tcl is much easier to remember and use for those PC players who want the items (and who wouldn't rather just use player.additem or one of dozens of other methods to obtain it). A single, general discussion on Oblivion:FAQs would help far more readers than adding blurbs to every single dungeon page on the site.
I regret that you feel like you've wasted your time. I hope you'll take the time to read through this response and think over the information. You're obviously intelligent and can write well, and we really do want more contributors with your abilities. But the wiki is a community effort; the content is based upon the collective decisions made by the entire community rather than being decided by any one person. The responses you've received from "senior users" have not been individual opinions, but rather have been based upon those users' knowledge of the community's previous discussions. None of those discussions are set in stone, but they do have history and precedent and therefore it would take some substantial arguments to change everybody's opinions. --NepheleTalk 02:09, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Prerequisite QuestEdit

Sorry Nephele, but you made a mistake there. Only one quest can be the prerequisite quest. "Or" is the word that is used everywhere else and it is the appropriate word because it is not just those two quests that have to be completed but all the other preceding quests as well. So if you want to list all the quests that have to be completed before a quest can be started, you will have to list everything! I won't be online now. I will see what you have to say some other time, may be tomorrow. --Mankar CamoranTCE 14:22, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Saying that Den of Thieves or Amelion's Debt is the prerequisite quest to me says that you must only complete one of the two quests, at which point The Master's Son becomes available. But that is not how the quests work. You must complete both Den of Thieves and Amelion's Debt before being able to start Master's Son. That is the terminology that is used through the Fighters Guild quests: if two quests must be completed before a third becomes available, then it states that both quests are prerequisites, using the preposistion "and". When it comes to the next quest to complete, then "or" is used consistently, because the implications of "next" quest are very different than the implications of "prerequisite" quest, in my opinion.
"Prerequisite" is not synomous with "Previous". I tend to think of it in terms of college classes. Chemistry 302 might require as prerequisites Chemistry 205 and Physics 101. It doesn't mean that you had to take either of those classes last semester, just that at some point in your time college you must have taken those classes. And to have taken Chemistry 205 you probably had to have already completed its prerequisites. But those classes don't all get listed, because they are implicit just by stating that Chemistry 205 is required. The same thing applies here. There are two quests that must both be completed before Master's Son can be started. Yes, there are prerequisites necessary before those two quests can be started. But still the most concise way to describe the prerequisites is to say that Den of Thieves and Amelion's Debt are both required. You cannot get away with just doing one of the quests, which is what is or would imply. --NepheleTalk 00:57, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I am really sorry that I could not explain it well last night (it was night for me). Actually, I was in a bit of a hurry, so I just typed something vaguely and left. I must admit your explanation is very good. Thanks for that. I am convinced that it is better to use "and" (although not totally, but it doesn't really matter). It was actually my mistake that I assumed you made a mistake. But one more thing, in these cases don't you think the plural "prerequisite quests" should be used? At least this is correct, I think. Thanks for your patience! --Mankar CamoranTCE 09:04, 22 November 2007 (EST)
True, but it would be rather difficult to program the template to notice an "and" or "or" in the entry (without getting false positives), so we just have to let this go, I think. You could have separate params for each entry, like "Prev" and "Prev2", etc., but when you consider there are cases like this around, having the 7 separate parameters you'd need just for the odd cases seems like overkill. I suppose you could change it to say "quest(s)", but this is already the longest line on the quest header, and there's really not much need to make it longer, I think. (I'd actually prefer it to be shorter, like just "Prereq." instead of "Prerequisite", just to save space, but I may be in the minority on that one.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 09:24, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I hadn't realised that. In that case, it would be better to let it go. But I don't see any objection to changing it to "Prereq." Then you can change it to "quest(s)", just like "Location(s)". --Mankar CamoranTCE 09:44, 22 November 2007 (EST)
I psnly dnt lk t idea f ctng ltrs frm imprtnt hdngs. There are probably enough people heading for the dictionary with "prerequisite" without abbreviating it! --RpehTCE 09:54, 22 November 2007 (EST)
There is an objection already! I personally don't think it would be hard to understand what "Prereq. Quest(s)" means from the context. But if it is not agreeable, then adding a little "(s)" for the sake of accuracy, may not really be too harmful. --Mankar CamoranTCE 10:05, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Oblivion World 7Edit

Hey Nephele I'm playing the "Allies for Bruma" quest and I'm at the Anvil Oblivion Gate. The random world 7 has that glitch for the tunnel "Nether Tunnel" and I keep resurfacing to the top to reload the tunnel to get a new one, which It does but everytime I still get the message "This door leads nowhere" and It will not let me through, the system before I get to that door has holes that I have to drop down from to advance. Can you help --<Tejklah The Dunmer>

In my experience, that glitch only happens if you have already entered the tunnel system from the other end first (perhaps in another version of ROW7?). In any case, if the glitch has been triggered then reloading the tunnel system will do nothing to fix the problem: the final door will stay connected to whatever cave system it's using. Waiting 73+ hours may reset it, or restarting the entire Oblivion World may reset it. The only other option would be to fortify your acrobatics skill and climb the mountain without using the tunnel system. It's reportedly possible, although I've never done it myself. --NepheleTalk 02:58, 24 November 2007 (EST)
How do you reset the whole oblivion world/gate you mentioned earlier in my first post?
Loading a save from before you first entered the world. Alternatively, it's possible that leaving the world and waiting outside of it for 73+ hours will make it reset. --NepheleTalk 02:25, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Return to the user page of "Nephele/Archive-2007-11".