UESPWiki:Community Portal

206,076 bytes removed, 04:13, 5 August 2007
Removing all content from page
[[Category:Message Boards|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Move Protection|{{PAGENAME}}]] __NEWSECTIONLINK__
This is the '''main discussion forum''' used to discuss the operations, policies, design, and improvement of UESP.
All members of the community are welcome to contribute to this page. Please sign and date your post by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar. If you would like to start a new inquiry, please place it at the bottom of the page with a two-tier (==) heading.
Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:
* Existing [[:Category:Policies and Guidelines|policies and guidelines]] have individual pages; their talk pages are the best place to discuss these policies.
* If you have a request that requires an [[UESPWiki:Administrators|administrator]], you may want to post your comments on the [[UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard|administrator noticeboard]].
* [[UESPWiki:Reference Desk|The reference desk]] is the best place for questions about how to play Elder Scrolls games.
== Contents ==
{| class="greylapse" width=300 style="float: right;"
! Major Discussions
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Bread Crumb Trail|Bread Crumb Trail]] -- ''Active''
* Utility and formatting of bread crumb trails.
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Curing Stupidity |Curing Stupidity ]] -- ''Active''
* Dealing with very low quality edits.
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Mod Info in Articles |Mod Info in Articles ]] -- ''Active''
* When and where unofficial mods should be included in articles.
* How to organize PC-specific, Xbox-specific, etc. information.
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Dispute and Wikiscrolls|Dispute and Wikiscrolls]] ([ Wikiscrolls]) -- ''Inactive''
* A new wiki similar to the UESP.
! Page Archives
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 1|Archive 1]]: Feb. 2005 – June 2006. ''Archived by [[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]].''
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 2|Archive 2]]: June 2006 - July 2006. ''Archived by [[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]].''
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 3|Archive 3]]: Aug. 2006 - Sep. 2006. '' Archived by [[User:Booyah boy|Booyah boy]]''
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 4|Archive 4]]: October 2006 '' Archived by [[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]]''
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 5|Archive 5]]: Nov. 2006 - Dec. 2006. '' Archived by [[User:Nephele|Nephele]] and [[User:Wrye|Wrye]] ''
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 6|Archive 6]]: Jan-Feb 2007 '' Archived by [[User:Nephele|Nephele]], [[User:Wrye|Wrye]]
| [[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 7|Archive 7]]: March 2007 '' Archived by [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]
<br clear=both>
== Transparent Namespaces ==
The way UESP uses [[UESPWiki:Namespaces|namespaces]] is pretty different from the standard wiki setup and it is, frankly, probably one of the bigger obstacles discouraging new readers and editors from using the site. It's also an annoyance even for experienced editors... I wouldn't even want to estimate the amount of time I've spent typing "Oblivion" or fixing my "Oblivoin" and similar typos. Last night it suddenly occurred to me, why should we have to type in namespaces all the time? Why we can't we make UESP work more like Wikipedia?
No, I'm definitely '''not''' talking about reorganizing the entire site and abandoning namespaces as a way to organize information. Instead what I'm suggesting is having the wiki software automatically fill in the namespace for readers and editors: 99% of the time the namespace you want is the one you're currently working in, so why not assume that unless specified otherwise? There are two specific ideas that I've come up with:
* '''Automatically add the current namespace to links when a page is edited.''' Wiki software already expands links on pages. If you type in <nowiki>[[Oblivion:Monsters|]]</nowiki> on a page, save, then edit the page again, that link has been magically changed to <nowiki>[[Oblivion:Monsters|Monsters]]</nowiki>. Why not do the exact same thing with namespaces? Since we don't use the main namespace at all, a namespace-less link like <nowiki>[[Monsters]]</nowiki> can safely be assumed to be a mistake. So if you type in <nowiki>[[Monsters]]</nowiki> on an Oblivion page (or an Oblivion talk page), the link would be automatically changed to <nowiki>[[Oblivion:Monsters|Monsters]]</nowiki>; if it's on a Morrowind page, the same link would be changed to <nowiki>[[Morrowind:Monsters|Monsters]]</nowiki>. Any links with a namespace would be left unchanged (<nowiki>[[Tamriel:Monsters]]</nowiki> for example), and any links starting with ":" would be left unchanged (so to link to the main page, you'd type <nowiki>[[:Main Page]]</nowiki>).
* '''When the "Go" search button is used, automatically add the current namespace''' Right now, if you type in Monsters in the the search box in the upper left corner and click "Go" you're always told that no such page exists and forced to look through a long search page. But if someone is on an Oblivion page, the chances are that what they really wanted to type is Oblivion:Monsters, so why not make that guess and automatically open up [[Oblivion:Monsters]], just like would happen on Wikipedia? The Search part of the function wouldn't be changed at all, just the list of pages that it considers to be matches when "Go" is used.
Neither of these changes would be too difficult to implement. Yes, it requires directly modifying the wiki's PHP code (which only Daveh can actually do). But the amount of coding involved isn't much. I've already worked out exactly what's needed for the first option, and even with a couple extra bells and whistles it's only six lines of code added to a single PHP function.
The only other "problem" I can foresee is that existing links to the main namespace would have to be changed at some point so they wouldn't be automatically converted next time the page is edited. But there aren't too many such links. For example, there are only 43 links on the entire site to our most popular page, namely <nowiki>[[Oblivion]]</nowiki>. 10 of those links are from the Oblivion namespace and wouldn't even need to be changed. So 33 links would have to be changed from <nowiki>[[Oblivion]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[[:Oblivion]]</nowiki>. Typing in 33 colons and in exchange saving myself from typing Oblivion a few thousand times seems like an easy tradeoff ;) And external links to the site would be completely unaffected by the change, so there's no risk of breaking links elsewhere on the web.
Are there are any other problems that anyone can anticipate if these two changes are implemented? Or is there anyone who thinks either one is a bad idea? I definitely don't want to pursue making PHP-level changes to the wiki if anyone has concerns. But it seems to me that the changes would be easy but dramatic improvements to the site for everyone who uses it. Also, are there are any other ways in which namespaces are cumbersome that could potentially be fixed while we're at it? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 12:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wow, you think a lot. I'd say to try it on one area (perhaps just Oblivion) for a while, and then if all's well, implement this plan site-wide. That way, we know what's what about it. I still can't really picture it. Would we still be able to type everything out, if we wanted to?--[[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 12:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::It's actually easier to implement it everywhere at once; doing it in a more limited way would require different coding or additional coding.
::And yes, you'd still be able to type out full links if you wanted to. Basically, anything (correctly) done right now would still work. But now you'd have the option to not type the namespace part of a link if you don't want to. And if a wikipedia user added a bunch of wikipedia-style edits to a page, those would all be automatically fixed instead of being added as red links. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 13:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::My only objection is that you didn't think of this months ago. ;) If I counted the number of times I've had to type out "Oblivon" or "Morrowind" for every link on every page I've ever worked on - Well, let's just say it would be a very large number. Presumably, if we did this, those shortcut links in the Wiki markup box below the edit window would be rendered obsolete. I've made extensive use of them, especially after I modified them to include the | symbol and save a step, but it's still an annoying extra mouse-move and click. Only complication I can think of is if for whatever reason you actually WANTED to create a page in the Main namespace, there'd be no easy way to do it. But there's so few pages in the Main namespace, and very little need for more, so it wouldn't be that big a problem. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 15:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, if it's any consolation, I've probably typed "Oblivion" about the same number of times ;) But you do have me beat on the "Morrowind" count. The shortcuts in the markup box would still be occasionally useful, such as when creating a Tamriel link on an Oblivion page. But you'd be using them a lot less often.
::::It would still be possible to create a page in the Main namespace. Some methods (such as typing in a URL) would be completely unaffected. For others, you'd just have to type one extra colon:
::::* If you create a red-link then follow it, add a colon. So type <nowiki>[[:Dragonfire Castle]]</nowiki> to create a red-link, for example. That'll work right now and will continue to work, completely unaltered by my new-fangled ideas.
::::* If you type in a name in the search box and hit Go, same idea. Type ":Dragonfire Castle" and that will force the search to try to go to a main namespace page (that won't work right now, but it would be added as part of this modification).
::::So just like right now you need to add a colon to the front of Category links or Image links, you'd just do the same thing for main namespace links. Hopefully that would be easy enough to remember for those who need to do it. But it wouldn't generally be the first option presented to new editors. Hmmm... unless they use the Go button on the Main Page... but if desired we could tweak that, too. Either force some default namespace (e.g., Oblivion) when users use Go in the main namespace. Or bypass the "You can create this page" if someone types, for example, "Dragonfire Castle" instead of ":Dragonfire Castle" again, only when starting from the main namespace. I'm not sure which makes more sense and/or is less confusing... --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 16:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Y'know, redirects are cheap... why can't we just create forests of redirects, and dabs where needed? [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] 22:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well, redirects were my next idea... especially after the next wiki upgrade which will make redirects much more powerful. I think there are several things that can be done with redirects to help make it much easier to find information. But I see redirects as a tool that fundamentally work '''within''' the namespaces (i.e., a redirect from one Oblivion page to another) rather than as a tool that can somehow make namespaces less obvious.
:The whole reason for namespaces is to organize the information into different sections according to game. For redirects to do what I've suggested above would require that '''every''' single page on the entire site would have to have a corresponding redirect page within the main namespace. That would destroy the entire organizational system created by namespaces (mentally I'm picturing taking a file cabinet and dumping all the contents on the floor). Not to mention take forever: creating [[Special:Statistics|15000+]] redirects would take hundreds of hours. I'd much rather have editors spending that time creating content instead of mindlessly creating empty redirect pages.
:For alot of pages, a redirect wouldn't even be possible. For example, a main namespace "Thieves Guild": should it redirect to Oblivion:Thieves Guild or Morrowind:Thieves Guild or Tamriel:Thieves Guild or...? The namespaces are there because there are many similarly named pages in each game that need to be distinguished somehow.
:Finally, even if someone did want to create 15000 redirects, in order to maintain the system and have it continue to be useful for more than a week, it would require that a new redirect would have to be created every time a new page was created. It would be an endless process with editors constantly spending more time creating redirects than actually improving the site. So I'd much rather spend a few hours tweaking the wiki software than trying to solve the namespace difficulties with redirects. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 22:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, good too see that you've thought this through. Go forth and code! [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] 02:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
At last, the changes proposed here have been implemented! So feel free to start testing out the new features.
For editors, it means that when you're editing you can:
* continue to add links to pages using previous formats, and just remain blissfully unaware that anything has changed
* or, you can start using more wikipedia-like links. So links like <nowiki>[[Thieves Guild]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[Vilverin]]</nowiki> are now possible! The only catch is that you have to be working within the same namespace. So if you're on an Oblivion page, those two links will work and be changed into <nowiki>[[Oblivion:Thieves Guild|]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[Oblivion:Vilverin|]]</nowiki>. If in doubt, just use the preview feature and see whether your links are coming out as blue links or red links
For readers, it means that the "Go" button in the search feature is now much more likely to actually take you to the page you want.
This is all pretty new, so there may be a few wrinkles that will need to be ironed out. One initial problem with in-page links getting messed up has now been fixed. I'll also provide more detailed information on these changes as I get a chance (in particular, update the help pages).
If you notice any other new strange behaviours, please let me know! --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 14:43, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, one strange new behavior I don't much like - If you type something into the Search field from any of the special pages (most notably including [[Special:Recentchanges]]), and then hit Enter or the Go button, your search turns up zilch. Do the same from any namespace and it works - e.g. search "Cheydinhal" from the Oblivion namespace, and it goes straight to [[Oblivion:Cheydinhal]]. Search it from any other namespace (including the Main namespace) and it goes to a search, with the Oblivion page on the top of the results. But from special pages, this search doesn't work anymore. Is there any way to get the site to treat searches from special pages the same as it treats searches from the Main namespace? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 12:38, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes, I've been noticing this too. It shouldn't be too hard to get the ''Special'' namespace to work like the other namespaces. We should check that some of the other namespaces don't suffer from the same issue (Image, MediaWiki, etc...). -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 13:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Image works, as do Category, UESPWiki, Template, General, and Help. MediaWiki doesn't. Just gives an empty page, without even an error message saying why your search didn't work. Granted changes to Mediawiki pages are only for admins, and rather uncommon even then, so it's not as critical that this work in that case. But the Special pages, particularly Recent Changes, are likely to be used by lots of people. Another one that doesn't work is the User namespace. That's another one that would be nice to fix if possible. I didn't check all the Talk namespaces, but I assume they work the same as their respective pages? Not sure. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 15:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Yep, I had noticed this problem, too, but it's not yet clear to me what to make the go button do on these pages. In general, what's the best behaviour for the go button in all of the non-content namespaces? Right now, for example, if you're on a UESPWiki page and type something into the search box, the modified search engine checks to see whether there is a UESPWiki page with that name (always after checking the main namespace). But it seems unlikely to me that readers are really going to want search for a UESPWiki page. So the options that occur to me are:
::::* a) Change Special/Mediawiki/User only so that the go button does what it originally did (check the main namespace for the entry then give up and show a search)
::::* b) Change Special/Mediawiki/User only so that the go button works like it now does on the main page (check the Oblivion namespace for the entry, then give up and show a search)
::::* c) Change all non-gamespaces to work the way the main page now does
::::* d) Change all non-gamespaces (except Special/Mediawiki/User) to search in that namespace first for a match, then check the Oblivion namespace for a match, then give up and show a search
::::* e) Make all the non-gamespaces do really comprehensive searches (go through Oblivion, Shivering, Morrowind, Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Tamriel, stopping when it finds a match). Basically look everywhere to see if it can find a match before giving up.
:::: Options a), b), and c) are really easy to implement. d) and e) are just one step more difficult. I'm inclined to think that e) is the best way to go. And adding the code for e) would then make it really easy to do better gamespace searches too (e.g., on an Oblivion page, search Oblivion, Shivering, and Tamriel). Or is that overkill? (It would take some extra CPU to do so much searching... although finding a page match would always save the really CPU-intensive final search through every article's text.) Would c) be completely adequate? Any votes? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 23:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I'd be fine with any of those, though a) seems like the simplest and fairest to me. I'm not sure I like the idea that Main Page searches always check Oblivion first, to be honest. Maybe because I've been doing a lot of Morrowind work lately, but I think if you do a search on any concept that is common to multiple games, you should get search results that let you choose which game you're interested in, rather than having the site just assume you wanted the Oblivion page. The site is called "The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages", not "The Unofficial Oblivion Pages", after all. Thus, I'm not so hot about b), c), or d). e) is a possibility, provided that it doesn't automatically go to the first one it finds if there happen to be more than one that match. Otherwise, it'd be a purely subjective judgement call which namespaces take priority, and I disagree with that idea. But really, any one of these solutions would be much better than the way it is now, with the searches simply turning up nothing. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 01:00, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::I realize it is biased to choose one game over the other. If you use the "go" feature on a given game-related page, the search always looks in that game's content. And the ''search'' feature has not been changed here: if you click on "search" instead of "go" the search still uses the search preferences that you have set up and works the same way it always did. The "search" button will give any reader the list of possible pages and full freedom to choose which one they want. But the "go" button is set up to work differently from the search button, and is supposed to try to actually go straight to the requested page.
::::::A lot of users are going to start from the Main Page, and having "go" just check the main namespace leaves us with original situation: the "go" button basically never works for any new readers. Instead of having the "go" feature work for nobody, I'd rather choose one namespace so that at least sometimes when readers on the main page use "go" they end up finding the page they're looking for. And I chose Oblivion because it is by far the most heavily visited game (at least based upon a comparison of page access statistics for [[Oblivion:Oblivion]] vs [[Morrowind:Morrowind]]), and therefore that maximizes the odds that "go" is checking the game that a reader is interested in. In other words, it wasn't a subjective decision to choose Oblivion but rather one based upon site statistics.
::::::My problem with option (a) is the same as my problem with the default option for the Main Page: why should the "go" feature basically be completely disabled on all Special/Mediawiki/User pages? That situation is hardly different than the current situation. Why not make it so that at least some of the time the feature works? I'd rather be biased and help some readers than be fair and help no readers.
::::::Any option that checks more than one namespace will have to stop at the first page it finds. The functions are all set up to exit as soon as a match is found; changing that would start to get ugly, waste a lot of CPU, and introduce a random element that I'm not really too comfortable with (if a reader uses the go feature one day to find a page, I think they should be able to expect that doing the same thing the next day takes them to the same page, instead of a different random page).
::::::Basically my idea with the "go" button has been to find ways to maximize the chances that a reader is taken to the page they're looking for when they hit "go". The "search" button is always available for readers who want to see a list of options. Or more experienced readers can make sure that "go" does what they want (use "go" from the right namespace, or spell out the namespace, e.g. "Morrowind:Seyda Neen"). Hopefully that logic makes some sense :) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 02:03, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Here's my idea of the ideal way for this to work, not sure if it's technically possible, though.
:::::::#First, the system searches for any page title matches.
:::::::#If there is only one title match, it automatically goes there, regardless of current namespace.
:::::::#If there is more than one title match, but one of them is in the current namespace, automatically go there.
:::::::#If there are two title matches, but one of them is in the Tamriel namespace (and the user is not currently in the Tamriel namespace), automatically go to the other one.
:::::::#If there is more than one title match, but none is in the current namespace, run a search, showing the title-matches first and then text-matches.
:::::::#If there are no title-matches, just show a text-match search.
:::::::#If there are no title-matches OR text-matches, then go to the "Create a page" option - but with a caveat:
:::::::##If the user is in a content namespace (rather than a support namespace or the main namespace), have it choose to create a page in that namespace.
:::::::##If the user is ''not'' in a content namespace, change the message to suggest that they probably should be.
:::::::This would solve the problem of people creating pages in the Main namespace when they shouldn't be, as well as making searches pretty straightforward from anywhere on the site. Even if you search a game-specific concept like "Cheydinhal" from the Main Page, you'll still go to [[Oblivion:Cheydinhal]], because there are no pages about Cheydinhal in any other namespace, except [[Tamriel:Cheydinhal]], which is an exception by rule #4. But if you search a general concept like "Agility", you'll get a search that shows both [[Oblivion:Agility]] and [[Morrowind:Agility]] right at the top, and then text-matches below them. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 09:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I think I've got that coded up (although not forwarded to Daveh yet), with a few minor tweaks/differences:
::::::::* If you're in a content namespace, it's only going to check related namespaces (so a go to "Rare Items" from an Oblivion page will never take you to Morrowind:Rare_Items, and instead give you the option to create the page; but a go to "Dawnfang" will take you to Shivering:Dawnfang).
::::::::* I'm not tweaking the search page, so what happens if it falls through to using the search page will always be the same, default behaviour: a section of "Article title matches" (or "No page title matches") followed by a section of "Article text matches" (or "No page text matches"). The article title searches won't necessarily match the titles found by the "go" function. The search page will show all matches in each namespace, not just best matches (e.g., do a search on "Creatures" and you get a lot of title matches). Also the search page uses the reader's preferences, so for logged-in readers it will possibly check different namespaces than the "go" feature ('''Possible change''': the go-to-any-gamespace list could be changed to only use gamespaces in the reader's current preferences).
::::::::* The "create a page" option comes up whenever the reader is in a content namespace (whether or not there are text-matches).
::::::::Does that sound like it's close enough to your ideal? Using the reader's namespace search preferences is an idea that just came to me while I was typing this up; I'll rummage a bit more and see just how difficult that would be to incorporate. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 13:49, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Sounds about right. (I'm a bit busy this week and next which is why I'm slow to respond.) Anyhow, any change would be an improvement on the current system, so I'll go along with that for now. Would like to see what other posters think, though. So far it's just been you and me discussing it, and I don't think either of us is exactly the "typical" user here... --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 09:04, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
== Proposal: Recommended Mod Lists ==
This is something that I've been thinking about off and on for a couple of years, but is now getting bumped up my priority list because of discussion on the forums: Turns out the Aelius, fairly well known for his recommended mod list, barely plays the game and hardly even reads the readmes. This fits something that I've noticed before...
List makers have a pronounced tendency towards arrogance. (Certainly NOT all of them, but several.) Since most players get lost in the sea of mods that are available, they (very reasonably) look for good lists for recommendations. But that means that mod usage can be heavily affected by some list saying "get this mod!" -- which means that mod makers are inclined to curry favor with list makers. Some list makers seem to really get off on that, and start expecting people to do ridiculous favors for them (like explain in person stuff that is already well covered by the readme!!!)
One way to avoid this tendency seems to be to have several editors for the mod list. OTOH, too many editors and after a while there's no standard -- too many mods end up on the list. So single editor is not good because they tend towards arrogance, and anyone edits is not good because there's no standard. (Wiki's work in large part because you can always appeal to fact to resolve a dispute, but recommended mod lists are inherently opinionated.)
Actually, probably even more of a problem than arrogance is abandonment -- someone starts a great list, then abandons it.
So, what I'd like to suggest is that we host several semi-protected lists here. Here' how it would work:
* Under Oblivion, have a "Mod Lists Section"
* Under that, have individual lists that are edited ONLY by designated editors. These pages would be "So and So's recommended mods list", etc.
* The pages would be semi-protected (so that only signed in users could edit), but there wouldn't be any extra server specification that "only designated editor XX can edit this page" -- rather that would be done by convention -- i.e. any edits by non list editors would be summarily removed.
* However, other users could still visit the talk page and suggest mods and post arguments, etc. there.
* If the editors for a list leave, then either new editors are designated, or the list is frozen. But being under CC license, the current list could be forked and a new list could be started. E.g., Bob is the editor/author of "Bob's List". Then Bob quits the scene and list is frozen. Jan comes along and Jan and copies "Bob's List" to "Jan's List" and then proceeds to be the editor for that.
* Lists are by invitation and/or consensus agreement. List maker should already have built a decent, respected list. Whether to allow it here would be by a discussion on the community portal.
* If someone starts a list, then they're agreeing to keep editing it for a while -- i.e. it's not just a one time thing, but something that the list builder is committed to.
* Editors should understand that their list is NOT their home page or their user page, and should not be used for rants, general opinions, etc. It's just a list -- we expect it to be opinionated, but it needs to be primarily as a list. They also understand the nature of cc.
* If there's a major dispute over the list, it can be resolved on the community forum. In an unusual case, we might freeze (or very unlikely) delete the list.
What do you all think? --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 19:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Not much apparently! :lol: No problem. Moving it back to the backburner.... --14:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, still avoiding the place as I Havant received Shivering Isles yet... But yes, I have now read through and I agree with all your points and ideas! [[User:Jadrax|Jadrax]] 10:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I was trying to volunteer everyone else to do the job! :lol: Didn't work too well, and I'm somewhat overloaded these days. I'd kind of like to if not host mod lists here, at least include a page of pointers to some of the better ones. But I've done almost 10 Wrye Bash releases in the past week and still have a list of stuff to do, so I probably have the time soon. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I could help out as well, since I'm a bit of a mod junkie. I tend to dabble in a lot of random mods, and also tinker around in the construction set once in a while. I do agree with how the Wiki format is great for listing good mods. One question, though... this would be a list of recommended mods, not just a general list, right? --[[User:Talon Lardner|Talon Lardner]] 09:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Moving this from backburner to sideburner... I've added a new page [[Oblivion:Recommended_Mods]] which is primarily intended to list recommended mod lists, with some evaluation of them. There's still room for hosting some more "owned" lists as suggested above, but again it would take a dedicated proven editor to do it right, so I'm not really expecting that to happen. (Yes, we have dedicated, proven editors here, but they're all busy with other stuff!) --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 22:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
== Site Slowdowns ==
With the release of [[Shivering:Shivering Isles|Shivering Isles]] UESP has seen a noticeable increase in traffic (~20-30% more). As a result, during peak use periods the server is getting more hits than it can handle. This has caused some noticeable slowdowns, to the point of making the site nearly inaccessible for a few hours at a time during really busy times (i.e., Sunday afternoon). Daveh knows about the issue, and is planning to double the server's RAM (from 1 GB to 2 GB), which will double the number of allowed connections at one time (from 50 to 100). However, that upgrade won't be possible until at least the end of this week, because Daveh is on travel at the moment. So in the meantime, there may continue to be a few hiccups. It's the price of being a popular web site :| --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 18:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:The site was down about twenty minutes ago and seems to be running slowly now. What's up with that? BTW, was the site ever upgraded (in hardware)? It was my understanding that things were going to be cranked up a bit a while ago. (E.g., note about doubling RAM above.)
:The annoying thing about this was that I had been starting to do some stuff at CS wiki (because we sort of ceded CS4 tech stuff to them), but was getting fed up with sloppiness there and had reached the decision to move my new entries back here -- only to find the site down -- again. So CS wiki lacks profesionalism, long term commitment and copyright specification. And this site goes down when it gets popular. Frustrating. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 16:49, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
::Weekend afternoons are always bad and today in particular there is one annoying IP ( that is doing "what links here" requests and searches on every page on the site, which are just hammering the server's CPU. And somehow the IP seems to be getting around some of the site's anti-bandwidth-hogging controls.
::Daveh hasn't done any RAM upgrades yet, I believe in part because he's debating whether to do the RAM upgrade or just upgrade the entire server. My impression is that there will be some sort of hardware upgrades happening in the not-impossibly-distant future. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 17:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
== Task List ==
I'd like to create a useful [[UESPWiki:Task List|Task List]] page for the entire community to use. My impression is that a lot of new editors would like to contribute, but don't know what needs to be done (other than spellchecking and cleanup, which isn't everyone's favorite job). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that most of the experienced editors have lengthy lists of jobs that they think could be done (or at least, I know I do!). It seems like there should be some easy way to share that information. I've tried to reorganize the [[UESPWiki:Task List|Task List]] page so that it can fulfill that purpose.
One reason I'm bringing this up now is that the huge interest in adding pages describing [[Shivering:Shivering Isles|Shivering Isles]] seems to confirm that there were a lot of editors who wanted to add to the site, but just didn't know what needed to be done. And I'm guessing in a few weeks some of the Shivering Isles momentum will wane, once the obvious red links and empty quest pages have been filled in. I think having an idea list in place at that time will be useful, so that some of the new editors can find other things to work on if they're interested. Also, it will be worthwhile having a way to start to keep track of remaining Shivering Isles-related tasks.
For the Task List page to work, though, it really needs to be something that editors other than just me find useful ;) So I'd really like to get feedback from everyone on how to make this as useful as possible.
* Does anyone else think that a Task List page is worthwhile? In particular, are there really editors who'd like ideas on what needs to be done? If I've misjudged the situation, then it's probably not worth pursuing this idea.
* Are the types of ideas that are currently listed on the page useful? Is there enough info for editors to get a basic idea of whether or not it's something interesting? Are these ideas the types of projects that editors would like to know about? Or should the page be taken in some other direction?
* How detailed should the tasks be? This is one that I've struggled with somewhat: I don't want it to be an hour-long task just to add an idea to the page, because most editors won't want to put that type of time into writing up an idea, especially if they're not sure anyone else will want to follow through on it. But it also needs to be possible for someone else to figure out what actually needs to be done. So I've tried to compromise: allow the descriptions to be brief, and then encourage people to ask for more details. When someone asks, anyone with ideas about the details can step in and answer the question. I know from my point of view, I'm much more willing to spend the time on details if I know someone is interested in hearing about them.
* Do other editors have ideas that they'd like to add to the page? Is it fairly straightforward to add an idea?
I see the current page just as a starting point to give everyone some idea what I'm talking about. Any ideas about how to improve it are welcome! --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 18:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:This page looks like a good way to get people involved in the site and should point editors in the right direction. However, I think many will find themselves lost when it comes to actually do the edits, as there isn't a clear procedure on how to proceed or project organisation for most of the tasks. What I mean is that we lack the organisation of projects like the [[UESPWiki:Morrowind Redesign Project|Morrowind Redesign Project]], which takes editors almost step by step on what needs to be done on certain pages. If more of these projects were created, I beleive it will be clearer to editors what to do. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 03:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good point. A few of the tasks could be fleshed out more so that it's easier for any editor to pick them up. In particular, the Tamriel:Books and Tamriel:Dictionary suggestions really amount to converting those pages to a standard format. A style guide describing the format really needs to be written, in which case those tasks could basically just link to the style guide. And I think having more projects would be great... if someone is willing to take the time to provide the detailed procedures.
::But then the question that comes to mind is, should the Task List page be limited to only those tasks that include clear instructions on what needs to be done? My feeling is that no, it shouldn't. I think if it's limited to only be fully-fleshed out projects then basically nobody will ever want to add tasks to the page. For example, a couple of the tasks that I added are suggestions made on talk pages (Sigil Stones, House Upgrades). While I'm patrolling recent edits, it's not a big deal to add a one-line description of any such suggestions with a link. But if I have to fully research what needs to be done and write it all out, I know I basically won't want to go to the trouble: if I spend that much time on it, I might as well just do the whole thing myself. For a lot of shorter tasks, I don't think they lend themselves to being turned into full projects. But having a central list of such tasks is still useful, I think, even if the number of editors who might know how to pick them up is more limited. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 16:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== Uncategorized ==
I've just noticed that two of the special pages on the site are a little less useful than they should be: [[Special:Uncategorizedcategories]] and [[Special:Uncategorizedpages]]. First of all, they seem to be exactly the same. Uncategorized Categories should only list categories, but it's listing pages as well. Secondly, it would be very helpful if certain types of pages could be exempted from this list. Namely, all talk pages and sub-pages really don't need to be categorized, so they should be left out. Is there any way to change this? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I brought this problem up to Daveh a while back ([[User_talk:Daveh/Archive_Feb_2007#Configuration_Tweaks]]) but it doesn't look like he's gotten around to fixing it yet. It's a fix that needs to be done by Daveh, and I can't even help by supplying him with new PHP code, since the code that needs to be fixed has already been customized by Daveh. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 17:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
== Userboxes ==
Okay, so I've been going a little whimsical adding Userboxes. Previously, we only had two:
{{User Admin}}{{User IRC}}
So I added:
{{User Patroller}}{{User Mentor}}
to represent the new ranks we have around here. Additionally, I added some game-specific ones:
{{User Morrowind}}{{User KotN}}
{{User Oblivion}}{{User ShiveringIsles}}
Mainly because I already had the icons available from when I made the new [[UESPWiki:Stubs|stub tags]] the other day. (Wasn't sure if KotN was big enough to warrant a Userbox, but hey, I had the icon already.) We still need them for the older games, and possibly Tribunal and Bloodmoon, though most people who know about Morrowind are likely knowledgeable about those as well by now. Other ones I was considering were, "This user is knowledgeable about Elder Scrolls lore", and possibly a few other wiki-specific ones, like people who know about making templates or working with images, charts, or are willing to engage in boring, repetitive tasks (e.g. Adding all the Oblivion NPC Summary templates, etc.), people who just go around making small spelling/grammar corrections ([ WikiGnomes]) or people who just go around making things look pretty ([ WikiFairies]), etc. Additionally, I was considering adding categories to these Userboxes, so that adding them to your User page would automatically add you to a category of other users who have also added the same Userbox, so if you wanted a list of users knowledgeable about, say, Morrowind, you'd go to [[:Category:Users Knowledgeable About Morrowind]] or something. Any thoughts? Suggestions? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 21:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wow, I'd been thinking almost the exact same thing :) I think the patroller user box and the game boxes are great, and adding more boxes that describe what types of things editors like to do and/or know how to do on the wiki would be even better. My impression from wikipedia is that user boxes are pretty popular if they're available. Having more available here would it make it really easy for everyone to advertise what they're interested in.
:And your idea about automatic categories would make the boxes even more useful, and could potentially augment/improve the mentor program. For example, having cross links between the user boxes, the categories, and the mentor page would make it easier for editors to find out about the mentor program. It would also make it easier to find (and provide) assistance at a less "formal" level than mentoring. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 22:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Random selfish/whimsical idea: how about a user box for editors who are actively avoiding learning about Shivering Isles until they get a chance to play it? It could use the SI logo with an "X" over it, for example. Although I might be one of the few editors to use it ;) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 22:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you want to make Userboxes that will be used only by you, feel free to do so ;) Anyhow, before I add categories, is there a way that you know of to display a list of available Userboxes ''without'' having their categories appear on the page? Because it's just occurred to me that if I added categories, then the Community Portal page would suddenly be added to all those categories where it doesn't belong. (Incidentally, I was considering starting a [[UESPWiki:Userboxes]] page, just so there's a single place with a catalog of all available Userboxes. That would also suffer the same problem. Only thing I could think of would be to subst: all the templates and remove the categories when they're used in this way. If you've got a better idea, let me know. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 23:40, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::One idea is to have the template check the namespace, and only add categories if it's in the "User" namespace. I could set up a template ("Userbox Category"?) that takes care of the details for all the userboxes, so you could just add <nowiki>{{Userbox Category|Users Knowledgeable About Morrowind}}</nowiki>, for example, to the userbox template. <grumble>You'd think one little userbox wouldn't be too much to ask for in exchange for creating a fancy new template</grumble> ;) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 00:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Voila: [[Template:Userbox Category]]. I tested it on the Oblivion userbox, and it seems successful: AlbinoMudcrab, Lurlock, and Ratwar are now in the category, and Community Portal isn't. (I haven't created the category yet, in case that's not the correct category name... update as you want). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]] 00:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, on the up-side, I brought in a snazzy new template from Wikipedia, which makes it a snap to make your own Userboxes. Take a look at the changes I just made to the game-specific ones. One easy way to do it would be to simply change the colors around on the existing one, like so:
{{User NoShiveringIsles}}
::::Feel free to change it as you see fit. Enjoy. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Cool. Been meaning to make use of something like this... Heh, heh, heh... --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 03:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
== the pilgrimage ==
i have the Kinghts of the Nine installed and i cant find the prophet in anvil, and the chapel isnt destroyed. why?
[[User:|]] 01:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:My first guess would be that you have other mods installed that conflict with KotN. You may want to make sure that KotN is the last mod being loaded (see [[Tes4Mod:Mod_Management#Load_Ordering]]). Also, read the notes on the [[Oblivion:Pilgrimage|Pilgrimage]] page where at least one specific mod that is incompatible with KotN is mentioned. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 02:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
== [[User:Dienerandamovie|Dienerandamovie]] ==
I just wanted to let the other admins know that I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to initiate administrative action against this user. Since I was the first person to get involved with reverting this editor's changes, and since he has made some personal attacks against me, there are possible conflicts of interest. Therefore I feel it would be better for another admin to get involved and decide what should be done, if he continues to make disruptive edits. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 15:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Are we 100% sure that [[Special:Contributions/|]], right? I'll be happy to handle it. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 15:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Yep, I did a Checkuser, and that's the only IP address he's used so far when he's been logged in. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::You might want to add [[Special:Contributions/|]] to that user... this IP is attacking Nephele's page. --[[User:GuildKnight|GuildKnight]] [[User_talk:GuildKnight|(Talk)]] <sup> [[Special:Contributions/GuildKnight|contribs]] </sup> 20:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That one and [[Special:Contributions/|]], but I doubt either of those will be making more edits anytime soon... --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 21:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
He's back to vandalizing NPC pages. He seems intent on removing any and all info not visible in-game. (Levelling info, non-playable classes, non-joinable factions.) --[[User:Deathbane27|Deathbane27]] 21:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I blocked him again. I'm not sure what his deal is. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 22:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
== Protection policy confliction ==
I don't want to get too involved, since I'm retired and everything, but a couple people wanted me to bring this to light.
I was exploring the site, half-bored, half-exhausted, when I stumbled upon a series of pages that [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] left in the "Full Protection" category but did not protect. I brought this to the attention of [[User:Nephele|Nephele]] in IRC, recommending that she leave a message on [[User:Daveh|Daveh]]'s talk page asking if he meant to protect those pages. Nephele felt that it was unnecessary, and proceeded to protect the pages.
Moments later, I noticed that none of the protected pages were covered by any of the criteria on the [[UESPWiki:Protection Policy|Protection Policy]]. I told Nephele about this in IRC, and she disagreed, saying "''I'd say they fit under 'high sensitivity': they are financial records''". Since these records could be reverted just like any other page, I asked her "''If a vandal went through the records and put some false information in them, would it be an inconvienence or a catastrophy?''" She never answered my question, but she did ask me to bring this to the attention of everyone else.
Does the protection policy need to change so that these protections are "legal"? Was she right in her analysis that these pages are highly sensitive? Does a rule need to exist, like Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] rule, that allows people to ignore the rules as long as they are acting in the interest of the site? If someone with the intent of harming the site went through the financial records and placed false information in them, would it be an inconvienence or a catastrophy?
--[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 16:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I checked the pages and full protection seems appropriate to me. I agree they fall in same group as the copyright page. While I agree that they're not as sensitive as the copyright pages (which govern all contributions to the site and should not be messed with, even briefly), they're also clearly pages which no ordinary user (in fact not even non-Dave admins) should be editing, so full protection seems exactly correct. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 16:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Someone may want to correct a typo or adjust the categories of these pages. I realise that no one should adjust the actual content without Daveh's approval, but someone may need to perform some sort of maintenance to them and wouldn't be able to if they were protected.
:: Let me ask you this: What makes you feel that these pages are sensitive?
:: --[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 17:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Aristeo, I think it is obvious that financial records go under the clause of 'Protecting pages with a high sensitivity' under the protection policy. This is nothing new. The precedent for protecting financial pages was set by [[User:Daveh]] on November 22, 2005 when he protected [[UESPWiki:Site Costs]] and [[UESPWiki:Donate]]. This decision by Daveh, the owner of the site was confirmed by you when you added them to the [[Category:Full_Protection]] on October 19, 2006, the same day you created the category. The precedent was upheld by the community from February 8-13, 2007 on the [[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard|UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Protected_Pages]] when you proposed unblocking them. On top of all that Daveh himself added all of pages Nephele protect to the Full Protection Category, which seems to indicate that he wished them to be protected. Also, in the future, I would recommend the couple of people that wish this to be brought to light, speak on their own. I also think that your use of IRC logs is inappropriate, since you said yourself, ''"The IRC room is good for fast and informal discussions"'' ([[UESPWiki:Administrator_Noticeboard#Irc_Discussion]]. If these discussions are to remain informal, I suggest we don't use quotes from IRC in discussions on the wiki, especially since some of your statements are misleading when compared to the actual conversation. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::It seems to me that it would be much more useful to not speculate hypothetically about what might happen in the future. At the moment, it seems like there is sufficient reason to fully protect these pages; If Daveh disagrees, he is free to tell me that I misunderstood his intentions, and the situation can easily be fixed. If in the future an editor realizes that for whatever reason they think a change needs to be made to these pages (or any fully protected page) they can post a comment on the talk page, on the community portal, on the administrator noticeboard, on Daveh's talk page, on my talk page, or any of many other unprotected pages on the site. And then there can be a discussion and a decision can be made about what needs to be done. But trying to spend our time right now imagining every possible future scenario doesn't in my opinion help anybody. I'd rather spend my time helping editors with real questions that they have about how to improve this site's primary content (which is in the game-related namespaces, not the UESPWiki namespace). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 17:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Based on the last two reactions I recieved, it would seem that I proposed to resurrect Hitler! Nephele and Ratwar: Try to address the issue, not whether or not I should have brought it up in the first place.
I understand that these are financial records. But what makes them so sensitive that they need full protection?
--[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 18:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:The reason I fully protected the expense/revenue records is that there is no reason for any, including Wiki admins, to edit these pages. I'm the currently the only one who has access to the information and there is no additional content on those pages. The only possible thing anyone could contribute on those pages is formatting. If I accidently fully protected a page that should be semi-protected or not protected at all I'm fine with reverting it. If anyone finds any errors or has suggestions for formatting these pages they can comment on the talk pages, or my talk page. If others feel the pages are better off semi-protected I'm fine with that as well. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 18:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: With all due respect, sir, pages should not be protected because no one can contribute to the content. As you said, someone could contribute to the formatting, and as I pointed out, could adjust the categories or perform other necessary maintenance without having to go through an admin.
:: It's a common mistake for wikis to protect pages unnecessarily. I admit that I requested the protection of a few too many pages back when I was starting out on the wiki. However, most wikis consider over-protection to be harmful for many reasons, and it would be wise to trust the other editors of the site unless these pages truly are "highly sensitive". (Sources: [] [] [] [])
:: I ask again: ''What makes these pages so sensitive that they need full protection?''
:: --[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 18:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I would remind you and everyone that we are not other Wikis and do not necessarily share all of their policies. If you wish to discuss the protection policy here to clear it that is fine. I think that the reason "no one can contribute to the content (except the site admin)" is a perfectly good reason for page protection. Again, if the other admins disagree that is fine but that should be discuss on the protection take page. --
Question raised and answered. (In fact as Ratwar points out, Aristeo raised it before and it was answered the same way). Reasons for protecting the page have already been given. Aristeo just isn't convinced of them. I don't see any reason to repeat statements already given, nor of course is it necessary to convince Aristeo that every action undertaken at the site is the correct one. Let's leave Aristeo to his puzzlement and get on with our regular work. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 19:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
: ''No one explained it.'' Ratwar said that the answer was obvious, but went off on a tangent on how the decision was originally made and how IRC is for informal discussions. Nephele said that she didn't want to worry about future scenarios and said she just wants to focus on the main content. No one is saying what makes these pages highly sensitive, which leads me to the conclusion that they're not.
: Also, Wrye, we don't have any need for your smart-ass remarks. If you don't want to help, that's fine, go eat a banana or something. Just don't interupt this discussion anymore.
: I'd appreciate if we take care of this situation, whether that means we unprotect the pages or put something in the protection policy that states that financial records should be protected.
: --[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 20:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Aristeo, you yourself have said, ''"I realise that no one should adjust the actual content without Daveh's approval"''. Therefore I really don't see what your beef is. Even you agree that the financial records shouldn't be toyed with, now this seems to indicate that the pages should be protected unless there is an overriding reason to allow the pages to be edited. Personally, I don't think category changes that would happen (at most) once a year or typos which are just as rare on pages that are updated as infrequently as these are a good enough reason to leave them unprotected. In my previous message, I devoted a lot of times to two things, the previous consensus of the community that pages with financial records are highly sensitive and the way in which you decided to bring this matter to our attention. I think everyone would agree that the previous consensus is very relevant to the discussion at hands. As to the manner which you brought this up, I only did that because you spent the majority of your first statement talking about what lead to you bringing it up. If you didn't wish to discuss it, don't bring it up. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 23:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'll be more than happy to re-post my initial questions, as well as fill in the answers based on my responses.
:::# Does the protection policy need to change so that these protections are "legal"? (Answer: They're more of a guideline then they are a binding policy.)
:::# Was she right in her analysis that these pages are highly sensitive? (Answer: Who cares? We just don't want people messing with them.)
:::# Does a rule need to exist, like Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] rule, that allows people to ignore the rules as long as they are acting in the interest of the site? (''No answer'')
:::# If someone with the intent of harming the site went through the financial records and placed false information in them, would it be an inconvenience or a catastrophe? (Answer: It would definitely be an inconvenience, but since no one can edit them, it doesn't really matter. [see #1])
::: Ratwar and Wrye: Your responses were pretty big disappointments, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything better. Sorry for the inconvenience, everyone.
::: --[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 00:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== ==
[] Has been vandalizing NPC pages at a ridiculous rate. Just a wild guess that it's Dienerandamovie again.
:Yep. Blocked. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
== Aristeo and Irc ==
Looks like this is becoming another chapter in the [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Dispute_and_Wikiscrolls|Dispute and Wikiscroll]] saga. Recapping the recent events for those who missed them:
* After the [[UESPWiki:#Protection_policy_confliction|Protection policy confliction]] exchange above, and in response to Aristeo's more derogatory and derisive comments there, Ratwar posted an [ official warning] on Aristeo's talk page against making personal attacks.
* Aristeo then [ deleted that warning] (while adding a crude comment in the history section). Users are not supposed to delete official warnings.
* Nephele then used the workaround that we have for editors who violate this rule -- repost the warning on the [[User:Aristeo|users main page]] in a way that they cannot delete it.
* Aristeo then used his ownership priviledges ([[UESPWiki_talk:IRC#Conflicting_Founder_Data.3F|borrowed from Magnus]]) to [ remove Ratwar from operator status] of the [[UESPWiki:IRC|IRC channel]].
Since Aristeo (no longer an adminisistrator and now under a warning for engaging in personal attacks on UESP talk pages) has ownership priviledges at #UESP and is willing to use them against people who he perceives as having offended him, and since none of the actual admins here has even operator privileges on that channel, the "officialness" of #UESP is pretty clearly in question.
A couple of course of action present themselves:
# Discuss with Magnus (actual owner of the channel) to synchronize operator privileges on the channel with admin status here. Removing Aristeo from borrowed ownership priviledges would also be indicated. Or...
# Start a new IRC channel, with ownership/operator privileges matching UESP admin status. Or...
# Abandon IRC altogether. (I personally don't use irc at all, but other admins and editors do.)
--[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 02:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:I plan on discussing it with Magnus tomorrow. If problems still exist afterwards, and I don't think they will, I will start investigating other options to solve any conflicts between the wiki and the chatroom. Still, I don't think that this will be necessary. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 02:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:I've just blocked a vandal "[ I will not let you abuse your adminiship]" and reverted his/her vandalism of the four admin's pages, plus the main Morrowind, Tribunal and Bloodmoon pages. My ''suspicion'' (which easily be wrong) is that this was Aristeo, given its timely response to the current discussion, and given the ummm... attitude about supposed abuse of admin privileges. However a couple of other people are possibles. Or it could have been a random vandal seizing the moment. I don't have checkip priviledge, so I can't do an ip check. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 03:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::The IP resolves to an unknown site in Turkey, although [ Wikipedia] says it could be an open proxy which seems likely under the circumstances. Technically we could just block that IP like Wikipedia does if it becomes an issue. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 09:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm inclined to think we should perhaps block all of the open proxies identified by wikipedia []. I know it's a pretty long list, but if even wikipedia won't allowing editing from any of those open proxies then it doesn't seem like we should, either. And it also seems likely that whoever is responsible for this latest vandalism knows about these open proxies (either already did before this happened, or now does because of this thread), and is therefore liable to try again from another one. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 12:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess I owe everyone an explanation.
* I strongly believe that the official warning is frivolous. I also feel that a few additional people need official warnings of their own. I was upset by the general incivility and disparaging comments towards me when I tried to start a meaningful discussion, and it seems pretty silly that these people felt uncomfortable with my elevated tone.
* Official warnings ''can'' be deleted, and I feel that there is no policy basis for Nephele to superglue the warning to my user page. Allow me to quote the relevant part of the blocking policy:
*: '''If a user ends up modifying or deleting a posted warning or block notification, there is ''no need to reinstate the original message''''' (such action is likely to provoke an unnecessary edit war). The original message continues to be valid even after being altered: the page's edit history provides verifiable evidence of the message's original text; the editor's modification confirms that the editor subsequently visited the page and saw the message. '''If a notification about ''an active block''''' is deleted, a replacement message can be posted on the user's main page
* Although it took a lot of effort on my part to talk myself into doing it, I gave Ratwar back his operator privileges for now. However, I still am going to discuss the matter with Magnus as soon as he's online.
* I did not vandalise the wiki. I don't see why anyone would want to either, it only takes a second to clean up. I'm not the only person who disagrees with these three people. Feel free to do a user check on me if you don't believe me.
I no longer want to participate on this site. I put a lot of time and effort into this site; no matter where you look on the site you'll see something that I did. ''As a final request'', at least because of all the work I've put into the wiki, I would highly appreciate if I could have full control of my user page again. I would like to leave with my former user page intact and without the "warning" or anything else taking away from it.
--[[User:Aristeo|Aristeo]] | [[User_talk:Aristeo|Talk]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: Re Aristeo's request to have the admin warning removed, I think it should stay.
:* This was not the first incident of personal abuse -- other incidents exist and are documented on the [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/De-Adminship_Request|De-Adminship Request]] page.
:* Furthermore, his claim to "no longer want to participate on this site" is not credible since he made that claim back when he started Wikiscrolls at the beginning of this year and several times since. Yet he keeps coming back and involving himself in administrative issues (''not'' editing).
:* Moreover, the point of a warning is not just to warn the user himself, but also to notify other users of his behavior.
:--[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 13:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: What's the big deal about the warning? The people who need to know about the actions already known about it, and leaving it up just seems to be airing "dirty laundry". Besides, does the warning even MATTER anymore? [[User:Talon Lardner|Talon Lardner]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, the reason we like to keep the warning messages visible is that they dictate how future warnings or blocks will be handled (if it comes to that). But I am currently working on a way to change that, as part of a new archiving policy.
:::On another note, I spoke to Magnus, and my Op status is not in jeopardy at this time, so I don't think any more action about the IRC channel needs to be taken at this time. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 19:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, in my opinion, the actions of all parties involved are deplorable -- both Aristeo's actions for stooping to this level, and the admins who not only blocked Aristeo for these actions, but are actively trying to embarass users that they dislike by posting permanent warnings on their user pages. It displays petty, childish and vindictive behavior, and is directly counter to the responsible behavior that should be displayed by people in a position of power. It's a complete turnoff, and not conducive to community development. Too bad -- this is a quality site and it's rapidly deteriorating into a high school "clique". Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. --[[User:|]] 09:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::Exactly, that's how I'm starting to feel too... LOTS of scapegoatism going on, lots of public punishment for those who are "difficult", which is quite funny how someone whose crime has never harmed a single page on this site is the most punished, while pageblankers and vandalizers just get shooed away. --[[User:Talon Lardner|Talon Lardner]] 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
==New Archiving==
As the UESP ages, archiving pages has become a major task, and organizing them has become an increasingly large problem, most notably on the Community Portal. Nobody wants to wade through a large number of old discussions at the top of an active page, but the current system of archiving date-to-date doesn’t say much about the content of the pages. Therefore, I think we should create a new system as follows:
Archive Page
*Community Portal (Header)
**Archive by Date (Secondary Header)
***List of Archives by Date
**Archive by Subject (Secondary Header)
***Server Issues
***Relations with other sites
***Policy Issues
***Dealing with Stupidity – Anonymous Users and Content Problems
***IRC Issues
***Issues between Members
*Administrative Notice Board
**Archive by Date (Secondary Header)
***List of Archives by Date
**Archive by Subject (Secondary Header)
***Requests for User Privileges Changes
***Policy Issues
***Discipline Archive
# Unified Archive- The Community Portal and Administrative Notice board often have similar discussions, so a unified Archive makes sense.
# Easier Access to Archives- Archives done by content will make it easier to find what has already been said about topics
# Easier Access to Active topics- Less clutter at the top of the page
# Update Links- Implementing this system would kill two birds with one stone so to speak, if we updated the links in the archive at the same time.
# More work to archive pages
;Links to Archive-
There would still be links to the Archive Page at the top of the both pages (Community Portal and Administrator Noticeboard), as well as links to the two most recent Archives by date.
;Updated Links-
These could be done either by changing the original link or by inserting the correct link after the original like <nowiki>[[link|link]]<sup>[[Truelink|*]]</sup></nowiki>
;Discipline Archive-
Several people have recently called the pasting of warnings to a user page an attempt to “embarass users”. Personally, I don’t think the policy was written with that in mind, but they do have a point. Therefore, dated warning messages can be removed from a user page, if that user has stayed out of trouble for a month, and placed in the archive. The main purpose of keeping the messages close to the user page was to allow people to know they are dealing with a person that has been known to violate UESP policy. If they’ve been clean for a month, chances are that they’ve changed their ways enough to remove the warning. Of course, reminding Administrators to do the moving will be totally up to the Users in question.
;Actual Pages-
Each discussion would be a page, like <nowiki>[[Community Portal Archive 1/Discussion]]</nowiki>, and then transcribed to the relevant pages. Categories could be added to the individual pages to show the content of the discussion.
So, what does everyone think? --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 15:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Overall, I like the idea... although I think it will take someone with a bit of motivation to get it set up and start to convert at least some of the existing material to the new format ;) Basically, I agree that we really do need a way to make it easier to find old discussions on various topics.... I know I regularly find myself going through every archive of this page to try to find old discussions that I remember as establishing the community consensus for various issues.
:Just to clarify (or perhaps) tweak some details, let me outline what my understanding. So next time this page gets archived,
:* The entire "Transparent Namespaces" section would get moved to its own page, with a name like <nowiki>[[UESPWiki:Archives/Transparent Namespaces]]</nowiki>
:* "Proposal: Recommended Mod Lists" would get moved to <nowiki>[[UESPWiki:Archives/Proposal: Recommended Mod Lists]]</nowiki>
:* Ditto for the rest of the page discussions
:* A by-date archive listing would be created, say <nowiki>[[UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 7]]</nowiki> (or <nowiki>[[UESPWiki:Archives/April 2007]]</nowiki> if we're trying to make this a more unified system?). The contents of that page would be:
{{UESPWiki:Archives/Transparent Namespaces}}
{{UESPWiki:Archives/Proposal: Recommended Mod Lists}}
... etc
:* The new individual archive pages would also be added to (transcluded into) by-topic listings. I'd guess we'd probably add to Ratwar's list of topics as the system evolves, I'd think topics like "Site Organization" and "New Articles" might perhaps work for these two specific examples.
:I'd suggest that there are a few discussions that wouldn't need the full treatment. Just as an example, [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Archive_5#Nath_Dyer]] was a one-time question that has been addressed and I can't imagine ever needing any followup (at least not in the community portal... if anywhere, at [[Oblivion talk:Easter Eggs]]). Those could perhaps just be copied directly into the by-date archive listing.
:Also (once the basics get put in place), there are a handful of other places where I've noticed important discussions pop up; those discussions could also get incorporated into this unified archive. For example, in [[Oblivion_Talk:Oblivion/Archive_1#Article_Titles]] some decisions were made that continue to be relevant. I'd suggest that discussion could be moved to its own page within the archive (probably with a note about the original source of the discussion), then transcluded back into [[Oblivion_Talk:Oblivion/Archive_1]] (so those archives continue to be a complete record of that page's discussions), and also be transcluded into any relevant topics.
:I also think the Discipline Archive could be useful. I think any user who is actively blocked needs to continue to have the blocked notice (and probably any warnings that led to the block) still on their page: they are not members of the community and it needs to be clear why not. But users who have moved past a warning/temporary block and have since been contributing productively to the wiki shouldn't need to have out-of-date warnings prominently advertised on their user pages. One month sounds like a reasonable time frame. I doubt/hope there will never be a large number of users in that category, but just the principle of letting users know that they can (mostly) clear their names is important. Moving the notices to an archive (instead of just deleting) is necessary so that in the future admins can find the information when needed without too much effort. The archive page should perhaps have an explanation at the top that the warnings are not considered to be active any more, but are being kept just for record-keeping.
:So, that's my feedback for now... long and verbose as always :) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 17:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
'''I think that maintentance cost would be too high.''' I think that everything is already pretty well handled by current system. Keep in mind that the active topic can be used more than we have been using it. E.g., my original itention was that the Copyright subtopic be kept under Major Discussions because it perenially arises -- and later questions often tie back to earlier issues. Server issues ''might'' also be kept a single topic, but server issues are more usually new issues each time.
Another possibility is that at the top of any topic (current and/or archived) there could be links back to previously archived topics and/or related topics). Most topics won't require this, so such links can just be added on an as-needed basis.
Searching: A secondary consideration is searching -- how easy is it to find a past conversation that you knew you had? This really is a search functionality question. Current search seems to be pretty good -- so long as use appropriate checkboxes at bottom of dialog. But perhaps some technical things could be done to make it a little more accurate or easier to configure. (Just an "uncheck all" or "check all talk pages" might help.)
Another possibility is adding topic collation pages as necessary (as I did for Dispute and Wikiscrolls).
In general, UI and development wise, you have a low end with little organization -- but requires no maintenance. And then a high end -- much more organized, but less flexible and requires more maintenance. Better is in-between -- and adaptive system where you can add more order as needed, but leave most stuff less ordered. I think our current system does that pretty well. I think that what you're suggesting it too much on the high order/high maintenance cost side.
That's my two bits... --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 19:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:You bring up some good points Wrye. I have definitely wondered if such a system is worth the amount of time spent doing it, but my conclusion is still different than yours. The main reason I'm making the proposal is that while I like adding topic collation pages, I hate adding them to the top of the page. It makes the space seem cluttered, as do the ever increasing number of archives. I want to eliminate this clutter. My other complaint is that the current system is in large part useless. We have an archive system for record keeping purposes. I think it makes sense to have a filing system for the records.
:In any case, do you mind me updating some of the archives, even if you feel it would take too much maintenance? If the system proves too unwieldy, future archive will simply not be converted to the new system. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 13:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Go ahead. I've made my points, but I could be wrong. Trial is the best test. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 20:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Buggy Bug==
Yeah, an anon user encountered a bug when using the <nowiki>{{notice|}}</nowiki> feature. Whenever an '=' is in the notice, the message goes crazy. As in:
{{notice|Ratwar = cool}}
instead of (using nowiki tags):
{{notice|Ratwar <nowiki>=</nowiki> cool}}
Is there anything we can do to fix it? --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 22:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is impossible in wiki mark-up. The = sign inside any template is reserved for variable declarations. Putting it inside nowiki tags seems to work, as you've discovered. The only thing I could think of that would make them any easier would be to make special template just for = signs, like we did for the | sign by using <code><nowiki>{{!}}</nowiki></code>. Only thing is what would you call it? <code><nowiki>{{-}}</nowiki></code> maybe? Or <code><nowiki>{{~}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{#}}</nowiki></code>? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 23:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::I introduced a way to fix the problem. You can now use "message=" to make it clear that the text you're providing is a message, and then the message can contain equal signs:
{{notice|message=Ratwar = cool}}
::Before it was interpreting the message to mean that the parameter "Ratwar" was being assigned the value "cool", but then didn't know what to do with the parameter "Ratwar" and couldn't find anything to fill the message with, so it was reverting to the default message (which should perhaps be changed to something less confusing, but it's too late at night for me to want to mess with that right now). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 03:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm the anon user in question, and I was trying to do something along the lines of {{notice|message=With this fix, this [ external link with an equals sign in its url] won't make the notice box barf up lorem ipsum.}}
:::With the new "message=" syntax, it works just fine. [[User:|]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Anyone mind telling me where it pulled the Lorem Ipsum from? I kinda like the way it sounds...[[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 12:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nevermind, I googled Lorem Ipsum for myself...[[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 12:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
== ==
- Another sex-obsessed vandal on the loose. Joy. --[[User:Deathbane27|Deathbane27]] 22:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- :Blocked --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 23:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
== Oblivion Places Redesign Project ==
I've initiated a new massive undertaking, namely to revamp all of the Oblivion place pages, as described at [[UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project]]. The plan is to expand and improve the pages describing the various ruins and caves. For those familiar with the recent revamp of the Oblivion NPC pages, this project will be somewhat similar in that I'll be generating a large part of each page's contents automatically from construction set data. Editors will then need to integrate the computer-generated content into the existing pages and improve it. However, this is a much more complex undertaking than the Oblivion NPC pages, which is why I've opted to create a formal redesign project.
I'm announcing it primarily to solicit some feedback from the community on the layout and contents of the new pages. I've put together some examples: [[UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project/Example|a new page layout]], [[UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project/Data|the automatically-generated data]], and [[UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project/Map Overlay|the automatically-generated map overlay]]. There are still a few more tweaks that I'll probably be doing, but I think these examples are close enough to the final version that it would help me a lot to hear from people. Does the new page layout have all the information you think you'd need when exploring a dungeon? If you might be interested in getting involved with the project, do you think you could make use of the automatically-generated info?
Also, if there are any editors who are looking for something to work on, feel free to sign up for the project and get involved. I'd like to try to get this past the planning stages and make it possible for people to start working on pages within the next week or so. Or if you're really eager, you could start right now with working on some of the places that are already provided at [[UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project/Data|Data]] or [[UESPWiki:Oblivion Places Redesign Project/Map Overlay|Map Overlay]] ;) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 02:55, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
== NepheleBot ==
Because organizing one insanely large project (i.e., [[:#Oblivion Places Redesign Project]]) isn't enough to distract me from doing any real editing around here, I've decided to start another: [[User:NepheleBot|NepheleBot]]. Basically I'm proposing to create a bot account that will be used to do automated maintenance-type editing of UESPWiki pages. The details are provided on the user page, and I'd welcome any feedback on the idea at [[User Talk:NepheleBot]]. Since this is the first bot to be used at UESP I wanted to make sure that the community is aware of it and make sure that there aren't any objections. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 21:36, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I made some tests last night using NepheleBot, in particular to make sure that the bot scripting is properly responding to the various controls and limits that I've put in place. All the tests were successful, so I feel like I'm ready to move ahead and start making full use of the bot. And based on responses it seems like nobody would object to giving this idea a try. So I'm proceeding with asking Daveh to give the NepheleBot account official "bot" status. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 17:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
NepheleBot is now fully operational, and I've kept the bot busy the last few nights getting some tasks completed (and after three days the bot is already #9 on the [[Special:ActiveUsers|active users]] list... although the bot probably shouldn't even be shown on that list). As far as I can tell, everything has been going really well (and many of the fixes I've had to make were from me trying to manually add links to the bot's automatic list). If anyone else has noticed any problems, or has any suggestions for things that need to be changed, let me know! --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 11:56, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
== Policy Question: Proofreading Talk pages? ==
The user [[User:Robert Smith|Robert Smith]] is proofreading and editing the [[Oblivion Talk:100% Completion‎|talk page]] for 100% completion. I mean, he's bringing it up to standards, but it sorta strikes me edit the comments and questions a fellow editor posts. I'm curious as to what the official policy is on that. [[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 10:05, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, modifying what other editors have posted on talk pages is not generally appropriate. See [[UESPWiki:Namespaces#Talk Namespaces]]. But as far as I can tell, Robert Smith has only been revising posts that he originally made on [[Oblivion Talk:100% Completion]], so there doesn't appear to be any problem. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 11:52, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
== Redirect Madness ==
Over the last week there have been a few changes to the wiki software. Among other things, the changes mean that [[Help:Links#Redirects|redirects]] are now a much more useful tool, in particular shortcut-type redirects. To take full advantage of this new capability, I'd like to start creating literally thousands of redirects. This will make it easier for editors to create links and it will make it easier for readers to find the article that they're looking for.
Up until now, to create a Spider Daedra link, for example, an editor would have had to type <tt><nowiki>[[Oblivion:Daedra#Spider Daedra|Spider Daedra]]</nowiki></tt>. That was the only way to create a link that would take a reader to the [[Oblivion:Daedra#Spider Daedra|correct section]] of the Daedra page. The upgrade to wiki version 1.10 earlier this week simplified things substantially: now the [[Oblivion:Spider Daedra|Spider Daedra]] redirect page can be used in a link and will take readers to the correct place. In other words, editors can simply type <tt><nowiki>[[Oblivion:Spider Daedra|]]</nowiki></tt> and it works exactly the same as the much more complicated orginal link. Some [[#Transparent Namespaces|additional changes]] were implemented earlier today that make things even simpler: now an editor can just type <tt><nowiki>[[Spider Daedra]]</nowiki></tt>. In other words, by adding just 4 characters to the existing text a word can be turned into a link, instead of the 35 extra characters required by the original link. It's not just easier to type, it's also much less error-prone.
Also, I'm hoping that readers will start to use the "go" feature in the search bar a lot more often because basically it now works, whereas it used to never work unless you understood UESP's namespaces. So any reader who types "Spider Daedra" into the search box while reading an Oblivion page (not while reading a UESPWiki page like the community portal) will end up being directed straight to the article they're looking for.
Both of these features only work, however, if pages with those names exist... and that means there need to be a lot of redirect pages. Try doing the same thing with "Dread Zombie", for example, and it fails because there's no redirect page for Dread Zombies. So what I'd like to do is use [[User:NepheleBot|NepheleBot]] to start going through and creating redirects, basically for nearly any topic that is likely to be linked to or searched for. I'll start with creatures and items in each of the namespaces, and then add other categories as necessary.
* These will be redirects '''within a given namespace''' (from one Oblivion article to another, for example), ''not'' redirects from the main namespace. In other words, they will work within the existing organizational system of the namespaces instead of trying to bypass the system. The transparent namespaces should hopefully have eliminated the need to create redirects in the main namespace.
* The redirects will be always be '''singular''' rather than plural. I know right now our articles aren't too consistent on singular/plural. However, consistency will be important if editors are going to be able to easily create links, especially with so many new possible links. And overall, singular redirects seem easier to use than plural ones: it's easier to change a singular into a plural (e.g., <nowiki>[[animal]]s</nowiki>) than the reverse (<nowiki>[[animals|animal]]</nowiki>).
* I'll add '''categories''' to the redirects such as <nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Creatures-Daedra|{{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Items-Swords|{{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki>. This will provide another way for readers to find an item that they're looking for (especially with items such as swords, where it's never clear whether to check [[Oblivion:Unique Items]], [[Oblivion:Leveled Items]], [[Oblivion:Generic Magic Weapons]], etc.). Also it will allow search engines such as google to index the redirect pages, basically making it easier for readers to get directed to the best page right away.
Finally, I think overall we should start actively using redirects when creating links instead of avoiding them. Not only are the redirects easier to use, they're also better for long-term organization of the site. If at some later time there's a decision to break up a page, then the redirect pages just need to be turned into articles; there's no need to search out all the links to the original article and update them (like I'm facing doing right now for [[Oblivion:Ingredients]] and the new ingredient pages).
So any objections or recommendations? BTW, I think this will be my last crazy, over-ambitious proposal for now... getting all of these ideas implemented should keep me busy for a while :) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 02:03, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:No objections to you doing a heck of a lot of work. Cheers... --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 15:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:This sounds great! It will make our lives (and edits) much easier. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:Well, if everyone is in favor of it, I guess go ahead with it. My only really worry is about the massive number of new pages that this system will create.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I've gone ahead and added a pretty complete list of redirects to the Oblivion namespace, including a whole bunch of new categories to list all these pages. Other than a few more links to advertise the categories, I think Oblivion's redirects are mostly done.
::Before expanding to another namespaces, I was thinking of waiting a couple weeks to see if Daveh notices any impact on the server from this round of new pages. It's hard for me to guess how the redirects should affect server performance. It's a large increase in page count (at least the total count on [[UESPWiki:Statistics]], not the "legitimate" page count), but not really a significant change in the database size since they're all small pages. And if the redirects really help readers to find pages more easily, it could decrease the server's workload (fewer time-consuming searches through the whole database, fewer extra page views from readers pulling up a bunch of incorrect pages). But the server is currently near its capacity, so I don't want to be doing anything that worsens performance. If after a couple weeks Daveh doesn't see any signs of trouble, I'll start moving ahead with other namespaces. If on the other hand the redirects do seem to be problematic for the server, I'll hold off until Daveh makes a decision about possibly upgrading the server. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 12:21, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
== Page Missing ==
It was mentioned on the forums the other day that the Oblivion: General Magic Apparrel page is completely blank. Just thought I would let you know. Bear [[User:|]] 16:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The most similarly named page that we have is [[Oblivion:Generic Magic Apparel]], which at 82 kB in size definitely can't be described as blank. And it hasn't been modified in more than a month so there's no chance it was blank, even briefly, recently. So I'm not too sure what exactly would have led to this rumour. If someone tried to access a non-existent or misspelled page, such as "Oblivion:General Magic Apparrel" then they wouldn't exactly get a page containing information. Or occasionally a page gets vandalized and parts of it get deleted, so if someone happened to pull up the page in the 15 minutes it took an editor to notice the vandalism and fix it, then perhaps the page would be blank. But all such problems get reverted pretty quickly, so probably by the time someone had posted on the forums the problem would already be fixed.
:If you could provide more specific information on what the problem was I'll definitely look into it, but at the moment I can't see anything that appears to need fixing. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 17:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
You are right it is called generic magic apparrel and if you click on your on link here you'll find nothing but a blank page. Was noticed sometime last week I think. I just had never used the wiki like this before and new that you guys patrol this a lot and thought you would have fixed it by now. Bear[[User:|]] 17:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:OK, on further investigation there seems to be a problem with that page in IE. Firefox and Mozilla are still displaying it without problems, but when I tested it in IE I got a blank page. It is probably a configuration problem introduced by the site's wiki upgrade last week; I'll look into some more and see if I can figure out what's causing it and get it fixed. Thanks for pointing it out (and your persistence in insisting there was a problem even when I couldn't see it at first ;). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 20:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::The page is now visible in IE (at least for me... let me know if you're still having problems), but to some extent with a temporary fix. Or at least one that doesn't help us to figure out if there are pages suffering the same problem. For anyone else interested in sleuthing here, the problem is definitely with the table of contents. Disabling the TOC completely (<nowiki>__NOTOC__</nowiki>) worked to fix it, as did changing the TOC to a right-aligned floating table (the current status of the page). My guess is that it's being triggered by the fact that this page's TOC is more than a page long, causing it by default to push all the page's contents too far down the page for IE. But I'll spend some more time in the sandbox confirming (instead of continuing to experiment using one of the largest and most bandwidth-demanding pages on the site). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 20:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm giving up ;) I can't get the bug to reappear anywhere anyhow (pulling up old version of GMA page, reverting GMA page to old version, copying GMA contents to sandbox, clearing cache multiple times, etc). Without anything to experiment upon, I have no way of even starting to look into what happened. If anyone else comes across any blank pages, please post some info and I'll look into it. But at the moment I'm putting it down to a freak occurrence that perhaps would have been fixed by just purging the page to update it at the server end. Just to be sure, I went through the 20 largest pages on the site and checked them all in IE (IE6, BTW), and didn't hit any problems there. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 21:42, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Seems to be working fine now! When the report first came to the forums I checked the page but dismissed it. I figured it was either being updated or needed to be replaced after some vandalism. Came back to it today(still missing) and figure I would learn how to at least report it to you. Like I said the link is working fine now. Thanks for checking into it, you all do a wonderful job here. I have been reading hints on the wiki for a few years now and am grateful for the info I've found here. Bear[[User:|]] 22:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
There is a cave between Redwater Slough and Leafrot Cave called Blood Clot Cave. I cannot find mention of it anywhere on this site, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. There are Argonian Smugglers in it. I hope you make a page for it - just in case anyone cares. -ruthless813
:There is no such location in the vanilla version of the game, which means it is probably a location that was added by a third party mod. This site does not make any attempt to document the infinite number of locations that have been or could be added by third party mods. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 01:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
== Tamriel Flora ==
I have begun work editing the unfinished tamriel flora section. in tamriel flora A, B and C I have used my template but after coming across page D I noticed a different template was used. I'm asking if I can carry on using my template throughout the tamriel flora section over the ones being used at the moment. --[[User:ChadFromCky|ChadFromCky]] 12:34, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, the [[Template:Flora Title]] and [[Template:Flora Entry]] templates were written to be used on all the Flora pages, but since the Flora pages are all very new the templates haven't been incorporated yet. I'd say just make sure to incorporate the information that's already been added to the page when you change over to the templates.
:And for future reference, you don't need to ask before making straightforward edits like this to a page. You can read [[UESPWiki:Consensus]] for more information. If in doubt, the article's talk page (e.g., <nowiki>[[Tamriel Talk:Flora D]]</nowiki>) is probably a better place for questions that only affect one article. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 13:00, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok thanks, I probably worded the question wrong but I got the answer I needed.
==Criteria for Patrolled Edits==
I recently updated the [[UESPWiki:Patrollers#Criteria for "Patrolled" Edits|criteria for patrolled edits]]. Any feedback can be left either on the patroller talk page or here. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 16:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for doing this. I think the criteria are now a bit more clear to everyone. Maybe we should also make more clear the minimum standards a patroller candidate should meet. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 03:00, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::That's the next thing on my to do list. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
: Just keep in mind that it's a lot easier to add someone than it is to remove them if they become a problem. (As we all know too well.) It's probably best to be conservative in adding people and keep an eye out for dictatorial tendencies. It might be desirable to emphasize that patrollers should be content creators first, and (minor) admins second. (BTW, I'm much enjoying being back to "semi" active status now that things have quieted down. Nice to see things going so well.) --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 02:53, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, adding people is much easier than removing them, but I don't feel that being a patroller gives them any more of an ability to hurt the site than being a regular editor. Personally, I think all the admins and patrollers should consider themselves editors first. Of course, I could do a rewrite (or add a section about the duties of a patroller perhaps) to include such a clause, if you'd like me too. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's a general policy question, so I'd like to see other admins chime in. There are some con arguments as well as pro. But I don't want to break my "semi" active status by spending too much time thinking/arguing about it. :lol: --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]]
:One thing to keep in mind - as of the last upgrade, the system ''does'' keep track of who patrols which edits. It can be found in the logs for the page. The only problem with it is that I'm not sure there's a way to list all patrols by a given patroller. (Which would be handy if you noticed that a patroller was behaving in a questionable manner.) Anyhow, might want to change the text to reflect that. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 00:47, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, I just realized it is: [ Example]. So that should make it easy enough to track down misbehaving patrollers should it be necessary. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 00:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I updated the page to reflect it. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 01:05, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
==Patroller Nomination Guidelines==
I just finished updating [[UESPWiki:Patrollers#Nomination Guidelines|Nomination Guidelines]] on the patroller page. Once again, any feed back is welcome and can be placed either here or at the articles talk page. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:42, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks again for doing this. The guidelines look a bit loose to me, but I guess otherwise they wouldn't be guidelines... What I would do though, is to separate the style from spelling and grammar; they are two different things. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 03:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the feedback. I tightened the 100 edit guideline by adding ''Edits to your own User page, or User Talk page should not be counted as part of the 100.'' I also separated spelling/grammar from style because your totally right about them being totally different things. I did try to keep the guidelines rather loose, since I don't want to keep anyone from being a patroller that would help the site as one. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:10, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
== "Wisdom of the ages" bug? ==
Since this question was specific to the [[Oblivion:Wisdom of the Ages|Wisdom of the Ages]] quest, I've moved it to [[Oblivion Talk:Wisdom of the Ages]] where it will be easier for others with the same question to find it. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 15:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
==Recent Changes==
Not sure if im asking this in the right place, but I dont know where else to do so. On the recent changes page there are numbers after each page title. What are these? I hadnt seen them before the last upgrade. I know its not life or death thing, but I just wondered :) -[[User:Lordsword 8|Lordsword 8]] 11:13, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:The change in article size as a result of that edit, in bytes. Large negative values are also bold-faced to make them stand out more. If you look at an article's history, the number there is the total size of the article. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 11:22, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
== New Vandal ==
[[User:Granty|Granty]] has been repeatedly vandalizing several pages, and I'm upto mychin trying to fix all his edits. Can someone block him? He is obviously not adding anything helpful.
In other news, I learned how to revert edits... :o).
[[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 12:00, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Never mind, Nephi just blocked him. [[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 12:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::It crossed my mind right before leaving for work to do a Checkuser on this guy, but didn't have time right at that moment. Looks like delaying that check was a bad idea, because the check made it clear that he's a repeat vandal who's been using multiple IPs and accounts. So I've upgraded every account and IP used by him to a permanent block. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 12:32, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Oi! I just knew he was something to distract me from my Physics classwork.[[User:Somercy|Somercy]] 15:23, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
== Help Tooltips ==
I couldn't find it anywhere but please excuse me if this idea has been introduced before.
Recently, I was flicking through a few pages and found references to ''renown'', with no explanation of what it is. A quick [ search] shows that one or two pages explain it but most don't. Now we could easily add the explanation in brackets but I've seen a neater (to my mind) solution on other sites and I thought I'd see what you all think. Please take a look [[User:Rpeh/Sandbox/3|here]] for an example.
I imagine there are other words that could use definitions but I have to confess that I haven't found any yet. I probably wouldn't be in favor (I'm learning about the spelling now!) of using this method if it was just on one term.
[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]] 06:54, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Tooltips are definitely an idea that could be used more widely. My one suggestion, though, would be to use the existing template [[Template:Hover]], which is already used on several pages for this purpose, instead of introducing a new template that does the same thing. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 13:13, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm. I'd disagree with your second part. That template should be deleted and the standard Wikipedia/WikiMedia [] one used instead. More people will be familiar with that one. [[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]] 13:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::In my opinion, the template name "H:title" really doesn't tell anyone what the template does. The "H:" naming system is part of an organizational system that may be used at Wikipedia, but I don't foresee ever being introduced here, so using a name based on that organization doesn't seem to be helpful. And the template at wikimedia is also called "Hover" [], so it seems like by using Hover we're not introducing a completely new name for the template. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 13:44, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Fair enough, although it does tell people what it does if they know HTML. Plus, your link is a redirect rather than main template. Actually, that's a good idea. I'll put a redirect on the title one and get to work doing the changes for renown once I've finished uploading my latest batch of images. [[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]] 13:53, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
== References ==
I might be doing something wrong here, but I can't get <nowiki><ref></nowiki> lists working on here. I've just discovered what a fantastic resource the '''Tamriel''' namespace is and was flicking through when I came across [[Tamriel:Black_Marsh|Black Marsh]] with its reference list. I noticed that several of the footnotes weren't used and was going to clean up the page when I remembered how Wikipedia does it, with auto-generated lists. When I tried that, however, I just got the tags appearing on the page with no links. So two questions:
*Does UESP support these lists and just how stupid am I if it does and I'm doing it wrong (extra credit may be given for describing just how stupid I am anyway)
*Does the community think this is a route we want to take? I don't want to try to turn this into Wikipedia but given that the Tamriel namespace is such a detailed resource, some form of reference linking would seem to be a good idea.
[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]] 05:51, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's not a bad idea, but you'll have to do it manually for now - Wikipedia-style auto-generated reference-lists do not work on this site as of this time. I think a plug-in would need to be installed in order to make that possible, and only Daveh can do that. There hasn't been much demand for it, so I don't know if it's likely to be implemented at this point - especially since it would require a good deal of page-reworking to incorporate that in in some cases. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 07:35, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'll have to add the [ Cite] extension to get this to work, which is easily done if needed. I just don't want to add it unnecessarily. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I have done a manual cite list for [[Tamriel:Sheogorath]], so I wouldn't mind having one for future expansions of that section. I've also recently commented that the [[Oblivion:PS3]] article may need some sources, since the information there has been subject to some debate. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 13:15, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
:The other thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is a huge site, covering every topic you can think of, and drawing from millions of diverse sources for its information. UESP deals with a narrow range of topics, and our source for information is almost always the games themselves (or their Construction Sets), so references aren't really that big a deal, since it's usually pretty obvious where the info comes from. Some Tamriel articles might have more diverse sources, but usually the info comes from in-game books. If we could have in-site references, pointing to the books where the info originated, that'd make sense. There's only a few places where off-site references would be needed, and most of those are already done manually. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 08:42, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
::I agree that lists can be done manually, but they also need maintaining manually and that hadn't happened on the first one I found. I don't want to create unnecessary work for [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] but if it's not too much trouble, I'd suggest the extension be added, then those pages that would benefit can do so and the rest of the world can ignore it. [[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]] 09:09, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
:For loreists, the plugin would be very useful. It's definitely worth adding. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 16:04, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
::I think having some tools to make it easier to add and maintain references would be very useful. I'm a bit concerned, though, about the [ Criticisms] mentioned with the Cite extension. It doesn't seem like it's necessarily the easiest tool to use, nor is it the only one available. Perhaps it's worth spending a bit more time doing research on what extensions are available for references and figuring out which one is the best match for UESP? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 22:47, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll agree it's not the world's easiest system to use, but [ it's not ''that'' difficult!] Given especially that the pages where it'd be used most are the Tamriel ones and that not too many people edit those, I don't think it's a huge problem. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 03:18, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I, for one, would love it. Then it would be much easier to dump content from [ here], or potentially [ here, to [ here]! And I could take the lovely stuff from [ here] and put it in its dreadfully limp-looking counterpart [ here]! I'd been so long in porting over the content to the BM page because of the lack of cite.php here. Now, only days after I finally decided to implement the current article, with its ghetto ref style, I get a complaint. :P Anyways, the lack of a cite mechanism has always discouraged me from editing here: I'm just so used to swaddling myself in citations, that it seems frigid and lonesome without them.. With the cite.php mechanism, I'd be glad to contribute to the Tamriel namespace. (Don't worry about the Wikipedia-style pecadilloes of NPOV and WAF and such. The freedom of an in-world perspective should offer the chance for a more fluent and less distractingly skeptical style.) We also shouldn't have to worry about the copyright issues, as we did the last time, as I've written 996/1000s of these articles myself (and I can just as easily return to a previous version). With the cite.php, I see UESP becoming a great annex for [ infinitestimal fictional detail], which the W seems to like [ less] and [ less] these days. Thanks for your time! [[User:SulfurousDesign|SulfurousDesign]] 23:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, if the people who want to do the work think that cite.php is the right tool to get the job done, then that's what really matters :) And there's more than enough support here to say that adding the extension won't be a waste of Daveh's time. I think the main obstacle at this point is just waiting until Daveh has some time to install it. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 00:43, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::'''Copyright issues:''' Don't gloss these over -- copyright is something we need to take seriously. If you're posting material that you originally posted at Wikipedia please clarify in the history comment just what you're doing and that you're the original author. Also, ''do'' be careful to not include anything but trivial edits from others (e.g., spelling, grammar corrections). Which will not doubt be a pain in the butt, but is doable. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 20:03, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Is cite.php in yet? I don't like turning out pages which look like this: [[Tamriel:Hist]]. (Btw, you guys didn't have a page on this? For shame!) [[User:SulfurousDesign|SulfurousDesign]] 01:01, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:Not yet. [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] is away, I believe. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 05:00, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::To confirm, Daveh is on vacation right now, so it will be at least a couple weeks before any new extensions can be added (and perhaps even longer if he has to immediately rush off on a work trip when he gets back). But I did warn him before he disappeared that we'd probably have a stack of extensions that need to be installed when he gets back, so he knows what's waiting for him :) --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 11:02, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Good to know. Thank you all for your willingness to help. ^_^ [[User:SulfurousDesign|SulfurousDesign]] 03:30, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
== Pronunciation Project ==
Hey guys,
This is Playjex here, and I wanted to know if you would be willing to give me feedback, on this new project I'm working on. I will leave a pronunciation key next to any NPC's name. Would it help? Will you help me?
:I think it's a good idea. I'd considered doing that but I can never get my head around the various pronunciation systems. It would probably be best to modify the [[Template:NPC Summary|NPC Summary ]] template so it appears in the same way on all relevant pages. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 12:52, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'm cool with it, but I agree that it needs to be uniform on all pages (as in they should all look the same and should all use the same system). Also, I think that if names are pronouced more than one way in the game, that should be represented as well. Umbra, for example, is pronounced both "Um-bruh" and "Oom-bruh" in the game, depending who you talk to. I'm willing to work with you to help decide on a format and a system, as well as checking how names are pronounced in-game. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 14:09, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I hear the distant drumbeats of pronunciation wars. Long pages of discussion over whether it's "Um-bruh" or "Oom-bruh" and which games said it which way, and maybe that was just a regional accent, and UK English vs. US English pronunciation. (Of course, since many words in lore have only been introduced through text, determining 'proper' pronunciation may be nearly impossible.) Might be best to not go there. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 15:30, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::I'll ask my reliable resource about this situation. He works for Bethesda so yeah. [[user:Playjex|Playjex]]
:::Wrye's got a point. It's a neat idea, but it really might be more effort than it's worth. Maybe for now we should concentrate on more essential projects. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 16:13, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::::As I mentionned when you asked [[User:Nephele|Nephele]] about this, it might be worth doing in cases where the name is actually pronounced in-game, but as Wrye said, there are numerous cases where even the games are not consistant with themselves on pronunciation. ("SHAY-oh-GO-rath" vs. "SHEG-oh-RATH" for "Sheogorath" for prominent example - both pronunciations were used in Morrowind.) If you feel up to it, go ahead, but it's bound to cause some disagreement in many cases, so I'd say stick to those that are verifiable - and maybe even state where you got the information so other people can confirm it. (Inside sources at Bethesda may not be the best idea, since most of us can't confirm that. Better to stick to the games themselves. Not to mention that just because somebody works for the developer doesn't mean they even ''know'' the correct pronunciation - I refer you again to the inconsistancies within the games themselves.)
::::As for changing the NPC Summary template, I wouldn't recommend it. It's not a major enough project to call for changing of that template. Since it's used on so many pages and is such a complex template, every even minor change to it essentially makes the site's server go completely unresponsive for about 10-15 minutes. Thus we try to avoid making unnecessary changes, because it causes the site to go temporarily offline every time. I'd add it to the article text if anywhere, like right after the name in parentheses. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 19:28, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::::: Okay, I'll do that. - [[user:Playjex|Playjex ]]
::::::For the record, now that I've seen it (the [[Oblivion:Countess_Millona_Umbranox|Millona Umbranox]] page), it seems very distracting. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 21:01, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Agreed. Seems, well... anal. I think that at some point, you can push the encyclopedic documentation of a fictional world too far -- and this may have gone past that point. Probably a matter of taste, and to be fair, I rarely visit those pages. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 22:44, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I didn't realise changing the templates kills the server but I'll stick with what I said about putting it on the NPC template; it'd be out of the way over there. I'd also like to say that anything that seems anal to a member of '''this''' site should be setting off alarms all over the world! --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 00:32, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: It doesn't usually. This particular template, however, is unusually complex and used on a LOT of pages. We might talk to Nephele about maybe taking a look at it (it's beyond my meager templating skills at this time) and maybe posting the change during the early morning hours when not too many people are trying to visit the site. (I might be able to figure it out by trial and error, but given that every trial would bring the site down for 10 minutes, I'd rather give it to somebody who can hopefully get it right the first time.) --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 00:48, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: If we had graphical avatars on this site, hers would be wearing a red cape... Okay, I was originally in favour of this idea but I agree that the way it's been done is very distracting. ''If'' it can be done in the template ''without'' killing the site, then I'd support that; otherwise it might be best to get rid of it. As far as British vs American pronunciation is concerned, it's one time when we Brits win given that both emperors in the game are British :-) --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm pretty sure the voice-overs in the US and UK versions of the game are the same, so there's no difference in pronunciation of anything. Obviously, for the non-English language versions, there may be differences, but we're not really that concerned about those on this site. (Given the site is in English, it's to be assumed the majority of our visitors have one or the other English-language version of the game.) --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 13:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
I could add a new parameter to the NPC Summary template, although a few details on what exactly is wanted need to be sorted out first. The one other place where I'm aware of pronunciations being added to words is in the [[Tamriel:Dictionary]] section. So I'd suggest for consistency that a similar format be used here, namely square brackets, italicized, and smaller font. If everyone's OK with that, it just leaves the question of where in the infobox to display it. I'd suggest within the first box of the infobox, on a new line under the NPC's name. So the top of [[Oblivion:Countess Millona Umbranox|Countess Millona Umbranox]]'s box would then look like:
{| class="wikitable" align="right" width="33%" style="margin-right:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:1em;"
|- bgcolor={{Race Color|Imperial}}
|colspan=4 style="text-align:center"|{{FC|{{Race Color FC|Imperial}}|'''Countess Millona Umbranox {{ID|0000A288}}'''<br>{{ID|''[Mihl-ona Um-brah-nox OR Mihl-ona Oom-brah-nox]''}}}}
!Home City
| colspan=3 | [[Oblivion:Anvil|Anvil]]
Or for [[Oblivion:Dairihill|Dairihill]]:
{| class="wikitable" align="right" width="33%" style="margin-right:0;margin-top:0;margin-left:1em;"
|- bgcolor={{Race Color|Bosmer}}
|colspan=4 style="text-align:center"|{{FC|{{Race Color FC|Bosmer}}|'''Dairihill {{ID|0000A289}}'''<br>{{ID|''[Dare-eh-hil]''}}}}
!Home City
| colspan=3 | [[Oblivion:Anvil|Anvil]]
In terms of the project itself, it's hard to come up with objective criteria for what should or should not be on the site, other than the basic criteria such as being Elder Scrolls-related and verifiable. As long as there is someone who thinks it's useful information and is willing to do the work necessary to add the information to the site, that's what matters, IMO.
However, I will echo the concerns about making sure that the information is verifiable. Some pronunciations are provided in the construction set, in the dialogue notes (the "REC " record), for example, '-- pronunciation -- should be "MUR-mih-donn"' or '"Bjalfi" is pronounced "Yall-Fee"'. I'd consider those pronunciations to be definitive. Going by pronunciations used by the voice actors is less reliable, however. There are many cases where the dialogue notes say things like 'mispronounced Agronak' or 'Mahei = ma HAI [good performance, but doesn't match with Mahei's pronunciation of his own name]'. So I'd recommend in-game pronunciations be used with caution, and only if the dialogue notes have been checked to confirm that there weren't any problems with that recording. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, if we can make it look like ''that'', I'm in. The information is there for anyone who wants it, but it's out of the way for those who don't. Nice. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 13:17, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Since right now is one of those windows when the site is less busy (and with it being the start of the weekend there won't be any better chance until Monday), I've gone ahead and implemented the change. The format can still be tweaked later if there are suggestions, but in the meantime some progress can be made. So for anyone who wants to add prononuncations, add "|pron=..." to the NPC Summary. I've edited [[Oblivion:Countess Millona Umbranox|Countess Millona Umbranox]], [[Oblivion:Dairihill|Dairihill]], and [[Oblivion:Umbra (person)|Umbra]]'s pages as examples. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 01:58, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sounds good guys... so far. I REALLY don't want to mess up the servers or anything, but I'll contribute being the one that mentioned it. Wait for Monday for new updates. Thank you. --[[User:Playjex|Playjex]] 30 June
::::Well, the change is done, and had far less effect on the server than previous changes to that template have had. I wonder if maybe some server upgrades since then have made a difference there, or if Nephele's choice of timing during off-peak hours was the deciding factor. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 13:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::The server was still pretty much unavailable for 10+ minutes after each of the saves I made. But I made sure that the server was only at ~25% capacity when I made the changes, so there was less of a backlog of outstanding requests that needed to be dealt with after the fact. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 14:03, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::Okay, it is now Monday. [[User:Nephele|Nephele]] and[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]], since you are both administrators of this site, and that you both tested and tried this "Project", would you say that we can do it, or that it jams up the server too much and it is disqualified of ever being possible? I hope we can have more test runs with this, but I would have to be taught how to insert the pronunciations into the summary. But I would use the "|pron=". Thanks. --[[user:Playjex|Playjex]]
:::::::Playjex, what caused the server slow down was changing the NPC template, not the actual pronunciation edits. To insert pronunciations into summarys, simply put the |pron= after the |id= in the NPC Summary. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:02, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
== Sensitive issues in IRC ==
As stated in the introductory paragraph of the main [[UESPWiki:IRC|IRC]] page, one of the main reasons why our chatroom exists is to help strengthen the relationships of the community. As a subsidiary to this purpose, we do things as constructive as helping each other and our visitors with quests and glitches and organizing projects for the wiki, and we also goof off, play around, roleplay and pretend, and act silly.
Sometimes, however, the channel has been used to settle or discuss disputes based on the wiki. Although it's nice to resolve disputes, especially the long-lived ones, the process of doing so is excruciating. A few of us become too worked up when recollecting these disputes, which creates a hostile environment in the chatroom for everyone else. Anything that creates a hostile environment and alienates our community is against the core philosophy of bringing the community together.
For the reasons above and with the approval of [[User:Magnus|the captain]], any sensitive discussion that may cause stress to your fellow chatters is officially banned from the channel.
--<span style="color: #002BB8">Aristeo</span> 01:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:So much for freedom of speech, I guess. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 07:28, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
You're more than welcome to talk to other users in private message in any way you like, as long as you don't break the [ network rules]. And of course, the recipients have the right to ignore your private messages as well. ;) --<span style="color: #002BB8">Aristeo</span> 13:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:The [[UESPWiki:IRC|UESP irc channel]] is '''not''' officially connected to UESP wiki. I.e., it's not "our channel". Overlap between channel operators and wiki sysops is small (just Ratwar). The uesp wiki doesn't set uesp channel policy or vice versa. And while many editors from the wiki hang out at or visit the channel, others don't (e.g., I, despite being second "oldest" sysop don't use it at all). While the channel can be useful for quick discussions and non-controversial coordination, any substantial issues regarding the wiki are best discussed on the wiki). (For some of the history and arguments behind this, see the [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Dispute_and_Wikiscrolls|Dispute and Wikiscrolls]] discussion, where dispute over irc discussion arose several times.) --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 00:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think that's an excellent point, Wrye. --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 01:40, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
===Magnus 1===
(I know I don't edit much on the Wiki, and most of might not know me but I am 'The Captain' or Magnus on IRC as well as here, owner of the channel and moderator on the forums. Also, excuse my formatting, I've yet to become very good at it.)
This is in reply to Wrye, to connect with the points/issues you've brought up I'll try to keep in order, however I do have a habbit of skipping around and being a bit unorganized.
For you saying that the IRC channel is not officially connected to UESP I think it is, I believe that either JangotheFett or myself asked and got permission from Daveh to call it the official channel (however, since my memory isn't the best I cannot confirm it, I just wanted you to know that it may actually be official.) You are right, the channel does not go by the policy of UESPWiki exactly or by the book, we do have our own policy and we believe that it follows the principles of the Wiki and the community very closely and may even be a bit more strict (we try to keep a PG or PG-13 rating in the channel at all times). We do not follow it so that it does not create conflicts. For example if we did follow the policies of the Wiki, say a person from the Wiki came in that is very 'important' ON the Wiki. Since we followed the Codes of Conduct for the Wiki they could believe (and probably rightfully so) that since they are 'important' to the Wiki they should at least somewhat run the 'show' on the channel like they do on the Wiki, this would cause a lot of conflicts and problems. The way we have it is so that people that we know are resourceful, and careful enough can run some of the show (hence our Op/Hop staff). We keep it this way to keep conflicts from arising in the channel that are in the Wiki. We want the channel to be a happy, peaceful place!
As for you not coming into the channel, I cannot comment on this and of your opinion of its usefulness or that substanial issues regarding the wiki should be discussed on the Wiki. The channel is here for any kindof issues of the Wiki, it may not be for editing or information but just to make sure that the actual website is up and has been helpful/useful as a place people know they can get information from officially.
To go to why this seems to be here, namely our policy on stressful subjects. I've read the wording and I can see why you became a bit angry at it, but it was put in the wrong fashion it isn't truly like what it says. The way it is setup is that there isn't a big list of banned subjects (I don't have a "UESP TALK AND BAN.txt"). It is setup so that people come and discuss whatever they wish and IF it becomes heated (or it is OBVIOUSLY stressful from the start because of what is going on in the wiki) it will be asked to stopped.
It was put in place to strengthen our attempt to keep the conflicts from the Wiki entering and disturbing the channel, it isn't a iron fisted method of keeping only what we believe is right, just or fair it is just an attempt to make sure that a discussion doesn't breakout into a 'war' (so to speak) in the channel that started or involves the Wiki or any other stressful subject. As I've stated above, we just want a happy peaceful channel of ElderScrolls fans!
Sorry for the long drawn out piece there, but I thought that I should explain it the best I can. I'm not a master with words or getting my thoughts down (and I'm dreadful at explaining things). I'll be watching this and will try to reply to any comments. I'm just trying to show that the channel isn't a bad thing and that I think there has been a misunderstanding here. --[[User:Magnus|Magnus]]
===Wrye 1===
Whether for good or ill the three UESP fora (wiki, forums and irc channel) operate and are governed pretty much independently of each other. While there is some crossover in participation (particularly between the wiki and the irc channel), there is no policy linking between the two, and so there is no basis for an "official" dependency of one on the other. If the irc policy was entirely dependent on the wiki community decision making process, or vice versa, then "official" would be accurate. However, this is not the case, so the best that we can say is "loosely connected".
Perhaps that seems rather abstract, so more solidly and clearly (as already mentioned), there is already little overlap between channel operators and wiki admins. More importantly, there is a prolonged [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Dispute_and_Wikiscrolls|history of antagonism]] between Aristeo (channel first lieutenant) and the pretty much the rest of the wiki. Aristeo has "left" and started his own competing wiki. He is moreover currently [[User:Aristeo|under a warning]] for his previous actions on this wiki. Obviously he is in no position to dictate official policy at this wiki -- and hence his status as channel operator is completely inconsistent with notion of the channel being "officially" connected to the wiki.
So, options are: 1) change #uesp to make it official, 2) start a new irc channel to be the official channel, or 3) have no official irc channel.
:Option 1: I don't think that anyone is seriously interested in this. I'm not, nor are the other admins (AFAIK), nor are Magnus or Aristeo, I would imagine, nor I imagine would be the many users of it who are not wiki editors.
:Option 2: It has been suggested that a new official uesp wiki channel be started that is geared specifically for people working on the wiki (rather than being a general elder scrolls community hang out area). If such a channel were created in which policy and admin/operatorship were tightly linked to the wiki, that would be the official uesp wiki channel.
:Option 3: I personally would be perfectly happy to not have any official irc channel at all. My concern (for which there is a moderate amount of evidence) is that once there's an official channel, it starts being used in place of wiki talk pages. For trivial decisions ("I'll edit this, you edit that.") this isn't a problem, but for any discussion that's about the way things should be done on the wiki, it runs counter to the wiki way -- people who are less frequent contributors get locked out entirely (because they can't afford to be on irc all the time), conversations tend to get lost or intentionally edited (see the Dispute topics for instances). Also, I'm concerned to that an official irc tends to make the "in group" the group who hangs out on the channel -- instead of the people who edit the wiki. Metaphorically speaking: A coffee room is fine, but the people who hang out there 24/7 should not be the people running the company.
'''So, summarizing:''' UESP wiki and uesp irc channel are not currently officially connected. It may be desirable to set up a new, official uesp-wiki specific channel. However, neither (current)unofficial nor (possible future) official irc channels should be used for any substantial wiki decisisions -- for such discussions, the talk pages should be used instead. (Note: This last is now a new idea, but was discussed and roughly agreed to in the [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Dispute_and_Wikiscrolls|Dispute and Wikiscrolls]] topics.)
--[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 23:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
I noticed that Wrye protected the page we were in disagreement over. What a wonderful way to stop an edit disagreement with someone -- prevent that person from editing the page. I am sure you won't find that technique endorsed by [[UESPWiki:Consensus]] or [[UESPWiki:Protection Policy]]. (Not that it matters, admins aren't bound by policy here.)
About four or five people who are regulars in the channel (Nephele, Ratwar, Rpeh, and Giamgiam, at least) are also regulars on the wiki. After taking a quick look at the recent changes, it seems to me that these four or five users are a moderate percentage of active, regular wiki editors, but "moderate" might not be good enough for some folks. On the other hand, the channel harbors a few people (Magnus, Andres, and myself) who do not care too much about editing this wiki.
<nowiki />#uesp is not only a hang-out place for editors, it is also a place where we help people who have difficulties with the game. As good of a resource that UESP is, it does not help everyone, and our channel is one way to help the remainder of people who cannot find what they are looking for. If we get rid of the channel, we are not just hurting the people who use the channel to get to know other UESPians on a personal level -- we are taking away a resource from the people who actually use this site.
However, if no one here wants to have an official channel, I am definitely not going to stand in the way. As soon as I can get a hold of Magnus, I will be talking to him about renaming the channel to something else. Hopefully, we can retain the useful parts of the chatroom that I glossed over above, and perhaps we can even keep the same members. And if someone will remove Wrye's protection, I will be more than happy to reflect the changes as they occur.
--<span style="color: #002BB8">Aristeo</span> 05:17, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
I would like to try to keep this discussion focussed on issues related to IRC, rather than trying to address every aspect of the wiki in a single discussion. Therefore, I am responding to some of Aristeo's peripheral comments at [[User talk:Aristeo]] instead of here.
With regards to IRC, yes, I am regularly present in #UESP. I personally spend time in #UESP because I know that wiki editors use the channel to ask questions; those editors need to have people present in the channel who can answer their questions. I don't think that answering general Elder Scrolls questions is a primary purpose of #UESP, in particular because there are other channels that already fill that purpose (e.g., #eshelp). The unique service offered by #UESP is wiki-related discussion, and at least some of the people who use the channel do so only because of that unique service. In fact, from my point of view, that discussion happens on #UESP ''in spite of'', not ''because of'', the way that the channel is currently run. Therefore, a list of existing IRC regulars should not be used to draw conclusions about how the channel should be operated.
I have not added the IRC user box to my user page specifically because I am currently very uncomfortable with encouraging other wiki editors to use the channel. There have been multiple problems in IRC in the past, and I feel that those problems need to concretely addressed before #UESP becomes more widely used. One such problem, mentioned by Wrye, is past attempts to use IRC to establish wiki consensus and even wiki policies. Another problem has been taking statements made in IRC and quoting them out of context. I have brought up these concerns at several times.
In particular, I made a point of carefully preparing a set of suggestions about IRC several months ago and then presenting them in the channel. At the time, it seemed that everyone was in agreement that specific changes were necessary. However, despite multiple subsequent edits to the [[UESPWiki:IRC|IRC]] article, no interest has been shown in trying to follow through with such changes. And in fact shortly after that last discussion, Aristeo violated all suggested changes by doing exactly what I had very clearly complained about: Aristeo [ posted] quotes from IRC, that were taken out of context and therefore provided a very inaccurate portrayal of the actual IRC discussion. Ratwar also pointed out that the quotes were inappropriate [].
The current system, in which IRC policy is unilaterally decided, makes it very difficult to fundamentally resolve these issues. This current discussion and many past experiences show that there is no interest in having community input on the channel's policies. This seems fundamentally at odds with a wiki-based community, since the wiki is based upon allowing the entire community contribute to, and make decisions about, policies. Instead of even considering changes to the channel's policy, Aristeo seems more interested in shutting down the channel, again without even taking the time to ask what the current channel users might want. It is hard to see how #UESP can be a resource that helps the community when decisions are made without any consideration of what the community wants and without even basing decisions on what would be most helpful for the community. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 15:58, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
It has been suggested that this entire debate came about because of a discussion I kicked off on the channel a week or so ago. As such, I feel I should respond despite being an admin on neither the UESP web site nor the #UESP IRC channel. For the record, I became regularly active on the wiki about two months ago, and started IRCing (please tell me if there's an accepted phrase here - I'm very much a virgin) about three weeks ago.
It is my opinion that the discussion about the nature and future of the relationship between the WWW and IRC versions of UESP is tainted by the relatively recent fallings-out between the various administrators. On the IRC channel, I tried - with hindsight this was incredibly naive - to instigate rapprochement, or at least detente, between two of the highest-profile protagonists in the earlier debate and failed in what has become a fairly spectacular manner. Suddenly, the same battle lines are being drawn, the same arguments are being made and the same insults are being thrown. The discussion has been only superficially about the issue at hand; the deeper hostilities remain entrenched and seemingly irreconcilable.
I speak as someone who was thoroughly put off this site by the earlier unpleasantness. Given that the participants in this debate hold positions of authority in one place or another, I expect disputes to be settled in a responsible manner whereas at the moment, the argument shows every sign of descending into little more than schoolyard taunting. I hasten to add that not every participant has done this; some - you know who you are - have remained calm and professional throughout. The behaviour of some people, however, should call into question their fitness for the high duty to which they have been called. You know who you are too. <small>I need to say here that this is not necessarily about previous comments on this page. I have also had discussions through IRC and email.</small>
If I may now turn to the points under consideration:
* The two entities under discussion (WWW and IRC) are clearly disparate. Whatever arrangements were set up years ago have been superseded by events. Separate administrators and administrative policy is not a good idea. That one system of discussion is acceptable in one place but not on its 'official' counterpart is clearly nonsensical.
* The IRC ''can'' become a clique and this is clearly undesirable. To obviate this possibility, I would suggest that any decision reached on the channel is posted on the Community Portal for in-site discussion. Any final decision should be made with reference to the existing Consensus policy and the outcome of the debate on the site should be the deciding factor.
* IRC is too-useful a tool to lose simply for the sake of it, regardless of individuals' preferences in the matter.
* I am not a regular on IRC.
* Protecting the page was an over-reaction, but one borne out of previous experience. Whilst I won't condone the action, I can fully understand it. My personal opinion, for what little it's worth, is that the page should be unprotected immediately.
At this point I would like to apologise for the length of this message, and thank you for your forbearance. You will have noticed that I'm not calling for any particular decision. The reason is that I feel the required course of action is quite clear and that this entire sequence of events can come to an amicable resolution. I hope the protagonists come to the same conclusion. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 16:38, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
===Wrye 2===
Looks like this has settled out pretty quickly: Aristeo shut down #UESP and Ratwar and Nephele set up a [[UESPWiki:IRC|new #UESPWiki]]. Although, of the active admins, I'm the most wary of IRC overusage, I think this is pretty obviously the best solution. So... Problem solved, and back to modding, playing and writing for me! --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 00:23, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
== Wiki and Forums Being Down ==
It has been brought up at the forums that the sites seems to be down quite a bit lateley, mostly during the hours of 2 to 4 pm central time for me(sometimes longer sometimes less). I have read before where this was a problem from increased traffic to the server at those times, I think it was stated about Sundays when I read it initially. I was wondering if this is the case now and if so, is there anything that can be done to help the situation. Not trying to be a pain, just that the forums are doing well and I wouldn't like to see people leave because of the lack of access at certain times. Bear [[User:|]] 12:50, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yep, it's been a problem since Monday and has been getting gradually worse. Basically, a glitch was triggered last Sunday night that has decreased the amount of traffic that the server can handle. Fixing it requires Daveh's intervention, and I've informed him about the situation (just a couple of hours ago). Unfortunately, he's on vacation right now in some part of the world that doesn't even have cell-phone access, so I have no idea when he'll be able to do anything. In the meantime, the site will be basically inaccessible whenever the site gets too much traffic. Unfortunately, that means there are likely to be some pretty prolonged outages over this weekend :| There's not really too much anyone else can do, other than avoid using the site when it gets overloaded. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 13:47, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the info and update, I'll pass it along. Bear[[User:|]] 00:16, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
== Improving our Worst Pages ==
:''(For previous related discussions, see [[UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Curing_Stupidity]]. There have also been discussions on individual article talk pages, e.g.:''
:* ''[[Oblivion Talk:Glitches/Archive 1#Page Division and Clean Up]]''
:* ''[[Oblivion_Talk:Glitches/Archive 2#Complete Rewrite]]''
:* ''[[Tes4Mod_Talk:Mod Ideas#Unlikely, Impossible and Downright Stupid Mods]]''
:* ''[[Oblivion Talk:Custom Classes#Cleanup Required]])''
Most of the pages on this site are fairly well-written, well-spelled and well-researched. This is the natural result of helpful editors writing articles backed up by the patrollers (both official and unofficial) correcting the more obvious mistakes. There are a few pages, though, that are... well... rubbish. They have grown in an unplanned, organic fashion and are now almost impossible to maintain. The most obvious examples are:
*[[Oblivion:Custom Classes|Custom Classes]]
*:This is largely a list of "My Cool Character" ideas, many of which simply list combinations of skills. Some of these represent useful characters of value to a new player, but most do not.
*:Most of the ideas on here are staggeringly obvious. Many of them don't give any detail and many are full of the most obvious ideas imaginable (Buy A House, for instance).
*:Despite [[User:Nephele|Nephele]]'s best efforts this remains a mish-mash. Some people add glitches without checking if they're already present, others post things without reading the instructions so console-related problems get added to the list.
*[[Oblivion:Things to Do When You're Bored|Things to Do When You're Bored]]
*:Frankly, the only option on here should be "Turn of your computer and read a book", but there's an awful lot of rubbish on here even so.
*[[Oblivion:Useful Potions|Useful Potions]]
*[[Oblivion:Useful Enchantments|Useful Enchantments]]
*[[Oblivion:Useful Spells|Useful Spells]]
*:All three of these pages feature obvious information of no value to other players.
As one well-placed editor recently put it, there's a policy of "benign neglect" on these pages because most of the time the response of a patroller would have to be either a revert or a total rewrite. The solution suggested in one case was to summarily delete the page, which would be my personal favorite solution if it wasn't for the thousands of hits received by the page in question. Of course, this means the problem is only going to get worse. Occasionally there's an attempt to clear up one of the pages ([ this] is my most recent effort) but the general trend in quality is downwards.
In other words, these pages are ones where the usual [[UESPWiki:Consensus|Consensus]]-building mechanisms don't work. So my suggestion involves a major shift in the way these pages (and possibly others) are edited and administered. The first step would be to install a voting add-on to the wiki software. Full protection would be applied to the pages in question so only administrators could edit them. The existing items on the page would be split up into sub pages and a vote started on each - Yes or No to the question "Should this go on the page?". After two weeks, pages with a score of 50% or more go on the page, pages with less than 50% get deleted. Now there are some obvious problems here. First, we'd need to find a voting add-on! I've taken a brief look and couldn't spot anything obvious but I'm sure there's something out there. Second, it's going to take a lot of effort to set up. Third, it's a huge departure from standard wiki-editing. None of those strike me an insurmountable obstacles, however.
The purpose of my posting this here is to begin a debate on possible solutions to the problems of bad pages. The mechanism I've described would be one way but I'm sure there are others. Please feel free to add your own ideas or even just flame me to a crisp for suggesting any kind of change.
--[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 06:05, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that something needs to be done. There are also many [[:Morrowind]] pages falling in this category, e.g. [[Morrowind:Cheats]], [[Morrowind:Hints]], etc. The question is what to do with these pages; I'm not sure. I think what you are proposing is going to take too much trouble, and is not standard wiki-editing, as you say. Maybe we can set up a strict policy on what should go and shouldn't on each of these pages, and designate a dedicated patroller for each one to enforce it (I'm NOT volunteering). Anyway, just an idea. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 08:45, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, my original post was rather Oblivion-centric. This would apply to any and all bad pages. You're probably right about the voting. I had the idea on the train coming home from work yesterday evening and discussed it briefly on IRC before sleeping on it. Waking up, it didn't seem quite so brilliant but I still wanted to post it because - as you say - Something needs to be done. The problem is that too many discussions end there and nothing happens. Your idea of a dedicated patroller has some merit, although we'd need a lot more active patrollers so there can be backups in case one goes away, drops out or whatever. Anybody else got anything? --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 13:53, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I agree the roleplaying and custom class pages are pretty bad and need sorting, but i would disagree with you on the useful spells and useful enchantments page being bad. I have looked at both of the pages and both seem to be in order although not perfect. When i was new to Oblivion i found the useful spells page extremely fun and useful to follow and i found that the spells on that page are mostly genius, the bad ones are being delt with so the useful spells page doesn't need as much attention as the others you listed. Im pretty certain that the useful enchantments page is OK too but i didn't read right through it--[[User:Willyhead|Willyhead]] 14:08, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:This is a perennial issue. The truth is that not all pages on wikis are of equally high quality -- that's true not just for us, but Wikipedia and other wiki sites as well. It's what you get when you have pages with some useful information, a fair amount of subjective judgement and/or opinion, and no editor dedicated to keeping it fixed up. I know a lot of us are pretty obsessive and are bugged by having something that looks messy at the site, but the general rule at the wiki is: messy but useful, is better than nothing. If none of the long term editors is willing to take on the major cleaning job (where cleaning does NOT equal throwing the whole thing away), then just weed-whack around the edges once in a while as we've been doing.
:However, one possibility... Add an info box at the top indicating that this is one of the "wilder" pages on the site: that it has useful info, but is not as carefully edited as other pages, and tends to be admixed with more subjective opinion, and less than thoroughly tested comments. With a notice like that, naive readers would at least have a warning of what they're getting into, and that the quality of the page is not indicative of the general quality of the site.
:PS: If this discussion goes on a bit, links should be made to previous discussions (archives for this page, talk pages for the pages in question).
:PPS: Yes, many of those pages do contain some useful info. Keep in mind that not everything on the site is going to be interesting to you. E.g., yes I found useful spells useful. Ditto with Roleplaying, there's plenty of useful ideas here. A general rule of editing is that if you don't find a page interesting, but other people do, then don't edit it -- leave the editing to people who ''do'' find it interesting.
:--[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 14:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think that something really does need to be done, but I'm having trouble coming up with ideas that would work. As I've said before, part of me would be very happy to just delete problem pages, but I know that a lot of people (including myself) get a lot of use out of them. I like the spirit of your voting suggestion, but I think it would be too complicated and I'm not sure enough people would dedicate themselves to making the process work. I still think the template is a decent move, at least for the Custom Classes...but again, I'm horribly biased and I would completely understand if there was a consensus against it.
::I wonder what would happen if we introduced a "proposal for deletion" sort of system? On the discussions for the pages in question, for example the Roleplaying page, people could propose deletion of certain entries they feel are redundant or virtually useless. We could even get fancy and propose the merging of entries as well. It's probably not realistic, but that's the only thing I've come up with so far. Whatever is decided, I do have lots of free time for a while yet (except for the first couple of weeks in August), so I would probably be willing to volunteer myself for a massive cleaning project. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 15:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I would like to find a better system than what we have right now, and I think some amount of experimentation may be necessary to find something that works both short term and long term. I won't pretend to have any concrete answers as to what should be done, but I do have a few general thoughts.
:::I agree with many of Wrye's points, in particular that the wiki should strive to accommodate readers with a wide range of interests. Therefore the criteria for selecting content need to consider whether '''some''' readers will find the information useful, not whether '''all''' readers will find it useful. This makes it difficult for editors who don't make use of an article to decide what does or does not belong in the article.
:::On the other hand, I think that having an anything-can-be-added policy for these "suggestion"-format pages is ultimately not what any readers want. Imposing some selectivity or limitations should only help the articles. The fact that there have been criteria added to [[Oblivion:Useful Spells]] and [[Oblivion:Useful Enchantments]] probably has helped those articles be more useful than some of the other articles listed here. I think any reader would rather have an article containing only 50 good suggestions, as opposed to having to read through 250 suggestions of varying quality just to find the 50 good ones (or having to piece the information together themselves because each of those suggestions is actually split among 2 or 3 points that need to be merged).
:::Also, requiring that editors put a bit more thought and effort before adding new contributions seems a reasonable expectation in my mind. Wiki contributions never need to be perfect, but on all other articles on the site there is a minimum standard that gets subjectively imposed on contributions (e.g., tips that are just too difficult to understand end up getting deleted or moved to the article talk pages). I think if it is clear to editors that poor-quality contributions will not be kept, then at least some editors will do a better job with their contributions, and other editors will think twice before just adding any idea that comes to mind. Of course, there will always be a few editors who ignore any suggestions, but we can at least try to minimize the number of edits that fall in that group.
:::Based on the experience of [[Oblivion:Glitches/Proposed]], I think one critical part of any plan is to make it clear what should be done with new contributions. If the contributions are going to be integrated into the main article, who is going to do that? What criteria (content, writing quality, etc) need to be met for contributions to be considered acceptable? What happens to entries that are not good enough? In particular, at what point do those entries get deleted? There basically has to be some way of eliminating the bad entries (or forcing them to be improved), otherwise you just end up with an ever-longer list of entries and nobody knows what to do with them. All of these steps have to be straightforward enough that even relatively new wiki editors can figure out what to do and help out with the process, because in my opinion any solution that counts on only experienced editors to do the work won't work long term (there is always turnover in editors; forcing experienced editors to do certain tasks on a longterm basis is likely to just lead to burnout).
:::I know I haven't provided feedback on any of the specific ideas that have been brought up here. Right now, I don't really have any specific preferences, and I think the opinions of the editors who are proposing to implement some of these ideas matter more. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 17:22, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree with almost everything that's been posted in this debate so far, which probably makes me certifiable. [[User:Willyhead|Willyhead]], yes the [[Oblivion:Useful Spells]] page has some... err... useful spells, but it also has some that are just silly, redundant or obvious. [[User:Wrye|Wrye]], you're right but it's not that I don't find the pages interesting just that I question their utility. [[User:Eshe|Eshe]]'s proposed deletion for sections idea might have some mileage but is possibly quite high maintenance. [[User:Nephele|Nephele]] actually makes the point I wish I'd made at first: "I think any reader would rather have an article containing only 50 good suggestions, as opposed to having to read through 250 suggestions of varying quality", although she misses a crucial aspect, which is that a lot of people ''won't bother''. The idea that people might be unable to find the information they need is a pretty unpleasant one given the purpose of the site.
Of the ideas so far, I think we can agree the voting is a non-starter. [[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]]'s dedicated editor idea is nice but Nephele's probably right about burnout. Wrye's info-box is an excellent idea and I'd say it should be implemented. Strongly-worded guidelines such as those on Useful Spells might help, and as a last resort we have the [[Oblivion:Glitches/Proposed]] / [[Oblivion:Glitches]] solution. So that's where we are... where next? Which pages do people think would benefit from which solutions? I'd go for the boxes and instructions everywhere and think about the double page solution for Custom Classes and Roleplaying. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 14:20, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, as the first step I present for your viewing pleasure, [[User:Rpeh/Sandbox/2|this template]] and [[User:Rpeh/Sandbox/2/test|this test page]] - shamelessly pinched from the cleanup template. Please feel free to play with the wording as you see fit, but is this the sort of thing you could all imagine seeing at the top of (some of) the pages on that list? --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 07:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
A few quick comments:
:* As Wyre mentioned there is a large space between the classes of "obviously good" and "obviously bad". I've always felt that unless something is obviously wrong/bad/stupid it should be kept (somewhere)...I may not find it useful but someone else might. For example, recently I noticed someone snipping sections out of [[Oblivion:Roleplaying]]. Some of these weren't "great" but I thought good enough to be worthy of being kept (not sure if those edits were reverted or not).
:* When an article starts to become too large or unwieldy you can start to think about splitting it up. The articles mentioned above are good candidates for some form of splitting as there are a number of ways to do it. Put all the "good" sections on the main page and everything else on a sub-page. Or split the main article sections in sub-pages or individual articles.
:* Whatever is done these kind of articles will always have more edits and require more editor attention than other articles.
-- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 09:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Rpeh, the template looks good. If nothing else, it'll make us all feel a little bit better about not being able to control the festering mess ;). I don't think it should be considered a solution in itself, but it certainly helps. Maybe a different color would help it stand out more?
::I think Daveh's subpage suggestion could work nicely. There's always the matter of deciding which entries deserve to go on the main page, but splitting it up based on our opinions would do for now, I think, and then we could employ a more democratic process later. Once the whole thing gets going, it'll be a lot easier to make it work. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 11:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::First of all, welcome back [[User:Daveh|Daveh]]! I hope you had a good trip (assuming you're back now). I ought to say here that I not in favor of deletion - it's just a gleeful thought that flashes through my mind when I see another hundred spelling mistakes on one of those pages. Those pages are a problem precisely because they are some of the most popular on the site and to delete them would represent a massive failure on our part. I realize they're going to need more attention but at the moment it's not happening because fixing a page means editing a 150+K page that kills the server.
:::I'd kind of got the idea that sub-pages were frowned upon. If not then I agree they could be used to better organize things. That would open up a whole new range of ideas. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 12:44, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
== Vandalism Policy ==
''Moved from [[User Talk:Nephele]]. Policy discussions go here (or on appropriate policy, etc. page). --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 20:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)''
There has been a great deal of Vandals lately I just think that we are giving them too much slack and that a 0-tolerance policy is needed for deleting a page and replacing it with profanities is no mistake and its not like they are going to be scared to not be able to make an account we can literally cut the vandalism at least in half by enacting a 0-tolerance policy. These are just some thoughts and I would like to hear what you have to say because honestly I don't really like looking for information and finding nothing but vulgar.--[[User:Obliv4PS3|Most Honored Listener]] 13:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Wow, run-on sentences. Yikes.
:Anyway, I entirely disagree that a zero-tolerance policy is needed here. Most vandalism is caught so fast that it doesn't even make an impact on users of the site. While it is true that a lot of vandals need to be blocked, I've also seen cases where people supposedly just didn't know any better and stop doing it. I haven't been here long enough to know if there have actually been cases where a one-time vandal starts making helpful edis, but I think we should maintain our current policy on the off chance that such cases might occur. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 14:11, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::I don't personally think that the current policies need to be changed to something as draconian as a zero-tolerance policy. However, if you think that changes are needed, my user talk page is not the place to propose or discuss policy changes. Any such changes would require the input of the entire community, and therefore [[UESPWiki Talk:Vandalism]] or [[UESPWiki Talk:Blocking Policy]] would be the appropriate place to start such a discussion. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 14:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:: I wasn't aware that it was possible to not think that vulgar would be though to be OK for a wiki. I also did not know that there was a page dedicated to talking about the issues of vandalism, [[UESPWiki Talk:Vandalism]]. Also seeing as how the vast majority of users haven't actually run into vandalism it gives the patrols something to do.--[[User:Obliv4PS3|Most Honored Listener]] 15:21, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm a little confused by your last statement, but just to be clear: vulgarity/obscenities/nonsense is '''not''' tolerated here, which is why we make every effort to clean it up. Language on user pages, the IRC, and the forums (as far as I know) is a slightly different story. Should you encounter any vandalism, feel free to fix it. --[[User:Eshe|Eshe]] 15:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: It was said that there are some people who vandalize but them go on to do good edits after they have been warned right because if this is not the case what is the point of just a warning when all they will do is just vandalize again?--[[User:Obliv4PS3|Most Honored Listener]] 15:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Personally, I haven't seen anyone who was clearly a vandal go on to become a productive editor afterwards, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, I suppose. But anyhow, if they continue to vandalize after a warning, then we DO block them. One warning is usually enough, but it's simple enough to block on the second offense if necessary. Also, there are some cases where a block is not necessarily proceeded by a warning. Spammers, for instance, and other bots are not tolerated at all, and are generally blocked on the first instance. Also, even human vandals who do excessive amounts of damage in a short time are usually blocked without a warning. But blocking on the first offense for minor vandalism is not usually done. Many of these types of edits come from public IPs such as schools and libraries, and blocking them outright has the potential to block other editors who might end up using the same computer later on. (This is also the reason that vandalism blocks are typically temporary rather than permanent, except in extreme cases.) At any rate, as Nephele said, this is not the place for this discussion. We should probably move this to one of the other pages she suggested. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 15:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: OK, I'm having a hard time keeping up with the discussion here. So this is somewhat of a response to about the last four or five contributions, and also repeats several other editor's comments.
::::::First, we definitely do not tolerate vandalism to articles and such edits all get reverted as soon as anyone sees them. The reason for the current policy isn't just to "give patrollers something to do"... believe me, there is already way too much for patrollers to keep up with, even without any vandalism. As Eshe said, if you'd like to help out, you're welcome to do so.
::::::Second, have you actually taken the time to read the policy at [[UESPWiki:Vandalism]] and [[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy]]? Because a warning is only the first step of the process. The warning ensures that the editor realizes that their edits have been monitored, that we know exactly who made the edits, and that there are consequences for the edits. If someone continues to vandalize after being warned, then the account is blocked.
::::::As for changing the policy, one key question is whether the policy change would actually do anything to reduce the amount of vandalism. And, frankly, I don't think that a zero-tolerance policy would make a significant difference, since 95% of vandals only ever make a single wiki edit, and generally that's even without a warning telling them to stop. On the other hand, a zero-tolerance policy would also inevitably block some new editors who simply have made a mistake. There have been a half-dozen cases of edits that I thought were definite vandalism, but in fact turned out to just be mistakes. I'd rather not intimidate new editors, or needlessly block IP addresses that may be shared by thousands of people, when there's no evidence that it would make a noticeable overall difference in the amount of vandalism.
::::::Again, that's just my opinion, and since you're asking the question on my talk page instead of in a more general forum, you should not assume that any statements made here represent a community consensus. If you really want to pursue this question, a community-wide discussion would be better. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 15:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Reviewing various comments above and my own experience, I don't see sufficient reason to change policy. And yes, I have occasionally seen new editors make an edit that would be considered as vandalism (e.g., something like "Hooowwaaahhh! Naked girls.") -- only to quickly fix it with a following valid edit with useful content. Shrug, that's part of new editors figuring out that "freedom to edit everything" doesn't necessary mean you should edit everything. Normal part of wiki learning curve. --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 20:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
==Multi-language UESP==
There already was a proposal of translating UESP content to German.
Well, here's another one. Now it's Russian. The reasons are quite the same - not much resources on TES games and universe that originally come in Russian. And not everyone is able to read in English, although there's many TES fans in Russia.
So what if we'll finally find a way of doing it?
Slonovski 02:26, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
==Necromancer/Conjurer Pages Missing==
Just thought that I would point out that I was unable to find a Necromancer or Conjurer page in either the Oblivion or Tamriel pages. I do not have the resources to create one myself, as I do not have access to the PC version of Oblivion and I cannot pull up damage tables, screenshots and the the like. If anyone would like to create these pages, I think it would be a good idea. [[User:SubtleCynicism|SubtleCynicism]] 04:19, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
:Information regarding Necromancers can be found under the [[Oblivion:Necromancy|necromancy]] section. Conjurer information can be found on their respective [[Oblivion:Conjurer_Dungeons|conjurer dungeon]] page. Really though, there isn't much to say about conjurers. They're essentially just like necromancers, except they summon all sorts of creatures, and have a better fashion sense. --[[User:Saruuk|Saruuk]] 04:27, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::Creating [[Oblivion:Conjurer]] and [[Oblivion:Necromancer]] pages is planned, which is why there are now red links to those articles on all the new Oblivion dungeon pages. And there is already a [[UESPWiki:Task List#Oblivion|task]] in the task list to let anyone who is interested know that it needs to be done. If nobody else gets to it, I'll create the pages eventually but given how many other things I've got going on, I really can't even guess when I'll be able to get to it. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 04:53, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I just made the Conjurer page, though I'm sure it could do with enhancing- a list of the spells they used is needed as well as some 'Conjurer Level' information.--[[User:Willyhead|Willyhead]] 17:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
== Reorganizing Tamriel Books ==
As part of my ongoing efforts to make it easier to find and link wiki pages, I'd like to propose a substantial reorganization of the Tamriel Books section. Specifically, I would like to:
* Eliminate the "Books/" prefix
* Stop mangling book names by moving "The" or "A" to the end of the book name
So, for example, the current page "Tamriel:Books/Firmament,_The" would be moved to "Tamriel:The Firmament".
The "Books/" prefix is the last remnant of a page organization system that has otherwise been phased out. The main benefits of the prefix are: (a) it is easy to identify the page as a book page, and (b) if you pull up the list of [[Special:Allpages|all pages]] in the Tamriel namespace, the books are all listed together. However, categories provide a much better way of accomplishing these tasks. In particular, pulling up the [[:Category:Tamriel Library|Tamriel Library]] category is a much easier way to find all the books than wading through all of the Tamriel pages.
On the other hand, using the "Books/" prefix makes it more difficult to find the pages using the search "Go" function and means it is much more work to create links to books. For almost any other item that you find while playing Oblivion, if you type its name in the searchbox and click "Go" you will be taken straight to the article describing that item. But for books, that will never work with the current system, because the "Go" button looks for exact name matches and does not know to add a "Books/" prefix onto the names. As for creating links, the prefix requires the book name to always be typed out in full twice every time you want to add a link to a book. In other words <nowiki>[[Tamriel:Books/Beggar|]]</nowiki> will produce [[Tamriel:Books/Beggar|Books/Beggar]]. To get a properly labeled link you need to type <nowiki>[[Tamriel:Books/Beggar|Beggar]]</nowiki>.
The arguments for/against mangling the names ("Firmament, The" instead of "The Firmament") are fairly similar. The only reason to do it is to improve alphabetization. However, in manually created lists (e.g., [[Tamriel:Books_F]]), it's not needed and the book names are generally listed unmangled on all such pages. In automatically created lists, e.g. category lists, it is trivial to get the names to alphabetize properly by filling in the sort key (see, for example [[:Category:Oblivion-Quests]]). On the downside are the same issues with "Go" and creating links as described in the previous paragraph. In addition, the books are the only items in the game that end up with page names that do not match the name of the item in game. This has repeatedly led to people being unable to find books and as a result creating duplicate books. Even when people try to follow the system, there is confusion. For example, there are pages for both [[Tamriel:Books/Wolf Queen, The, v8]] and [[Tamriel:Books/Wolf Queen, v8, The]].
[[User:NepheleBot|NepheleBot]] would do most of the work, so the changeover would occur fairly painlessly and quickly. While unleashing the Bot, I'd like to do a couple of secondary changes, mainly because it's easiest to do all the changes at once.
* Rename "/Desc" page to "/Description" (for consistency with all other description-type subpages)
* Add categories to all the subpages (this was started a while ago and never completed)
* Make sure that the books all have a breadcrumb trail and category (so that they can all be found easily after the reorg is complete).
The various book templates would also have to be changed to take into account the new naming system. I'll manually update the book templates. The reorg will be done in such a way that the templates will be fully functional up until the time they're changed, at which point the new pages will already be in place allowing the revised templates to immediately work. So the disruption to articles should be pretty minimal, and limited to a few minutes right at the moment the template changeover happens.
Any objections, concerns, queries? Or have I overlooked any other automated changes that also need to be done to the books? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 16:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds fine to me. The only problem is with the movement of "The" and "A" to the start; if somebody does look at a category list (breadcrumb trail for instance) there'll be a lot of entries under "T" and "A". Could the bot also add the default sort order tags to affected books? (<code><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:new key}}</nowiki></code>) My only other concern is that it'll almost certainly go back ahead of me in [[Special:ActiveUsers|Active Users]] :-) --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 07:23, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think this will make a lot of entries end up under "T" and "A"; as I pointed out, there are categories containing large numbers of entries starting with "The" and "A" where the entries are properly alphabetized, e.g., [[:Category:Oblivion-Quests]]. Entries only end up listed under "T" and "A" if nobody ever bothers to set up the sort key properly. As part of the reorganization, I'll make sure that all of the currently existing books are properly set up. So that will just leave new books that get added; someone just needs to make sure (a single time) that the sort keys are correct.
::As for using the default sort feature, I'm pretty sure that the only way to make it work would be to revamp all of our existing breadcrumb trails and templates (and even then I'd want to do some experiments beforehand to make sure that it could be made to work). The problem is that all of our categories explicitly set the sort key to be <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki>. So that setting will override any default sort key. To fix it, we would need to go through and set <code><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}</nowiki></code> in every template that creates categories and then delete the <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}</nowiki> label for all the categories. And we would need to double check that if <code><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki></code> is set in a template that an article can then have a second, manually-set key (e.g., <code><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Firmament, The}}</nowiki></code>) that will override the template's key.
::Long term using the default sort feature would probably be a better way to do all of our categories, but it's a feature that was only introduced with Mediawiki version 1.10, i.e., it's only been available on UESP since May. And it's a job that NepheleBot can't particularly help with: I've set up the bot to never edit pages in the Template namespace because those edits can easily bog down the server. All that the bot could do is go through all the pages that use the templates to delete any redundant categories and specify <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki> where needed. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 12:56, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:::All this talk of 'T' and 'A' is making me wonder if I'm on the wrong site... Anyhow, I don't see that the "DEFAULTSORT" thing is necessary. Simply specifying the sorting word in the category definition, e.g. <nowiki>[[Category:Tamriel-Books|Black Arrow, The]]</nowiki> will be enough to make <nowiki>[[Tamriel:The Black Arrow]]</nowiki> sorted under 'B' and not 'T'. I have one additional request, however, which I think would be another good job for the bot. After all the books have been moved, can we create a bunch of redirects in each of the games' namespaces which go directly to the books? That way, if I wanted to link to a specific book from a Morrowind page, I wouldn't need to type in <nowiki>[[Tamriel:The Black Arrow]]</nowiki>, I could simply type in <nowiki>[[The Black Arrow]]</nowiki>, and it would automatically go to <nowiki>[[Morrowind:The Black Arrow]]</nowiki>, which would then redirect me to the Tamriel page. <nowiki>[[Oblivion:The Black Arrow]]</nowiki> would of course go to the same place from Oblivion pages. The only potential problem would be if there are any books which have the same name as existing pages, like quests or something. I don't think there's that many of those, if any, but it's a possibility. If so, I think a standard disambiguation page should serve to alleviate the problem. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 14:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm probably being over-cautious, but if any of the books are in categories without a sort key they'll end up sorted by the new page name. That was the only reason I mentioned it. Thinking about it, I don't imagine there are many books in categories at all, let alone without a sort key so it's probably not an issue - and certainly nothing that should hold up the bot. Lurlock's right too - 'T' and 'A' plus Nephele's Bot. What is the site coming to??? --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 04:36, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Trust me, using the formatting I suggested above DOES work to alphabetize pages correctly. the DEFAULTSORT thing is a feature we haven't been using because there's no need for it. If you specify the category correctly, it will sort where it's supposed to.
:::::Incidentally, I changed my mind about the redirects - I'm thinking a better way to go would be transcludes. That way, when you go to <nowiki>[[Morrowind:The Black Arrow]]</nowiki>, you might see game-specific information for where the book is found, what skills it teaches, who needs it for a quest, etc. (I know it's a 2-volume book and not quest-related, but it's just an example.) The same book may have different information for different games, and transcludes would allow you to put that info right on the book page, with the actual text transcluded below it. Good idea? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 10:00, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Good Idea! I'm in. You get my supporting vote. --[[User:Playjex|Playjex]] 10:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I meant if there were ''already'' categories on the books there'd be a problem - I'm well aware of the sort key. This is the disadvantage of trying to hold a discussion over several days and in plain text; nuance is often lost. Anyway - the DEFAULTSORT debate is now going on elsewhere. I agree with what Nephele's doing to the books and I agree with you about transcludes. That'd be another nice big task for a group of people. --[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Rpeh|Talk]]</sup> 08:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::I like this transclusion idea very much, especially the game-specific info like quests, where to find copies, etc. Go for it! --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 09:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Question - what should we do with Author/Description pages and the Trails when used on the transclude pages? [[Morrowind:The Pilgrim's Path]] illustrates that the Book Info template is pulling from the wrong place. We could duplicate or make redirects for the Author/Description pages, or change the Book Info template to use the Tamriel pages for this. Trails will probably need to be redone. Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 10:05, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I'd say the Book Info template should be updated. I'd much rather do that than create some 2000 additional redirects just to trick the existing template into working. There are probably lots of other things that are going to come up as we start creating game-specific transcludes for all the books. In particular, I think there should be some standard way of adding information such as the book ID, info on skill books, marker books, etc.; on the Tamriel pages I'd say there should be some type of listing (with links) to games where the book is used.
In fact, we probably want to make it so that the standard Book Info template doesn't even get displayed on the transcluded version of the page, and instead have a second template used on game-specific versions of book pages that allows for all the additional info to be shown. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 12:36, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:I threw together a simple layout [[User:TheRealLurlock/Sandbox_VII|here]]. Think you can work something nice out of that? (It doesn't have to look exactly like that, it was just a suggestion.) --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 13:21, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I've altered the templates, and added bread crumb trails for all letters in all namespaces. So now if you look at [[Tamriel:Books/Aevar Stone-Singer]], you get different info on the top than at [[Bloodmoon:Aevar Stone-Singer]] or [[Oblivion:Aevar Stone-Singer]]. I designed it in such a way that ALL the info, regardless of which games use it, is stored on the Tamriel page. That way the namespace pages can be nothing but a transclude, with nothing else added. (You'll notice if you edit them that the Bloodmoon and Oblivion pages are identical.) This should make things simple for the bot to create all the redirects. We just need to add the info to the Tamriel pages manually. Creating the transclude pages probably shouldn't be done until the pages are all moved out of the "Books/" hierarchy. But at least now it's ready to go and should be a fairly seamless process. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 15:54, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry to say, I'm not too keen on the direction you're taking with the templates right now. I think the revisions to the templates are already getting overly complicated (after adding only a fraction of the new parameters). And these new templates will be incredibly difficult to do any type of updates or maintenance on. Some of my concerns are:
:* I'm not in favor of nesting templates like you're doing on [[Template:Book Info]] right now. Having one template call another is much too difficult. If you want to add a parameter, you need to do it in two separate places and document it in two separate places. And with the Book Info template passing through parameters for every game-specific template there will end up being hundreds of paramters in that one template. I think just directly calling the template you want is much simpler for everyone in the long term.
:* I don't think we need to have separate Bloodmoon Book Info, Tribunal Book Info, Morrowind Book Info, etc. templates. Although I realize that a one-in-all template like NPC Summary can be awkward at times, I still think it is overall much easier to just have one template. Otherwise you constantly run into features that were added to one template but not another, causing confusion over why something doesn't work in one place when it works elsewhere.
:* I don't think any of the Book Trail templates are needed. I'd much rather have the trail/category built right into the main book template instead of having 200 separate trail templates that need to be updated when we decide that some trivial change is needed.
:* I don't really like the layout of the sandbox page. My first reaction is that I like having the title/author right at the top of the page when I open a book. Maybe it's just that's what I'm used to, but definitely having the locations be the first thing that I read on the page is confusing. I could see having the "extra" info in an infobox (ID, skills, value, weight, even locations). But I don't think it works for the main information like title, author, and description.
:Overall with the book templates I think the best way to approach it would be to have the Book Info template on the Tamriel pages be enclosed in noinclude brackets. Then on each transcluded page, have a new Book Info template that provides the information specific to that game. So for example, the [[Bloodmoon:Aevar Stone-Singer]] would look something like:
<nowiki>{{Book Info||ID=bk_BM_Aevar|Quest=[[Bloodmoon:The Skaal Test of Loyalty|The Skaal Test of Loyalty]]}}
{{Tamriel:Books/Aevar Stone Singer}}</nowiki>
:I think that is a much simpler way to use, code, and maintain the templates. Also it means that when you want to update Bloodmoon-specific information you are editing the Bloodmoon page; you're not putting game-specific info (even hidden info) into the Tamriel pages.
:If you don't see how to make the templates work the way that I'm envisioning them, I'm happy to do the work on updating the templates and/or creating new ones. But I don't want to jump in and step on your toes if you'd prefer to work on them. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 16:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::Aw, gee. That took some serious brain-stretching to figure out how to do all that, and then you gotta go and ruin it for me. Personally, I think it's kind of cool being able to put all the info in one place. As for new parameters, I'm pretty sure I got everything that'd be necessary. Okay, except value/weight, easy enough to add those. As for my layout ideas, it's all purely temporary. I just wanted to get the info in there somehow. Anyhow, if you want to tear it all up and do it your way, go ahead. I just felt like stretching my template-legs a bit... --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] <sup>[[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]]</sup> 16:21, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::We're obviously going to have to reach a decision on where all the game-specific information belongs. In my opinion, it's game-specific and therefore by default the information should go on the game-specific version of the page. Organizationally, that's where it belongs. And the wiki is set up to take advantage of the namespaces. For example, the default namespace features won't work on the Tamriel page; all place and quest links would have to have their namespaces explicitly provided. Also, having hidden information on a page just doesn't seem like a good solution. When you're adding information to the page, the preview button doesn't work to tell you whether your links are correct; you have to save the page, then pull up another page to check whether your edit was correct (another page that doesn't even have a link on the current page to make it easy to access it).
:::If there was no practical or straightforward way to add it to the game-specific page, then having it on the Tamriel page would seem somewhat acceptable. But in this case, practical reasons such as simplifying the templates also say that it is far easier to have the information on the game-specific pages.
:::But if everyone disagrees with me and thinks the info should all be added to the Tamriel pages, then my ideas about how to organize the templates will need to be completely rethought. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 16:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I appreciate all the work you've done Lurlock, but I have to agree with Nephele regarding the transclusions. Editing all the game specific info on that game's page is far more transparent for the editors, even if it's not as smart as your nested templates solution. As Nephele mentioned, I would go for something like the NPC Summary or the Quest Header templates, just like above. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 03:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
The wiki software's new <code><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki></code> feature came up in the [[#Reorganizing Tamriel Books|previous discussion]], but since it's really an independent question, I thought I'd start a new topic to discuss it.
The background, for those not familiar with the gory details of [[UESPWiki:Categories|Categories]], is that on every category page on the site, the listed pages are sorted by a "sort key". By default, this sort key is set to be the page's '''full''' name. So this page, for example, by default would be sorted under "U" for "UESPWiki". Although this default works well on Wikipedia, UESP's [[UESPWiki:Namespaces|Namespaces]] pretty much mess everything up. Take [[:Category:Oblivion-Quests]], for example. By default every single page in that category would be listed under "O" for "Oblivion".
The reason that all the pages on [[:Category:Oblivion-Quests]] are ''not'' listed under "O" is because we override the default sort key on every page on the site. What that means is that in the template (e.g., [[Template:Oblivion Quests Trail]]), the tag that categorizes the page is specified as:
The <code><nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki></code> part overrides the default sort key and instead tells the category to sort according to the page's basic name (without the namespace) instead of the full name.
The reason for all this preamble is that with the last upgrade to the software a new option was introduced that provides an alternative way set the category sort keys, namely <code><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT}}</nowiki></code>. The end result is the same with either our existing system or with the new DEFAULTSORT system, but after mulling things over I think there are advantages to the new system that may make it worthwhile to switch over.
To test things out, I've (partially) implemented the new system on [[:Category:Oblivion-Places]]. So the template [[Template:Oblivion Places Trail|Oblivion Places Trail]] specifies the category using:
<nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Places]] {{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}</nowiki>
So instead of overriding the default sort key within the category tag, the category tag is now simplified and instead the DEFAULTSORT part is used to override the sort key.
At first look, the new system is more complicated (two commmands, more code) and you end up with the same final result. So why bother? Because using the new system, it's easier for everyone to deal with the special cases and exceptions that inevitably occur. What prompted me to experiment with this today was the new effort to add region tags to Oblivion place pages. Emerald Melios started adding region tags using the basic format, namely <code><nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Places-Gold Coast]]</nowiki></code>. Which is exactly how you'd do it on wikipedia, and is how 95% of UESP editors add categories. But by default it means all the pages would be sorted under "O", which isn't optimal. So I had the option of going through and editing a half dozen pages to change the tag to <code><nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Places-Gold Coast|{{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki></code>. Instead I chose to make a single edit to the template page, instead. By adding DEFAULTSORT to the template, all of the other pages were immediately fixed. And any future categories added to any place page will also now work.
The other example of how DEFAULTSORT makes things easier is on pages such as [[Oblivion:The Assassinated Man]]. This is one of many cases where actually sorting by PAGENAME isn't best; the sort key should be "Assassinated Man, The" instead of "The Assassinated Man". To fix the page currently requires adding the categories to the page a second time:
<nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Quests|Assassinated Man, The]]
[[Category:Oblivion-Quests-Dark Brotherhood|Assassinated Man, The]]</nowiki>
With DEFAULTSORT, all that has to be added to the page is:
<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Assassinated Man, The}}</nowiki>
DEFAULTSORT is much shorter and also gets rid of a problem that always drives me crazy when I'm doing these tags: you don't need to start by getting a list of all the categories used on that page. No matter what quest categories or other categories are used on the page, a single DEFAULTSORT will cover it.
In my experiments I just confirmed that this really will all work. DEFAULTSORT can be set multiple times in a page; the last setting on the page is the one that works. So there could be some complicated nest of templates that add various categories and automatically set DEFAULTSORT one or more times. A manual setting of DEFAULTSORT can then be added to the article and it will override all other DEFAULTSORT commands, and that manual one will be used for every category on the page (or at least, for every category that does not explicitly set its own sort key). The only caveat is that the manual setting has to come '''after''' all the template settings. For a demonstration, see [[Oblivion:Fort Strand]], which is now being sorted as "Strand, Fort" on both [[:Category:Oblivion-Places]] and [[:Category:Oblivion-Places-Gold Coast]] (as for whether or not it really should be sorted as "Strand, Fort", I'm inclined to think not, but that's another question :) ).
I think starting to use DEFAULTSORT will in the long run be easier for everyone. The downside is that every single template that inserts categories will need to be modified. I'm not proposing that we immediately go through and revamp all the templates. Instead, what I'd like to propose is that whenever categories are being updated for whatever reason, those categories get changed over to the new DEFAULTSORT system. Basically, all existing category tags that have been added to articles will continue to work the same way as the changeover gradually happens. The only thing that will ''not'' work is any new DEFAULTSORT tags that are added to individual articles whose templates haven't been updated. In other words, the old system will work fine; new system will slowly work better and better as it gets more widely implemented.
As usual: any questions, comments, objections, etc? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 19:16, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:Addendum: In researching categories and sorting I also just learned a new little trick that we may want to start using with subcategories of large categories. It used to be that if you pulled up [[:Category:Oblivion-Places]], the first page of the category listing would only display the first 8 subcategories, namely the A-G subcategories. The H-T subcategories showed up on the second page, with the H-T articles. This is an old problem that leads to a lot of confusion. People would assume that there were only 8 subcategories total, and wonder why, for example, there wasn't an Oblivion-Places-Mines subcategory (when there is, it just wasn't showing up where people were looking for it). By adding a space to the start of the sort key, e.g. <code><nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Places| Mines]]</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>[[Category:Oblivion-Places|Mines]]</nowiki></code>, I was able to make all the subcategories get shown together on the first page. Is it worth keeping the change? Should it be done elsewhere (i.e., combine [[:Category:Oblivion-NPCs]] and [[:Category:Oblivion-NPCs-by-Race]])? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 20:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
== Oblivion NPC IDs ==
A problem with all NPCs in Oblivion is that they in effect have two FormIDs: a [[Tes4Mod:Mod_File_Format/NPC_|NPC_]] FormID and an [[Tes4Mod:Mod_File_Format/ACHR|ACHR]] FormID. The NPC_ FormID provides access to the general information about the NPC. The ACHR FormID provides access to a specific instance of the NPC. So, for example, you could type <code>player.placeatme 00033095</code> in the [[Oblivion:Console|console]] multiple times, where <code>00033095</code> is the NPC_ FormID for [[Oblivion:Harrow|Harrow]]. You would end up with multiple Harrow clones standing in front of you: all share the same Harrow NPC_ information (stats, skills, appearance, etc). But each of the clones is a different character, and therefore each one has a different ACHR FormID. The ACHR FormID keeps track of information such the X/Y/Z position of the individual character.
Most of the game scripts manipulate the ACHR version of the NPCs (in the scripts, Harrow is generally accessed via the "HarrowRef" object, which is just the editor ID of ACHR object). Which is why spawning a new copy of an NPC using a command like <code>player.placeatme 00033095</code> generally does not work to fix broken quests. As a result, the console article provides a lengthy section on how to [[Oblivion:Console#Find an NPC|Find an NPC]], which really just amounts to instructions on how to find out the NPC's ACHR FormID. But there's no reason to tell readers to jump through all of those hoops. The ACHR IDs for all unique NPCs are predetermined just like their NPC_ IDs; the number will be the same in every player's game.
It seems to me that the Oblivion NPC pages should be updated to list the ACHR IDs as well as the NPC_ IDs. Assuming anyone else agrees (and that someone is interested in doing the busy work of editing each and every Oblivion NPC page), that leaves the question of how to go about doing it. I'd actually argue that the ID shown at the top page should probably be the ACHR ID: I think 9 times out of 10 someone who is looking for that NPC's FormID probably needs the ACHR ID, not the NPC_ ID. The NPC_ FormID could then be provided somewhere further down in the infobox, in a new field added to the table. I think that approach would make more sense than trying to list both at the top of the page somehow, in particular because in cases like [[Oblivion:Valen Dreth]] there already are two FormIDs; trying to somehow squeeze in two NPC_ IDs and two ACHR IDs would just lead to excessive confusion.
Feedback? Volunteers interested in editing several hundred NPC pages? --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 20:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
: Sounds fine, as long as its clear which is the reference (ACHR) ID and which is the record ID. Sounds like a good job for your bot if its capable. It shouldn't be too hard to collect the ACHR for each NPC directly from the game data. -- [[User:Daveh|Daveh]] 23:06, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah, as long as you're not using the construction set getting the ACHR IDs is pretty straightforward. I already have a complete listing of them. From the construction set it can be a bit painful (pull up the uses list for the NPC, find out which cell the NPC is in, go pull up the cell, find the NPC ref in the cell, and then you've got the number). --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]]<sup>[[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]]</sup> 23:11, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Anonymous user