UESPWiki:Community Portal

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the main discussion forum used for community-wide discussions about UESP's operations, policies, design, and improvement.

All members of the community are welcome to contribute to this page. Please sign and date your post by typing ~~~~ 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.

Before starting a discussion here, please review the list of other community pages below, as your question or suggestion may be more appropriate on another page.

Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:

Specific requests can be made on these pages:

  • Bot Requests — This page can be used to request that one of the wiki's bots take on a task.
  • Image Requests — You can request specific images for articles here.
  • Creation Kit Information Requests — You can request specific Creation Kit information for articles here.
  • New Page Requests — You can request a new page here if you were prevented from creating the page yourself.
  • Purge Requests — If you are having problems viewing an article on UESP, the page may need to be purged. New purge requests can be made here.

In addition, past discussions from the Community Portal can be found at:

  • CP Archives — Lists all of the past discussions from the Community Portal page, including major discussions and chronlogical archives.
Active Discussions

Many discussions of community-wide interest are held on pages other than the community portal. Discussions about specific policies belong on the policy talk pages, for example. The following table lists other discussions that are currently in progress on other talk pages. If you start a discussion on another talk page, please add it to this list. If a discussion listed here has been inactive (i.e., no comments of any type in at least a week), please remove it from the list.

Location Date started Topic Listed here by

UESP App Available for Open Beta Testing[edit]

We've been slowly working on the UESP app over the past few months and are happy to announce that it is now available for open beta testing from the Google Play Store. Feedback and bug reports can be posted to the Mobile App Talk Page. -- Daveh (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Official Cookbook interview - looking for questions![edit]

We were recently contacted by the publisher of the upcoming The Elder Scrolls: The Official Cookbook, and after exchanging some emails, he’s offered us the chance to submit interview questions to the author (Chelsea Cassel-Monroe, author of the World of Warcraft official cookbook). Her website, specifically the page about the cookbook, can be found here. From what the author has said in the past, it sounds like the focus of this one is the main series, and even though she couldn’t include actual ESO recipes due to licensing, did take inspiration from some of them and the lore of the races. Does anyone have any questions they’d like ask? ~ Alarra (talkcontribs) 20:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Interview on the Isle of Madness Expansion for The Elder Scrolls: Legends - Seeking Questions![edit]

Hi everyone! After speaking to folks in Bethesda's PR department, we have been given the opportunity to host another Legends interview, similar to our Pete Hines interview from last year. This time we will be talking to Josh Utter-Leyton, one of the card designers at Sparkypants Studios, who also worked on the game at Dire Wolf Digital. We expressed an interest in asking questions that focused on the background, lore, and story of the new Isle of Madness expansion, but if you are desperate to ask a question that goes beyond those topics, feel free to still let us know.

Please post your questions below, and thank you to Bethesda and Sparkypants Studios for allowing us to have this interview!

- KriHavok (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Baliwogs, grummites, and scalons are classified as grummites in the game's cards. Should we take this as a confirmation that they are infact related in lore? Similarly, Gnarls are listed as spriggans, are gnarls listed as spriggans for balance reasons or are they actually related to Nirn's spriggans? Is there a chance we can see a shadowrend monthly card in honor of the shivering isles? Ex. ESO's shadowrend clannfear and weapon double card. If you guys ask questions about game mechanics, id like to ask if a card flavor text system will ever get implemented, such as lore on the depiction or maybe which person the card depicts if any. Zebendal (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
When do the events of "Isle of Madness" take place? Is Jyggalag really free after the events of "Shivering Isles"? Did the Hero of Kvatch really become the new Sheogorath or did he just went insane? Why Luzrah gro-Shar, a female orc, isn't named "gra-Shar" according to the orcs naming traditions? Phoenix Neko (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Tables In Templates[edit]

In any of our templates that allow an unlimited number of unnamed parameters, like {{Parameters}} or {{Lore Book Compilation}}, it was previously impossible to use MediaWiki-style tables in the parameter list, even with the proper escaping of pipes and equals signs; you were forced to use HTML tables. After looking into it, I found a hack of a method which I believe should work in all cases. I just wanted to post about it so that if anyone spots any issues with templates of that nature, we can back it out sooner rather than later. Please let me know if you spot any such issues.

Robin Hood  (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

ESO Red Choice Template[edit]

{{ESO Red Choice}}

Since the proposal didn't get much attention on the talk page, can we please take a look at how this template functions? It acts to hide branching dialogue paths by default on ESO pages, which is unhelpful and non-standard. The use of this template has proliferated in that namespace and I really think it needs to be changed to utilise a better format if it's going to be accepted as the norm. As it stands, I'm strongly opposed to its use while it continues to hide text from the page. There is no reason for it to use a show/hide function, particularly when the dialogue being hidden is usually only a sentence or two in length. —Legoless (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Other than adding categories to check dialogue I'm not too sure why this template is necessary. You can achieve the same result (without showhides) using {{FC}}. Either way, sounds like a good idea to change the showhides to indents. —Dillonn241 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Skyrim Abilities/Powers Footer[edit]

Dillon pointed me towards our unused templates list the other day, and in the process of going through the small number remaining (most of which are substituted or temporary-use templates), I noticed a template that Lurlock worked on several years back, {{Skyrim Abilities}}, which seems to have been forgotten and gone unused all these years. It overlaps somewhat with {{Skyrim Powers}}, but also has several links that aren't in the powers template. Before I put it up for deletion, does anyone think it could be added to some pages, or is there anything on it that should be merged into other footer templates? Most page deletions are relatively non-controversial, but this one could serve a purpose, so I wanted to draw people's attention to it before it gets deleted. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed there are things in the Abilities template that don't exist in the Powers template like the Seeker of Sorcery and the Seeker of Shadows abilities. Mind you, those are constant effect abilities, not powers per se. If they don't have their own in-use template, I don't see what it hurts to add them and any others that are missing to the Powers template, seeing as they are on the DB:Powers page already. Just an idea. the raconteur 20:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming Upgrade to MW 1.25[edit]

As many of you have noticed, Dave is in the process of planning an upgrade to MediaWiki 1.25. Here's a quick outline of the changes you can expect to see.

  • The Recent Changes and Watchlist pages will change to use the enhanced version by default.
  • Page icons are now supported natively. The means that templates like {{Page Icon}} can be greatly simplified, and perhaps even removed altogether in some cases. (Though, for consistency reasons, it's probably better to continue to use templates regardless.) See this page for details.
  • For administrators, the Tags and a new EditTags special pages apparently allow more changing of tags, such as adding and removing tags, or changing tags on a revision. I don't currently have any wikis where I can check out the changes, so we'll have to see what they look like after the upgrade. (Honestly, I didn't even know the page existed until now. :P)
  • Supposedly, "Clickable anchors for each section heading in the content are now generated and appear in the gutter on hovering over the heading." I tried what I thought this meant on several wikis, but was unable to see anything. Still, if it's there somewhere that I just didn't notice, it could be a useful feature. If anyone figures out what this meant and how to see the clickable list, please comment!
  • Wanted Pages will no longer list broken redirects. It's unclear if {{#ifexist:...}} will still add pages to it, but we already have a solution for that issue anyway.

There are numerous other technical changes. For the full list, see the release notes. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Clickable anchors" are an icon beside a header that when clicked on produces an url with the section included. What icon is used for that is unknown but can probably be modified. An example appears on mediawiki (under proposed implementation). This is almost totally a reader-based change for better linking to us on other sites, as it produces an url and not the shortened form used on internal links. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Silencer! I don't see that on any wikis that I'm on, so either it's something I or the site have disabled or, contrary to what the documentation says, it was not implemented on MediaWiki wikis. I'm curious, do you or anyone else see it on other wikis that are 1.25 or later? Robin Hood  (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Usage of Actual Military Awards for Project Ribbons[edit]

So I was looking at the images that we're currently using for Projects on the site. These are used by the Ribbon template, and the images are found in Category:UESP-Ribbons. They were evidently downloaded from [1]. The artwork is in the public domain, so it isn't an issue of copyright infringement. However, these are actual military service awards, awarded to actual people for their service. While I have never served in the military, I do know that people who have tend to take this sort of thing very seriously, and usage of these images for contributing to a website for video games may be seen as disrespectful of those who have legitimately earned them. I'm not opposed to the idea of using images like these for site projects, but I think it might be best to alter them in such a way that they do not have this alternate meaning, which some might find offensive. The simplest alteration would be just adjusting the hue - we could even theme them to our site colors, or something specific to the games associated with each of the projects. This would be the least disruptive change that could be made, and might be sufficient to avoid any misinterpretation of these images. Alternatively, we could design new graphics that are more representative of their use - using graphics from the games, for example. (Right now, it's kind of hard to tell which ribbon is which if you don't know them well.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with designing something new, as I also found it odd that we used these when I was looking for something for the Modspace Project. I'd be happy to try designing something new, or helping out with anyone else who wants to. I would also suggest we aim at designing to {{Userbox}} dimensions, although with the 100px width continuing as default. --Enodoc (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of using game images, since those would (at least in theory) be more representative of the actual project. Someone involved in the Oblivion Houses Redesign Project might get OB-mapicon-Settlement.png, while someone involved in the Skyrim Houses Redesign Project might get SR-mapicon-Shack.png. Sizing might be a bit of an issue if we go that route, though, since even just those two are at 48x48 and 40x40 natively. Where previously, the ribbons were all the same size, now they become different or we have to scale them to the same size, which could look blurry for smaller originals. If we go with something completely new, we could keep sizing in mind as things are designed. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
These should be changed, but I don't think they need to look much different, just changing the colors. I would like to see colors that reflect the game (orange and blue for Arena, yellow and black for Morrowind, etc.) Either the initials for the project or an icon like RH said, could be added to make it clear what the project is about. One issue right now is that you see a bunch of ribbons but they are meaningless to almost everyone (even after all my time on the wiki I couldn't identify a single one). —Dillonn241 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ideally we'd want to keep them the same dimensions (or at least aspect ratio) as before, to avoid messing up the layout on everyone's user pages. But I could see incorporating the icons into an image of the proper size, with colors themed to each of the games as well. That would make these images both more informative and make them fit better with the theme of the site. "I'mASnugglyTeddyBal" on Discord was talking about whipping up some designs (I'm not sure what name they use here), so we might want to coordinate our efforts. I'd say the project leads should come up with something, but some of these projects aren't very active any more, and in some cases their leads have left the site altogether. Colors and icons may need to be chosen on a per-project or at least per-game basis for consistency. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

() For what it's worth, I think continued use of the ribbon graphics is fine and it's a little disheartening to have the graphics changed after so many years. If we are going to change them, I would be opposed to anything that lacks consistency, as one of the great benefits of using those graphics has been the consistent style. —Legoless (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Gamespaces for Skyrim Pinball and Skyrim Very Special Edition[edit]

I believe that both of these games should get their own namespace. Skyrim Pinball is proving to be substantial, and will likely have several long pages to summarize all information (I currently have only documented subsets of information and have it all on a single long page in my sandbox.). I would propose creation of the 'Pinball' namespace, with 'PIN' as the code for it.

For VSE, we currently have 6 pages of moderate length. I think it would be a good idea to add 4 more pages to separate out the different dungeons. At 10 pages, I think it is substantial enough to have its own namespace. I know this is a change to the decision made last summer, but I think it addresses what is a strange outlier in our current organization. 'VSE' should be the code. I'm not sure what the namespace should be called: Perhaps 'Alexa' or 'VerySpecial', maybe just 'VSE'.

Of the two, I believe the first proposal is more important. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the first purposal. Zebendal (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
My personal view is that this would be way too small for a separate namespace, but then again we have already done that for each of the TES Travels, and Stormhold, Dawnstar, and OBMob each have fewer than 50 pages. There may be an argument for just shoving each of them into Skyrim as a subspace, rather than creating separate namespaces for them. But if we can get the expected number of pages to over 30 for each one, then precedent would say yes to their own namespaces. --Enodoc (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not fully understand the 'too small for a namespace' argument. When it comes to DLC within an existing game, it seems reasonable, but not for a standalone game.
If we were to put these two games as subcategories of Skyrim, then searching for 'quests' in the Skyrim namespace would also bring back VSE and Pinball, which is likely unwanted. If we do not add a namespace, then we will have page names such as 'Quests (Pinball)', 'Quests (VSE)', 'Spells (Pinball)', 'Enemies (VSE)'. Organizationally, this is the same as 'Pinball:Quests', 'VSE:Enemies', etc. However, we forego the search benefits of namespaces, and the 'Magic Word' functionality they provide.
To my current understanding, either path we choose means we have the same small number of pages with their own label system. One path has a few technical benefits. What drawbacks are incurred by the namespace approach? --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I think Lost in Hyrule's points are the biggest ones in favour of separate namespaces. Having worked on a few wikis where the norm is to disambiguate games by putting them in parentheses after the name, it gets irritating fairly quickly, plus it clashes with our traditional system of each game getting its own namespace (give or take a few exceptions). Namespaces are just easier to deal with, since you can include/exclude them in searches, recent changes, your watchlist, and anywhere else that you can select a namespace. It's also easier to deal with in terms of templates. If you disambiguate by name only, you lose all of that functionality.
Having said that, a namespace with only ten or so pages is pretty small. By that criteria, I should have my own namespace! (Can I, can I, huh? Pretty please?) Looking only at gamespace pages (so, ignoring things like mod spaces and Review), and discounting Blades since it isn't out yet, our smallest namespace is currently Stormhold with 32 pages, 7 of which are redirects.
In the end, I'm leaning slightly in favour of separate namespaces for each, but it's not really a major issue either way. Also, from a technical standpoint, the difference is minimal between the two. Honestly, the hardest part is Dave or I having to redesign the search menu to fit however many new namespaces we decide on, which is still fairly trivial. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I am categorically against any suggestion that these spinoffs be placed in Skyrim subspaces. They have nothing to do with TES5, and it would be entirely inconsistent with our approach to Oblivion Mobile and Oblivion PSP. If a new namespace is needed instead, so be it, but I also don't see a problem with using mainspace. The most important thing should be getting these pages live. —Legoless (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Size doesn't matter. If a game needs a namespace it gets a namespace. I had been dubious about SVSE being a standalone game until I read Legoless post above. It is exactly as different to the console version as the mobile and PSP versions are to Oblivion. It isn't "Skyrim Pinball" it is "Bethesda Pinball", and the game uses the Fallout and DOOM franchise as settings too. The game uses these three as skins and it doesn't seem that we could only cover one part of that game without covering the others. I don't really see it as part of the Elder Scrolls franchise either, it's an unconnected commodity using the licensed name to generate interest, like Skyrim Monopoly (Fallout version also available). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It'd be easy to cover the Skyrim table without touching the others. "Bethesda Pinball" is just a collection; sure you can't get the Skyrim table separately from the other two, but you can't get any of them without Pinball FX, so that particular red line is unnecessary. "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim® Pinball" is the official name of that table, so "Skyrim Pinball" would be a correct contraction. You're right that it's not really connected to the franchise, but that discussion has already passed. --Enodoc (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

() Considering that in over 2 years since that discussion there is no article even mentioning it, I would strongly disagree that that discussion is over and done with. If as you say the table is just one part of an even larger game, it makes it even harder to see how it can be argued that it is an Elder Scrolls game. The particulars of the table belong on a Pinball FX wiki, not an Elder Scrolls series of games wiki. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever platform it is on, it is possible to only play the Skyrim table and never touch any of the others. Each table is a distinct 'game' within a collection of games supported by Pinball FX, which is basically a platform or engine. Just like all my Epic Games are on the Epic Games Launcher, all my Zen pinball games are on Pinball FX3.
Skyrim Pinball is Elder Scrolls and a game, so I believe it belongs here. My argument for a namespace is that these games both satisfy the basic reason we utilize them at all: an independent game that has the same page titles as other games (e.g. Quests, Magic, Weapons). If a game can be documented in a single page, then I would certainly agree a namespace would be pointless. Once you start having shared page titles is where we suggest to use them. Page count seems a less than perfect metric for this determination. For example, I looked at the Stormhold namespace mentioned by RH. 25 pages and 7 redirects, but most of the pages are quite short. For Pinball, I was thinking to organize them on rather long pages, one for Items and one for Quests. However, I could break Quests into a list page, one page for each of the 11 Main Quests, and a page for Side Quests, giving me 13 pages. Many of these pages would be longer than the Main Quest page of Stormhold. I could likewise break Items into a list page, Weapons, Armor, Jewelry, Potions, and maybe a separate Crafting page, and these would still be longer than the item pages in Stormhold. So my organization style would give 2 pages, but the Stormhold standard would produce 18.
From the discussion here, it seems the only downside to adding the namespaces is that RH has to add an entry on a list. I think the small benefits of namespace outweigh that small drawback, as much as I like RH! :P However, I will go ahead and document in mainspace. If we conclude that a namespace is warranted, we can move the pages over. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has derailed a little into "should we document skyrim pinball, take 2". If we have to reopen this discussion agan, then so be it. But in the end, both VSE and Skyrim Pinball (if we decide to document it (again)) are separate games that, while heavily taking setting inspiration from TES V: Skyrim, have a completely different underlying game system, and therefore warrant an unique namespace. And RobinHood, once you stop being a wiki contributor and start becoming a TES game, you'll get your own namespace, too ;-) -- SarthesArai Talk 13:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Pre-Release Template[edit]

I’m on mobile, so I apologize for any formatting issues, but I wanted clarity for my own understanding of the Pre-Release template and appropriate uses for it.

https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Blades:Abyss&diff=next&oldid=1941777 being “current” and correct for a game that hasn’t been officially released doesn’t mean a pre-release template is unwarranted altogether, right? The game is in early access, but it’s not fully released yet, meaning any information contained within is therefore posted “before the official release” and theoretically subject to change, correct? That’s why I added that template to every Blades page I saw that didn’t already have it, and it seems appropriate to keep it until we’re told the game has been officially released, right? Or am I not understanding the “proper” use of the template when I add it? -damon  talkcontribs 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the {{Pre-Release}} template is that it's for any information that we put out prior to the official release. While Blades may be in Early Access, and no longer under an NDA (according to their FAQ), as far as I know, it's still officially pre-release, and therefore the tag would apply. If it weren't, then the "pre-order" button available on the website would just say "order". That all being said, I haven't been part of pre-release efforts for a very long time, and I only see a very brief mention of it on Discord, at least in the channels I follow, so others may feel differently. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't really comment on Blades, as I don't (can't) play it, but I can comment on how it works for ESO and suggest parallels. Pre-release for ESO is everything that comes from before the release of content on the Live server, which includes anything from the PTS server and anything from ZOS publicity. When something is verified on the Live server, that's when the Pre-Release tag is removed, even if it is during the "Early Access" period on the Live server. So for Blades, if their Early Access acts as a beta, like the ESO PTS, Pre-Release would be appropriate; if it is literally an early release of content that won't now be changed, like the ESO Early Access on the Live server, Pre-Release would be unnecessary. --Enodoc (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This was discussed in Discord yesterday at some length, and the gist of the discussion matched what Enodoc said above. So, as I understand it, Pre-Release tags can be removed from Blades articles provided that the information is verified in the Early Access version of the game. They shouldn't be removed en masse, however, as some information may have been taken from the beta version of the game and still requires verification that it's accurate for the EA version. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This is also my understanding of the tag's usage, although it should prove less of an issue now that early access has been opened up to more people. Blades had a beta separate from early access, which counts as an official release for our purposes even if the devs haven't called it that. —Legoless (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive use of similar images in Lorespace[edit]

On discord we've been having... let's call it a disagreement over the excessive use of images in Lore (Or rather, whether the use of images is excessive or not). This started with Dwemer Animunculi, which illustrates my point pretty well, but is more clearly seen in Lore:Guar which is basically a copy of Online:Mounts/Guar. I just don't see how including every possible color of Dwemer spider or Guar that ESO throws out (which is constantly adding new reskins of existing mounts) is lore worthy. Text explaining that Dwemer spiders come in many different colors and here is an image of one example of those colors would seem sufficient to me, rather than including 12 images of every possible chroma-color there could be (this is what was present before I suggested some images get removed). To illustrate the point, Dwemer Animunculi had 53 images on it as of this morning, for 15 sections, with some sections having no images at all. The average per section was about 3.5, with is skewed a bit given the amount of images in other sections.

I think we should encourage more prose in lore, rather than just image dump more and more ESO images until the page is mostly images, cause that's just a gallery. I'm not sure if there is a specific rule we can create for this, but my proposal would be to limit each section or type of creature to a max of three ESO images, unless the very nature of the creature is fundamentally changed enough that a text description doesn't accurately describe the difference. A blue cat and a red cat are not fundamentally different. A blue cat and a cat with 14 mechanical arms sticking out of its back, flippers for feet and a PhD in Chemical Engineering, that's fundamentally different and probably gets another image (probably it's own section).

And now, Legoless would like to respond to this as a counterpoint. Jeancey (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is folly. Firstly, the comparison of Lore:Guar and Online:Mounts/Guar reveals quite tellingly that the proposer has not actually read the lore article in question, nor does he appreciate its purpose to document all species of guar. Not all guar make an appearance in ESO as mounts, but ESO mounts do provide a great quantity of new guar lore. The reason I created this page in the first place was to avoid a situation where all of these guar variants would be getting separate entries on the Lore:Bestiary list. There are enough lore-worthy variants of this creature to warrant a separate page to list them all, and for an editor to seriously propose the removal of imagery from this page on the basis that the information contained there is "excessive" is plainly ridiculous given the article's purpose.
"I think we should encourage more prose in lore[...]" I agree, and I would strongly recommend that editors try to describe in-game appearances in prose in addition to relying on imagery (as I have done on Lore:Guar and elsewhere), but it is simply not our fault that ESO has added so many reskinned breeds and variants of creatures which are then given a single line of lore-relevant tooltip text. These variants need to be documented in lorespace and there is no good argument against excluding the relevant imagery from the namespace entirely. An arbitrary limit of 3 ESO images is something which I strongly oppose as being destructive to the namespace and to the quality of our documentation.
A general rule of thumb when editing is to avoid deleting relevant information, as this rarely improves our encyclopaedic coverage of a topic. Jeancey is proposing to limit and delete information from lorespace. If certain articles such as Lore:Dwemer Animunculi are getting overwhelmed with too many images, we should be looking at creative solutions to split up that article further (as was done with Lore:Vamidium) or consolidate the imagery elsewhere. Someone proposed making a /Gallery subpage for affected articles, which I wouldn't be against in principle.
Lorespace needs to learn to adapt to the scale of new lore ESO has introduced, particularly when it comes to the TES bestiary. Kneejerk deletion is not the answer. —Legoless (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I should have clarified. I was recommending removing most of the separate sections too, not JUST the images. I was saving that for a separate discussion involving the multitudes of fish in the bestiary, which could be consolidated in to different types (like the 23 different types of bass or whatever it was). The telling line from Wikiepdia's image guideline: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." I added the emphasis. I find the images in Dwemer Animunculi to be incredibly distracting, and clearly I was too distracted by the sheer number of guar images to read the Guar page, as Legoless pointed out. Some of the "lore worthy" guar on that page are: The Green Narsis Guar is a robust breed, used as the standard mount and dray-beast of central Morrowind.[7] It's named after the city of Narsis. Great. Standard mount and pack beast. Pack Guar are bred to serve as pack animals. A separate pack beast. The Common Vvardenfell Guar is the most common breed of guar. Despite the name, the breed is not limited to the island of Vvardenfell. Great. Another common breed. Apparently Green Narsis Guar is standard, but not common. The Pale Velothi Guar is a breed that hails from the ashlands downwind of the volcanic Velothi Mountains. They are used as mounts, and are renowned as hardy creatures capable of enduring especially harsh conditions.[6] Great. Another hardy guar that is just lighter in color from the others.
I seriously don't understand how those are lore worthy. The Vvardenfell guar isn't even limited to vvardenfell, so its lore info is basically "This is a guar". Narsis Guar "This is a guar from narsis." Pack Guar "This is a guar that is used as a pack animal". None of that is particularly noteworthy in a lore sense, other than "They exist". When mentioned to Legoless that I'd just add all the Guar mounts from ESO to the guar page to show just how ridiculous it would be to add all the guar there, his response was "Great, I already did that." I just don't see how constantly adding basically the same information to two separate pages is helpful to the wiki? The lore article about Guar should be about guar as a whole. It can talk about how they are used for pack animals by the dunmer, and how they are very hardy animals that can survive in many locations, and how they are important to the Ashlanders that use them to carry their tents due to their nomadic lifestyle. And all this could be accompanied by a single picture of an ashlander with a pack guar at their side traveling through rough terrain and we don't need separate sections for Pack Guar. And Green Narsis Guar (which are also pack animals) and Common Vvardenfell Guar (which are also pack animals). It's just not.... good writing... to design articles as one sentence blurbs that really just take a back seat to a slightly different colored guar. Jeancey (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the purpose of lorespace if you think the many breeds of guar shouldn't be listed and described on an article about guar!! I would refer you to a decade of precedent for listing variant breeds on Lore:Bestiary and hope that this speaks for itself; see for example the Grizzly Bear entry on Lore:Bestiary G from back in September 2006 which has persisted on the page to this day. According to your above value judgement on loreworthiness, "a bear that is brown" isn't worth including in lorespace. Clearly this is not the popular consensus when it comes to these matters.
This proposal has gone from bad to worse, firstly proposing the removal of imagery and now advocating the outright deletion of information for no purpose whatsoever. If you don't want to read ad nauseum about the various species of pack guar in the world of TES, maybe don't visit Lore:Guar in the first place. —Legoless (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Legoless has the right of it, mostly. Dwemer Animunculi doesn't need every variation of the same creature (as in the exact same one but from game to game), however. Encouraging more prose in lore is a fine idea as well, but significant variants can fairly be included. I also don't think we really need a discussion on this, making the proposed changes would probably have been more efficient. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get some other opinions rather than just the two of us. I'm clearly not explaining myself well to you, and us just going back and forth like this isn't useful. This isn't a discussion JUST about Guar and Dwemer Animunculi, this is a discussion about the bestiary in general, thus Grizzly Bear is a part of that. And saying "It's always been this way and no one else ever did anything about it" is not a good argument to make... There's another fallacy at work here too, which is the "All or nothing" fallacy. Basically saying that "if we do this, we'll have to delete half of lore!", and I don't think that's fair... Consensus can change, and when we had static games with limited scope, the way lore was set up worked. But as an editor, these pages just make me want to say "Nope". I could add to and improve Guar, but it's so sectioned and heavy that it just makes me not want to even bother because it requires another 14 hours of research to really figure out where the one sentence I want to add should go. Anyway, I'ma take a step back and let other editors have an opinion here.
As a reply to AKB, I would have made the changes, but clearly I would have been reverted immediately because "Never delete any info from lore". Jeancey (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
ESO has created an issue that didn't really exist before. Grizzly bears are different genetically from brown bears, or black bears, or polar bears, so have different entries on them makes sense. A comparison can be made to horses pre-ESO, because they were the only animals to have any range of breed comparable to all the variations found in ESO, particularly the mounts. It looks like the guar aren't listed individually, but the bestiary is becoming a bit bloated. Pages like Guar and Horses, and Bears should help to reduce this by keeping these similar creatures listed together, but currently they are doing both. These umbrella pages are good and all variants should be listed, a mix of the Prose on Bears and the lists on the others. However, I am thinking that any with these umbrella pages, any variants listed on them should be taken off the generic bestiary lists, and make sure all the redirects link to them. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Silencer, creating separate pages allows for variants to be removed from the ever-expanding Bestiary list and reduces duplication of info. —Legoless (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

() the goal of uesp is to archive all information about the elder scrolls series, those articles have legitimate lore based descriptions behind them and generalising it to "they can sometimes be green" is missing the point. The lore provided by schick explains what they are and why they are different, by the definition of adding new lore, the different types are lore worthy.

It is notable in that it could not only utilize lightning based attacks from a chroma-blue status, but also shift into a chroma-green status and release toxin based attacks, and a chroma-red (or carnelian)[8] status, and emit flame based attacks.[9] A Chroma-Yellow variety exists, and is present within some automatons :created with an Ebon-Steel alloy, such as the Ebon Steel Dwarven Spider.[10] A variant of the Ebony Steel Dwarven Spider exists, created from the Infernium forge and showing flame based characteristics.[11] in the case of the dwarven spiders they have different characteristics, different materials and different purposes

that stuff has to be documented, because it's cool and adds new lore, the images are just there as a visual aid i'd rather have a page spammed with the different types of guar/spider/mount/whatever, their uses, purposes, and complementary image than no info (or reduced info). [copied from discord, sorry for formatting] Thal-J (talk)

An alternative is rewriting the content so it is not a section by section breakdown on variants, but a more normal exploration of the different variants in prose, although it would be ideal to keep them in the bestiary if that was done. Either way, if anyone just wants to make any change to these articles to implement any version, that'd be the best response. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Currently I have to click on multiple separate game articles when I need to read on various representations of a single monster and/or see images of these representations. In case of ESO monsters I have to click even more to find out what variations exist. This is tedious and very unfriendly to me as a user. What I see here is the proposal to make this problem even more tedious. Also I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that illustrations are BAD for lore articles/bestiary and to be frank I struggle to do so. UESP should document ALL variations of a single creature in one convenient place. And it should do that even more exactly because there is no simple way to describe all these variations with words when it is way easier to actually show such variations.
My position is that word excessive is appliable only when there are multiple images of the same thing, not multiple images of multiple things.
One more point. Even if these creatures are just a retexture of a currently existing one, it's not a gameplay information, it's still valid lore information. Phoenix Neko (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Phoe here, and as the person who has edited the Chroma-Colors in the Dwemer animunculi page, as Thal-J has explained, even if the colors seem insignificant in at first glance, they portray what capabilities that automaton can do (shock, fire, poison based attacks), and spreading them out across pages instead of having them in a convenient place would make them harder to find and way less convenient. Zebendal (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel that my points here have been misunderstood by pretty much everyone responding, so I'm just going to state something in list form, since that's what everyone seems to understand best.
  • I am not advocating just deleting any text wholesale from any page. I am proposing taking the current sentences that exist, and keeping the actual information in them in paragraph form. If 8 sections say "they are hardy" and 5 sections say "they are pack animals" we now have one sentence saying they are "hardy pack animals" and the exact same information is present, as it is clearly a general description of most guar rather than of specific guar. If there is a guar that is significantly different from other guar, like, say a guar that can breathe underwater where other guar can't, then another sentence saying "the ___ guar are known to be able to breathe underwater" is appropriate.
  • A point was raised claiming I suggested "A bear that is brown" isn't lore-worthy. That is a factually inaccurate summation of my proposal. My proposal would have, in that example, taken "Section: Black Bear, Description: This is a bear that is black. Section: Brown bear, Description: This is a bear that is brown" and combined them into one section, "Section: Bear, Description: Bears can be black and brown". Zero information is lost, but it is more readable to the average person when you scale it up to 20-25 separate colors of bear.
  • I feel strongly that this conversation is needed in a general sense about lore, and I would prefer that the discussion be about improving the lorespace overall. I tried not to be so grandiose as to create and entire discussion about all of lore, since I felt a smaller discussion might result in more actionable solutions. I feel this is not helped by dismissing the entire discussion out of hand as "folly" without ever addressing the point that at least one editor, me, feels the information is provided in a way that isn't as helpful as it could be. If there are other suggestions than the ones I have provided and the default "let's do nothing", I would love to hear from those editors who can provide those solutions. This discussion has focused too much on Guar as a specific page rather than as a general example, so I'll shift to fish. An equivalent article on fish would feature these wonderful examples of separate, differently named fish:
  • Name: Snapper Eel
  • Image: ON-icon-fish-Eel.png
  • Description: A type of eel that can be found in Grahtwood.
  • Name: Swamp Eel
  • Image: ON-icon-fish-Eel.png
  • Description: A type of eel that can be found in Grahtwood.
  • Name: Sand Eel
  • Image: ON-icon-fish-Eel.png
  • Description: A type of eel that can be found in the Alik'r Desert region.
  • Name: Sand Moray
  • Image: ON-icon-fish-Eel.png
  • Description: A type of eel that can be found in the Alik'r Desert region.
  • Name: Sewer Eel
  • Image: ON-icon-fish-Eel.png
  • Description: A type of eel that can be found in Cyrodiil.
I could go on, but you get the picture. I don't see how these are useful, separate sections in the bestiary. And that is part of the reason I took issue with the Guar page, because I was shot down when I previously tried to suggest changes to fish, with many of the same arguments coming up. Jeancey (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Without taking sides or intending comment in any other way, I think a good example of what Jeancey is suggesting already exists in Skyrim space, thanks to the efforts of one or two editors several years ago. For example, Draugr, which used to be several articles and were then combined into one overarching article with separate sections where needed, but combined info where appropriate. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
It already exists in lorespace and began six years ago. The effort tailed off after a while but many pages already exist, mainly in prose form like Bears, or Minotaur which is a good example of one way to go. Other articles like Cat, Dog, and Guar are not part of that effort and therefore have a different layout. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

() I think all most images of the breed are valid, its the problem of how to display them without making the page itself unreadable or jarring. Personally, I find large chunks of gallery-style images in the middle of a lore page very unsightly (and I have small images turned on in my settings). A solution is to list the Breeds (which are largely valid) as bullets/Linkable Entries and then include a massive gallery at the bottom of the page. See a sandbox I made quickly: User:Jimeee/Sandbox8.

This solution may also work for the above Eels example with some tweaking, but there are less lore details (other than habitat) in the eel variants compared to Guars. Yes, in some cases the gallery will be massive, but that's a trade-off for keeping all images and making the article itself flow better.
I think there is value in having lists from a "documenting the lore point-of-view". What I wouldn't like to see is lists replaced with a paragraphs of text outlining all the variants in prose.
As for Lore:Dwemer Animunculi, that page is getting too unwieldy and I would support splitting it up so that it serves as an overview page with only 1 image of a spider for context - then the main Spider page would have every remaining image of spiders from all games--Jimeee (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
No lore information should be kept from lorespace if it is lore. However, too many images can be a thing, too, but having a visualisation from several games is a good thing. I agree that the umbrella pages are a good thing, and only the "basic" form of it (guar/wolf/bear/eel) should be listed in the bestiary. My idea is to put a "variants" section at the bottom (just like Lore:Guar's Breed section), so that people who are interested in the variants/breeds/whatever can read up on them. If, like the eels, there are no separate images or lore blurbs for them, it should just be a list; for guars there wouldn't be much change except for the section be moved down. Common occurances (such as guars used as pack beasts) should be included in the main text, too, but not every speciality of each subbreed.
Regarding the Dwemer Animunculy, I actually feel this page is a little different from out standard creature umbrella page, as the variants differ more greatly from each other than the different guars. The existance and the effect of known chroma colors should also be noted, although a single example image is sufficient. I guess everyone can imagine "green", and given an example of style, imagining "centurion with green lights" shouldn't be too hard. Otherwise, the page does feel too cluttered with images, especially if the variants are showcased here before they are properly introduced in the next paragraphs. The variant images should always show the respective variant as basic as possible (this also applies to general creature umbrellas) -- SarthesArai Talk 15:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Online: Handling Sub-Race information in NPC Summary Template[edit]

With the release of Elsweyr, and the first time having a lot of NPCs being not just Khajiit as a whole, but actually breeds of Khajiit, we need to allow putting this information into the Template:Online_NPC_Summary.

Regarding the Template:

I am against using the present race parameter for specifying the breeds (like Alfiq, Senche, ...) — as it was done with the Naga in Online-Space so far. It adds confusion for the reader. Naga are just another shape of Argonians. As much as Alfiq are just another shape of Khajiit. Following the existing pattern, all Khajiit templates would need to be renamed to race=Suthay-raht. This especially gets problematic for Khajiit we do not know what sub-race they actually are.

Also, we want to be as precise and specific as we can in the summaries. That is why I propose to add a new optional parameter to the template: subrace With this all present pages can remain as they are and slowly be reworked. Also keep just "Khajiit" if we are not sure what their sub-race is. But we also allow to make visible that Alfiq, Pahmar-raht, Naga, ... are all just sub-species of Khajiit, or Argonians.

Regarding the Categories:

The Khajiit or Argonian NPC categories must be edited so they include all the possible Sub-Race Categories. This also allows to find all Khajiit or Argonians, regardless what breed they are each. But also still allows filter by their sub-races categories.

Skotharr-do (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, and being optional, it should be easy to implement and shouldn't break anything. --Enodoc (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
TBH, I'm not sure what the difference, in terms of usage and result, this would be to just using Alfiq as the race and then putting the Alfiq race categories nested in the Khajiit ones.... Functionally, it would appear the same, but there wouldn't be issues with people edit warring because they really think this NPC is a Cathay, while someone else is positive it is a Cathay-raht. Or someone just going and editing all the existing Khajiit NPCs that were around before Elsweyr and adding a subrace for all of them, even though it's never explicitly stated for those specific NPCs (since they all look the same, but we've gotten mixed signals on what is what). And if someone DOES do that, there really isn't cause to reverse it, but it just adds another layer of categorization to those NPCs that I'm not sure is useful...
If we just use Alfiq as the race, or Naga as the race, we'll end up with those NPCs which are explicitly different (Alfiq and Pahmar-raht, for example, are unmistakeable) in a Category, and that category in the Khajiit overall category (or the Argonian category for the Naga). Yes the infobox will just says Alfiq, but I think saying Khajiit (Alfiq) might just confuse people. The infobox is just supposed to be an overview after all.
The furstock differences is much more of a lore issue, as from a gameplay perspective, they are clearly different races in game, much in the same way we have NPCs with the Elder race in Skyrim listed as Elder in the infobox, NOT as Nord (Elder) or Elder (Nord) or anything, even when in lore it is explicitly clear for most of those NPCs what their actual race is. This is much the same situation where we have visually distinct NPCs where in Lore they are technically the same. I think we should be displaying the gameplay race, rather than the lore race and gameplay race as subrace. Jeancey (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense too. Although from a gameplay perspective, there appears to be no technical difference between an NPC, a Creature, and a Talking Activator, so perhaps we need to revisit that discussion too. --Enodoc (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There are SOME differences, in that NPCs all seem to have a gender defined in the Lang file, while not all Creatures do (though some do have a gender listed there). I think the Creature distinction is really just a holdover from older games, and as a way to change the infobox from displaying Race and requiring a Gender to displaying Species and not displaying the gender (since forcing gender on rat seemed a bit arbitrary). So those are really just wiki considerations that I don't think have been brought up in a long time. Jeancey (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Minor Update to 'About Us' and Refinement of Our 'Mission'[edit]

On the Main page, we state that we are building a "collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series of games". Similar messages appear elsewhere. I contend that this is inaccurate and should be updated. In fact, we already strive to document the Elder Scrolls entertainment series/franchise/media empire in multitude forms. (There is not an excellent term for this!) We encapsulate knowledge of the video games, novels, a comic book, companion documents, blog posts, and even some fan-conducted interviews and forum posts.

Since it is already our practice, I believe we should formalize it and declare it clearly. We strive to document knowledge related to all things TES, and should say so! --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a straightforward and logical change. It's probably best to call it "the Elder Scrolls franchise", which encompasses almost everything that would make sense to document on the wiki. --Ilaro (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The term "franchise" is the best way to describe it. --Jimeee (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
With this attitude it could be justified that we document also Skyrim Monopoly and recent The Elder Scrolls Call to Arms. While I appreciate this change one could argue that this is actually a great change of direction.Phoenix Neko (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I am actually of the opinion that documenting both of those would be a great addition to the site. We also lists the novels, the cookbook, mobile games, etc. Why stop at board and tabletop games? The only limiting factor would be people willing to document them, but that's not a reason to be against their possible inclusion.--Ilaro (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ilaro. We currently document more than just the video games. We either document all things TES or only a subset, but in either case, our messaging and policies on the matter should be clear. Thus, an update is in order! I certainly believe we should choose the "All Things TES" side. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
We are the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages, and not the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Video Games Pages! -- SarthesArai Talk 14:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
"Franchise" would work; if anyone would rather use a different word, "universe" is also commonly used in this context. --Enodoc (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

() That line has bugged me for a while too. My understanding is that "Elder Scrolls universe" would mainly refer to lore and not so much things like game stats or the Monopoly game that don't contribute anything to our understanding of Tamriel/Nirn/etc. Franchise should cover every little detail of anything TES-related.

Lost, if you know which pages you saw besides the main page that limit our scope to the games, it would help to post them here so the admin who edits the main page can fix them all at once. I assume they're all either in the UESPWiki or Help namespaces?

And yes, we should definitely cover these other forms of TES content like the board games. I don't think there was ever opposition to that, just lack of motivation. —Dillonn241 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

After a brief search, I found the following:
  • Main - calls it out as a series of games
  • UESPWiki:About - specifies that we serve as game guides, which is slightly narrower than our full focus
  • General:The Elder Scrolls - says the series is specifically roleplaying games
In checking this, I realize 'series' is used frequently, including in interviews, and would serve just as well as 'franchise'. TES is a series or franchise, the numbered entries are the 'main series', Travels is a spinoff series, etc. Are there any objections to "UESP covers all things TES, and our statements should accurately reflect that mission."? --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The definition goes more and more blurry. "all things TES" would also imply TES-related forum roleplay posts or unofficial developers lore which is also strictly TES-related but for many years have been out of UESP's scope. And we are the Unofficial Official Elder Scrolls Pages. I'm slightly sarcastic here, but only slightly. Phoenix Neko (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
"The entire Elder Scrolls franchise," then. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
So is everyone fine with the following change? "We have been building a collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series since 1995, and we could use your help!"--Ilaro (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Aye --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

() If we're changing stuff around, change where it says "All Elder Scrolls Games" under the logo to "All Elder Scrolls Content" or just "All Content", which is what that linked page is named anyway. I thought I remembered asking about that being changed years ago anyway since that was what the page was called, but it never was, and with this discussion, it's more worthwhile now than years ago to do it. -damon  talkcontribs 03:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Since there's already agreement in principle on the changes, I'll give it roughly 24 hours and unless there's any objections, I'll go ahead and make Ilaro's and Damon's suggested changes. If we feel the need to add "franchise" or similar wording, that's certainly easy enough to do once we're sure of what wording to add. In the meantime, Ilaro's suggestion neatly bypasses the need to find specific wording at all. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
And done. General:The Elder Scrolls could probably use a second set of eyes, though, as the changes to that were a bit more substantial in order to make the wording flow correctly while still being accurate. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Labeling Pre-Elsweyr Khajiit as Cathay (ESO)[edit]

All Khajiit prior to the Elsweyr chapter used the player model, which is of the Cathay furstock, which was confirmed in the Reddit aua by the loremaster, Leamon Tuttle, as seen here. https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/bwdb0r/welcome_to_the_elsweyr_update_22_aua/epwryi1/?context=3

I have spoken to Lurlock and he has told me that for this change, we need to make a consensus on the matter. My proposal is that we should start labeling Khajiit of the cathay furstock as cathay instead of just Khajiit, thus this would require all the Khajiit prior to Elsweyr to be labeled as Cathay. Khajiit is a term used to describe all the furstocks, such as Alfiqs and Senches, and isn't a term exclusive to Cathay, and this is why I encourage you all to support this change. Zebendal (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I support labeling them as "Cathay", but we should not remove the word "Khajiit". That is the most commonly used word to describe them, and it should definitely not be removed. Something like "Khajiit (Cathay)" might be a good compromise. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a fair compromise, as Cathay are the furstock that people are most likely to think of when they think of the word Khajiit.Zebendal (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This brings me back to the discussion earlier on how to handle the many Khajiit furstocks in general that now are present in the game spaces. See Online: Handling Sub-Race information in NPC Summary Template. Though this time it's not just about the template, but it would probably affect it. As I understood from the previous topic, the NPC Summary Templates seems meant to provide technical rather than lore information. Khajiit would need to stay there for the now Cathay, as the game itself labels them only Khajiit. But in the article's body text it always should be written like "Alfiq Khajiit" or "Cathay Khajiit" etc, so those can also be separately linked to their respective sites, and we maintain flexibility for each furstock. Skotharr-do (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we can have a Furstock type added to the NPC summary, similar to the condition type used for vampires and other such statuses only in this case it would be a section specific to the Furstock. That way we can preserve both the race as Khajiit and have the specific Furstock listed. Enderkingdev (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with "Khajiit (Cathay)" designation. Although when there is no solid way to find out most NPCs furstock then where is the value of designating them arbitrary? Phoenix Neko (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as designation goes, non raht furstocks are the default if we are unable to tell the difference, as far as Enodoc and others in the discord server said. This is helpful as we know already how the furstocks look like, (Dagi looking like tiny humanoid lynxes, Alfiq looking like cats) but the raht varieties which in lore are bigger, are not presented as bigger ingame, and are visually indistinguishable, and as a result we can only tell if they are a raht variety if they themselves mention it.Zebendal (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally I feel the furstock page and their raht variants should be combined into one. Eg, Pahmar and Pahmar-raht should be merged with the latter redirecting to Pahmar.--Talyyn (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

() Like Skotharr-do, I really feel this is just rehashing the arguments about changing the template. Adding this information retroactively provides zero additional information to those pages that wasn't already true. Busywork for the sake of Busywork. I think a better solution would just to add to the Online:Khajiit article (which all these pages link to) to make it clear that NPCs labeled as Khajiit are Cathay. I don't see a real use in listing (Cathay) on 1,736 pages. In ESO, being labeled simply as Khajiit makes you a Cathay. Adding Cathay to every page would be like if you are in New York City and referring to "People living in the city" in a bunch of documentation, and then needing to change all wording to specify "New Yorkers living in the city". Like what is the point? Technically, yes, it's true, people living in NYC can be described as New Yorkers living in NYC, but it's just not helpful in anyway. I feel like this just distracts us from adding real, useful information to the Online pages that need it. And given how many Online pages need work, doing this would be actively detrimental to the wiki. Jeancey (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Linkable Entry/LE Merge[edit]

There was some recent controversy about whether to have templates at their most-used name for performance gain (often an abbreviation) or at a full name for self-documentation with the abbreviation a redirect (status quo). I believe Linkable Entry/LE would benefit the most from the performance gain because it's usually used a lot on the same page. It's worth noting that both names are commonly used throughout the wiki, Linkable Entry about 2x as often.

I propose renaming {{Linkable Entry}} to Anchor and having no shortcut template since it's short enough already. This provides a compromise to the controversy above—performance boost on pages using LE, while maintaining a short and self-documenting name, shorter on average in fact—is consistent with Wikipedia, avoids the common usage of two names for one template, and the name seems to me more appropriate than Linkable Entry for what it's doing (creating an anchor for internal links). —Dillonn241 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good descriptive name. —Legoless (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
No opposition, so I went ahead and implemented this change. I left the redirects for now, mainly because it would be a lot of work to fix the talk pages. Try to avoid both LE and Linkable Entry from now on though. —Dillonn241 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for a new namespace regarding Daggerfall Unity[edit]

Dear all,

for more visibility I post our proposal here as well, as there was no response in the forums.

Some of you may have heard of Daggerfall Unity, a recreation of Daggerfall on basis of the original assets in the Unity Engine. It got after the recent Alpha-Release some media coverage and could seriously be a revival for The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, which would be (of course) amazing.

The DFUnity Community, which is more or less the current international Daggerfall Community, plans on writing a DFUnity documentation regarding mechanics, differences, gameplay information, functionality and others. Actually it's supposed to be a wiki, where everyone can contribute and we can do a lot of interwiki-linking. For that we thought it may be possible to record these information in a separate namespace at uesp.net. You did that for Tamriel Rebuilt and we were wondering if that would be also an option in our case.

As stated already we think this would give both sides some serious advantage - we can build up on all these Daggerfall information (location, game mechanics, walkthroughs...) already gathered here and UESP may get some new visitors/editors for Daggerfall content and will be kind of an official information hub for future Daggerfall player. Of course there has to be a structure fleshed out in beforehand and we have to take care of the disadvantage, that people may add DFUnity Information on classic Daggerfall pages, but this problem could arise anyway, namely if the popularity of Daggerfall grows, and less people will (sadly, to be honest) go for classic.

Please feel free to discuss and also give input if there is something unclear, respectively if you see other problems arise with DFUnity on UESP which should be eliminated before a final decision. We are very open to discuss anything. :) --Deepfighter (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What are the major differences between DFUnity and the original game? Are there significant gameplay changes? Jeancey (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sadly the forums are relative inactive nowadays, a common trend on the internet. Seems other more fast-paced social media channels appeal more to the larger public. Anyway, I do like the proposal. As you already said, we already host namespaces for many other mod projects (Tes3Mod:Tamriel Rebuilt, Tes3Mod:Project Tamriel, Tes4Mod:Stirk, or Tes5Mod:Beyond Skyrim for example). So it being unofficial should not be an issue. However, I do voice the same concerns as Jeancey, how does it differ from the original Daggerfall except for the new engine? On the other hand, it's also possible to host pages on how to make mods for DFUnity or how to import new 3D models etc. It all depends on how many editors would like to work on it.
DFUnity at least gave a small influx of new editors working on the Daggerfall namespace as there is still a lot missing for that game on the wiki and all help is appreciated. --Ilaro (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your first (positive) responses. Regarding your questions - Daggerfall Unity implements Classic Daggerfall and one of Interkarmas primary goals is to stay as classic as possible, but there are some noticeable QoL enhancements. Despite the possibility of an extended modding community, which is currently already very active, Daggerfall Unity adds a lot of things which were missing or planned and didn't find their way into Classic. A not complete - but still comprehensive - list of some changes between DFU and Classic can be found here. It fixes out of the box a lot of bugs, where in classic DFQFIX is needed. Some items like torches and lanterns are usable, there are even fight mechanics planned, which come more closely to TES 3 upwards.
There are small details, which probably only player will notice, who played Classic Daggerfall before. For example are some exploits - like the racial ones during character creation - not possible anymore. If you are looking for a location and forgot the complete name, you get suggestions by typing the location name partly. On the other hand, the locations and the structure of the game are the same as far as reverse engineering made it possible. To sum it up, I think there are some QoL features/changes - and more to come - which keep the spirit of Classic and which may also justify a separate area for DFUnity. There is a need for documentation of these things.--Deepfighter (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree, I'm just trying to figure out if there are a small enough number of changes that they'd be covered by a single page. Is there a reason these changes would need more than one page? They don't seem to fundamentally changed any aspects of the game and aren't complicated enough to need more than a few sentences of explanation. Could we get away with a page in the DF namespace itself? Jeancey (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
A page at Daggerfall:Daggerfall Unity already exists. Would creating subpages in DFspace not suffice? —Legoless (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Technically, as a fan-made entity, that page shouldn't be in DFspace at all. As an engine rebuild, it sounds most similar to Tes3Mod:OpenMW. We currently don't have Tes2Mod, but that is where this sort of thing would belong. If Daggerfall modding is entirely based on DFUnity, and there is no other way to mod Daggerfall, then calling the namespace DFUnity would probably be fine. Otherwise, and for consistency, Tes2Mod would make most sense. --Enodoc (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

() Depending on the scope and popularity of DFUNity, we could treat it like the unofficial patches and add information to the relevant pages in a notes section. No big overhaul is needed and duplicate pages will be kept to a minimum. Then any modding for DFUnity can be moved to Tes2Mod (for consistency with the other namespaces). --Ilaro (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A general overview page for changes DFUnity makes seems fine. We do list changes made by the so-called "unofficial patches" in the gamespace articles directly; I think we could do the same for DFUnity. Technical information can find its home on a DFU or TES2mod namespace. There are, however, already "mods" for original Daggerfall (currently also hosted directly on DFspace, so maybe DFU or DFUmod would serve to separate one from the other, as they likely aren't compatible. -- SarthesArai Talk 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for discussing this so openly with us and take it in consideration. :) Secondly, we are very thankful in any way and are basically open for both ways (subpages or namespaces DFUnity/Tes2Mod:DFUnity). The basic documentation structure will be probably the same, anyway. Personally, I would go with Enodoc and would make a strict separation between both. There are not much mods for Classic Daggerfall (Eye of Argonia, Hackfall, Andyfall to name the most common), as the hacking is quite difficult. This changes with DFUnity, as it is easily accessible also for non-techies and there exist at this early stage already a lot of modifications, which may grow in numbers even more in the future.
As said, we would be already very grateful for the possibility alone to use UESP for our documentation idea. For us it's important to get the info visible and in a convenient location, which UESP obviously provides in its entirety. Besides, the best compromise would be after my opinion to handle it with TES2mod namespace and move the Daggerfall Unity page there, as well as create subpages under Tes2Mod:Daggerfall Unity. At the same time we can move all the other Daggerfall Mod pages ( e.g. Andyfall or DaggerXL) into the same Tes2Mod namespace. That would make it consistent with the structure UESP approaches right now with the other titles. If and how we add all the changes of DFUnity onto the respective Classic Daggerfall pages depends probably on the information. I think we may have to look closely where it makes sense on a case-by-case basis, e.g. for spells which were left out in Classic but added back in DFUnity. We will probably start with general pages, installation, configuring settings, adding and creating mods...and then we may will see how it evolves around that. :)--Deepfighter (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Is it finally time to create a modspace for Daggerfall. I've been suggesting this for the last couple of years with no interest so please do it now. While that's being done a modspace for Arena can be created and those namespaces can finally start to separate documented mods from the base game. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

() Since some time went by I wanted to ask if you could already internally decide which way to go and if not when we may can expect an answer or implementation? :) We don't want to push you, but neither want that this topic falls behind, as we are quite motivated right now and already thinking about how to also improve the Daggerfall pages next to it. Of course, if you need more information from our side for clarification purposes don't hesitate to ask.--Deepfighter (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the creation of a Tes2Mod namespace provided all other modded content is moved over as well (Daggerfall:AndyFall, Daggerfall:Daedrafall, Daggerfall:DaggerXL, Daggerfall:DFQFIX, etc). Redirects from the Daggerfall namespace should also be maintained in the event of such a move, due to the sheer age of those pages. —Legoless (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If there are no objections it will soon be time to ask Dave to create Daggerfall's modspace. I'll also keep pushing for Arena's modspace as it needs it too. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 03:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not opposing your position here, but what is the argument for an Arena modspace? --AKB Talk Cont Mail 04:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably, OpenTESArena :)--Deepfighter (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Modspace is used to document the more technical parts of the games. Arena needs this just as much as every other game. Plus there are mods out there for Arena, including bug fixers, though nowhere near as many mods as other games. This information isn't currently documented but having the namespaces available will provide encouragement to start. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 13:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
So, is there consensus to create Tes1Mod and Tes2Mod spaces, with DFUnity as a pseudo-namespace like Tamriel Rebuilt? I would also add shortcuts of T1, T2, and DFU, unless there's a reason to use something else that I'm not thinking of. Does that sound good? I want to be sure before I do anything, cuz namespaces are fairly permanent in nature. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

() I see no reason not to proceed with that. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, the new namespaces now exist, albeit with absolutely no content. I've also entered the namespace info into MediaWiki:Uespnamespacelist and created a template for Daggerfall Unity, so all of the following should be red links, but at least linking to the right places:
I'll do the search forms tomorrow whenever I have the time (edit: done!), but everything apart from that should work now. Let me know if you spot anything else I missed. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! :) As a starting point I moved the current Daggerfall Unity page from the Daggerfall namespace to the new Tes2Mod:Daggerfall Unity. --Deepfighter (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Lore Transclusions in Gamespace[edit]

In the early days, there was the (at the time quite logical) idea to have the intro of location articles in gamespaces be transcluded from the lore page. Some examples: Morrowind:Seyda Neen and Oblivion:Cheydinhal. During Skyrim, this went out of practice for good reasons. Lore pages nowadays can include a lot of information that has nothing to do with the game itself, mostly because they can appear in several different games. It also has the problem that someone that would like to change the location intro would need to go to the lore page instead of just editing the page itself. Besides this being a barrier for more casual editors, it also has the problem that being an intro for a game location is not the purpose of the lore page. Lore pages should include lore information, while game pages should include game information (and both should include a link to the other).

I propose that we should remove transclusions of lore articles that can be found in gamespaces.

This is an immense task and just removing them would leave a lot of pages without intro. So I suggest that all the texts that are now transcluded stay and replace the tranclusions themselves (which probably can be done by bot). This way, the gamespaces are freed from the chains of lore and can be edited from their own pages again. Support? Better ideas? Or thinking its just plain stupid? Please chime in. --Ilaro (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2019 (GMT)

I've been removing lore transclusions on an ad hoc basis for what seems like forever based on the above reasoning. It has proven a particular problem with Lore Place page transclusions as these articles grow to encompass more information and future game appearances. The fact of the matter is that TES lore is moving beyond the older games; for example, it is no longer appropriate to transclude modern lore pages into Daggerfall articles, since it does not reflect that game's setting. Where appropriate, I propose that older articles have the transclusions removed and replaced with an older version of the text from a more appropriate date in time to remove any modern info.
I do have a few reservations about removing transclusions wholesale, however. For instance, it should not be done for books and notes, which already have a system set up to take account of textual differences between games. A careful examination of where transclusions are used in what gamespaces needs to be carried out before we decide to simply remove them all as policy, since there could be some valid uses outside of Place and Race pages that I'm just not thinking of. —Legoless (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2019 (GMT)
You are definitely right that not all of them should be removed. Books are a great example of legitimate use. We might also just restrict them to race and place pages if that's the preferable option. --Ilaro (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2019 (GMT)
We can make a huge dent in this by starting with the Morrowind Region template. {{Morrowind Region}} currently has the transclusion of the lore page built into the template. This means that if someone sees something they want to change on, say, Morrowind:Ashlands, for example, they click Edit on the page and they won't see any of the text, and they won't even see {{Lore:Ashlands}} that would point them to the right page and new users could easily get confused. I think disconnecting these transclusions from that template would go a long way toward solving the most complicated transclusion situation we have. Jeancey (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2019 (GMT)
The Morrowind Region template is easy and small enough in scope that I'm just going to go ahead and do it, and if we figure out later that there's some kind of issue, we can always revert. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2019 (GMT)
(edit conflict × 3) I'm fully in support of this idea, and I think breaking it down by category would be the way to do it. So Morrowind Regions first for example, and then moving on from there. In most places we want to do this, I think it can probably be botted just by having the bot add subst: at the start of the template. If we want to be copying over old versions of pages, it may still be easier to just break the transclusion first and replace with older text after if necessary.
For Morrowind Regions specifically, there are only nine, so we would just need someone to go through and change {{Morrowind Region|...|addbelow=(content)|...}} to {{Morrowind Region|...}}{{subst:Lore:{{PAGENAME}}}}(content).
I ec'd so many times trying to post this that it looks like you've already done that thing anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2019 (GMT)
I also fully support this, though I think all the pages that this is done to should get a temporary banner and/or category to ensure all the future lore is removed. —Dillonn241 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2019 (GMT)

() As a starting point, I had the bot generate a list of all transclusions to Lore space, then I filtered it down by hand to exclude things like talk pages and Lore space itself, and finally, added titles to make it easier to read. As is, the list is probably a bit hard to digest, since it includes a lot of book transclusions and citations, but there might be some ways around that; I'm just not sure of the best approach. I figured I'd publish it in its current form for people to poke at, and then once we have a better idea of what would be useful, I can have the bot come up with different lists, or at least ways of filtering the existing one. I also checked templates for any other Lore transclusions, but at least in a quick check, {{Game Book}} is the only thing that came up. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2019 (GMT)

I think the first thing that list needs is to exclude anything transcluded through {{Game Book}}. --Enodoc (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2019 (GMT)
Done. That shortened it a lot more than I thought. Note, however, that I did this using the fastest method, which is not necessarily 100% reliable. If it so happens that a {{Game Book}} page also does a manual transclusion of another Lore page, that'll be excluded from the results, since it still sees it as a Game Book page. I don't recall if we ever do that, but it's probably very rare if we do. If we need more accurate filtering, I can always load all 5000ish pages and parse them fully. Robin Hood  (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2019 (GMT)
I just did the full page loads and tweaked the job a bit, and the list as it stands now is as accurate as I can make it. It won't catch any transclusions that use variables, because the wiki itself doesn't catch those directly, but that should only be the Game Book template, which we're not concerned with. Does anyone see anything in that list that shouldn't have the Lore transclusion removed? Robin Hood  (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2019 (GMT)
If other people are fine with it, then I think all of those on the list are good to go. It would also be a good idea to add a template with a banner like this this and an automatic category so all of them can be checked one by one for quality control. There also might be a slight problem with search engine optimization (SEO) when there are several pages with the exact same text (race pages mostly) that are not from transclusions, but we probably can't really do anything about that right now. --Ilaro (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2019 (GMT)
Sounds good! The Lore:Elder Scrolls transclusion on General:The Elder Scrolls is the only one I might let stay. -- SarthesArai Talk 11:34, 7 October 2019 (GMT)

() Okay, I'm getting very close to finishing the bot job, so I'll probably begin the run tomorrow. While you're all waiting, this is the approach I've taken. Please let me know if you spot any flaws or have any concerns:

Game Space: Transclude the appropriate Lore page(s), respecting the various inclusion tags. Within that text only, alter the following:

  • {{FMI}}: Remove the nolore parameter, if there is one, and make it either a plain template if the Lore page name and Game page name match, or add the Lore page name as the first parameter.
  • {{Lore Link}}: If a link can be found in the same or parent namespace, convert the Lore Link to a regular link (or bold text if the link resolves to the current page and the page isn't transcluded anywhere). If no link is found, convert the Lore Link to a Future Link with the appropriate parameters for the namespace.
  • {{Nst}}, {{Tense}}, {{#ifeq:...}}: Resolve to the appropriate text.
  • {{Ref}}: Remove all.

Lore Space: Load the full text of the page and then apply the following template changes to the entire page.

  • {{FMI}}: If the page isn't transcluded anywhere, or if it has a "nolore" parameter (meaning all remaining transclusions of it would be suppressed anyway), remove the entire template.
  • {{Lore Link}}, {{Nst}}, {{Tense}}, {{#ifeq:...}}: As above.
  • {{Ref}}: Leave intact.

In all cases, the {{Old Lore Transclusion}} template will be added near the top (the bot tries to be at least a bit intelligent about exactly where), and if the page is no longer transcluded anywhere, all include tags (and the appropriate text) will be removed everywhere on the page. In practice, this is very rare on Lore pages because saved variables create pseudo-transclusions that the bot can't distinguish from real ones; it's more common on gamespace pages. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2019 (GMT)

Bot job is long since done, and Jeancey's already hard at work making sure the new bot never gets ahead of his edit count. :) Pages that still need checked can be found here. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2019 (GMT)

I have a question about userspaces.[edit]

I am from the NIWA, which is a series of Nintendo related series of Wikis. There they allow YouTube videos and personal images there. Since I'm new here, I'm not sure if that is allowed here. White Lightning (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2019 (GMT)

We have no policies against personal images, and a few users have uploaded them over the years, though they really haven't caught on much. I don't believe you can embed YouTube videos in any way, but I don't think there's anything that'll prevent you from linking to one. Being a new user, you'll likely have to fight our spam prevention filters a little, but I just looked, and it should still allow the link to go through after warning you. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (GMT)