UESPWiki talk:Namespace Move Project

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

Starting Date[edit]

Should a starting date be decided for the project? It's all pretty well planned out and the large majority of UESP seems to be favour of it. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 15:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

The date is fixed at: Some Time After Daveh Creates the Lore Namespace And The Bots Are Ready (GMT) :) The important bit is the namespace or we end up in a horrible mess like with Daggerfall:Hints. –RpehTCE 16:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes, of course, has he been told of the project? And should an administrator do it? - Game LordTalk|Contribs 16:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Already done. Ratwar's on the case! –RpehTCE 16:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Categories Done[edit]

I've just copied the Tamriel categories system over to Lore in preparation. I made a few changes for consistancy regarding the hyphenation, so whoever runs the bots that do all the moving should keep these in mind:

Anyhow, the setup is all there (I was surprised how few categories there actually are in Tamriel). Of course, they're all empty, and contain red-links to non-existent articles, but this is a first step. (Notably, we'll have to create a Lore:Tamriel page, as distinct from the Lore:Main Page page, but we already knew that.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 16:41, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Except that I'd already written all of the bot code to do that automatically ... plus fixing all the links at the same time :| So now I'll just have to go and revamp that code to just fix all the links. Basically, it's safe to assume with this project that anything that can be automated is going to be done by bot. If in doubt, perhaps ask first whether it's already set up to be done by bot? --NepheleTalk 17:44, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, at the time, that was listed under the first section, labeled as "Manual", so I just assumed that was the plan. Oh well, there's bound to be all kinds of little quirks like this doing something as major as moving a whole namespace. Sorry for the confusion, I'll just let you handle everything until told otherwise then. --TheRealLurlock Talk 19:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Two Main Pages, huh?[edit]

I am referring to this discussion, which seems to have been archived by accident. It is about renaming the start pages for each namespace (e.g. Oblivion:Oblivion) to Namespace:Main Page. Currently that seems to have been put on hold, but with the move from the Tamriel to the Lore namespace I noticed the start page for Lore was Lore:Main Page. I want to argue again that I don't think having multiple Main Pages is a good idea. --Timenn < talk > 05:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry that your views got ignored. For myself, it wasn't intentional and I'd simply forgotten that the post was there. When this article got created all discussion was centred here instead and it just drifted out of my mind.
I think there are arguments on both sides. The main reason I would prefer to use Main Page (other suggestions like Contents would work too) is that it then leaves room for articles such as Lore:Lore - which should eventually become a definition and guidance page, Oblivion:Oblivion - which I think would be a better title for Oblivion:Planes of Oblivion but is obviously impossible at the moment, and so on.
Your point about each replacement meaning different things is the strongest counterargument for me. You're right that we'd have articles with the same style being about the world, a building, a race, a phenomenon, a pantheon, a province, two planes of existence and a concept (plus Daggerfall - not sure what would be on there). On the other hand I think once people got used to the new system, it wouldn't appear odd that Oblivion:Oblivion and Redguard:Redguard are about different things.
Whatever the answer, I'd prefer not to have two different styles for longer than necessary. –RpehTCE 06:43, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Renaming to Namespace:Content is better than Namespace:Main Page. Maybe it's just me, but I feel very strongly that having more Main Pages is weird and deviates from the idea that this is one site, and not a collection of different ones.
As for identical names. Lore:Lore would fit very well, it just needs a little tweaking in the description. Take Oblivion:Oblivion, the page starts with explaining what the game named Oblivion is. Next follow its contents. In this case Oblivion, the game, is the highest in the hierarchy you can go for Oblivion-related material. The same will be the case for Lore:Lore. The first page will describe what categories of facts there are about Lore, and will help the reader explore The Elder Scrolls Lore. Having two seperate pages (one displaying just the contents, the other describing what Lore is) will just lead to confusion.
I'm wondering if renaming all these pages is really worth the major impact it will have on the site. How often do we get complaints from readers that they had trouble finding the page about the Planes of Oblivion for example? --Timenn < talk > 10:00, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Moving Forward[edit]

So far there have been no arguments in favour of keeping Main Page for the Lore space. If there is no objection, one week from now I'll have RoBoT move it to Lore:Contents. That should satisfy everybody. –RpehTCE 17:13, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I said one week but given nobody has said anything I'm a bit reluctant to go ahead. Is there any admin, patroller or user anywhere that has an opinion about this? –RpehTCE 15:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh! I simply assumed you just wanted objections here. I like Lore:Contents. To drift off into the more general topic a bit, I also prefer (for example) Oblivion:Contents over Oblivion:Oblivion or Oblivion:Main Page. --GuildKnightTalk2me 17:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh dear. I really thought I replied to this one, but that's apparently not the case.
I'm OK with the renaming to Lore:Contents. The renaming of the other namespaces articles is worth some more debate though. I can imagine that "Lore" feels less like an object that needs an article than e.g. Oblivion. In the latter case, you can actually talk about the object "Oblivion the game", whereas that's not possible with Lore. --Timenn < talk > 08:35, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
As far as Lore:Main Page becoming Lore:Contents, I don't have any objections. The page almost looks like a table of contents anyway.
As for moving the others; I think that moving Oblivion:Oblivion to Oblivion:Contents would be a good idea. It makes the page sound more like a Main Page for one of the wiki's sections. It also makes space for Oblivion:Oblivion to possibly be put to other uses. My idea would be to make it a page similar to Lore:Oblivion, i.e. about the Daedric Realm. Information about Oblivion as a game I think should go on a seperate page, which is linked to from Oblivion:Contents. Maybe Oblivion:Oblivion_(game)? Or something similar.
This also holds true for Morrowind and possibly Shivering Isles. They are both game names, and place names.
As for adding a NAMESPACE:Contents for the other games. Well, simply for consistency I think we should. Once we have Lore:Contents, Oblivion:Contents, and possibly also Morrowind:Contents and Shivering:Contents. It would make sense to have the same for the other games. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 08:50, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Think of the great deal of effort that would go into this, is it really worth it? People are used now to the current setup, and while I agree with Nephele's earlier argument that people can eventually learn a new setup, it's a question of how useful the article names that will come free are. For example, do we really need to emphasize on the Morrowind article in the Morrowind namespace. Will it not be a minor extension of the Lore article? Oblivion is perhaps the namespace that would benefit most of the name change, as Oblivion, the realm, takes up a main part of the game. But filling that with a general description would expand little on the current Lore article. Planes of Oblivion is the actual name if you enter the Oblivion Worlds, and we do have made a habit of naming interiors and worldspaces after their full in-game name. --Timenn < talk > 09:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Tamriel Deletion[edit]

As originally stated on the project page:

  • "Six months after completion of #Updating Links, bots add a disclaimer to all Tamriel namespace redirects about eventual deletion of Tamriel namespace, changing them to manual redirects"
  • "Around the middle of ’09, all Tamriel namespace articles proposed for deletion by bot".

We're coming up to six months from the big more (doesn't time fly!) but since then there has been some debate as to what should happen to old redirects.

My opinion is that we should still kill the old Tamriel namespace. If there are no objections, I'll have RoBoT add the following disclaimer on 31/1/2009:

This page has been deprecated by the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages.

It will be present for a further six months to provide a link to its replacement page, which is (url)

After this time, the page will be deleted.

That would go above the existing link, so people would have two ways of finding out the new location of the page.

If anybody disagrees, please tell me now... and a statement as to why there has been no disagreement in the last 5.5 months would be good too. –RpehTCE 15:29, 11 January 2009 (EST)