User talk:Jeancey/Dobre

Archives
Az	Buche	Vede
Glagole	Dobre	Iest
Jivete	Dzealo	Zemle
Ije	Caco

Gamespace links on Lore pagesEdit

Hey Jeancey, in this edit of Lore:Tel Fyr, you've changed the links to Morrowind:Molag Mar and Morrowind:Corprusarium to {{Lore Link}}s. Now, in Lorespace, they don't appear as links at all anymore - that's the reason why I left them as Morrowind links in my edit before. The guidelines say that "links to other namespaces are generally inappropriate if a lore article covers the topic or will soon cover the topic". It does not appear as if Molag Mar or the Corprusarium will get their own Lore articles soon (if at all), so I think that leaving the links to the respective articles in the gamespace is a better choice than having no links at all. There are many links to gamespace articles on Lore pages (for example, there's Morrowind:Guild Guide on Lore:House Telvanni or Morrowind:Severa Magia on Lore:Dark Brotherhood), and I think it's good to have these links, even though they lead away from the Lore namespace. What do you think? :) (And I hope I didn't miss any related discussions...) --Holomay (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2013 (GMT)

The general rule we follow in practice is that there should not be any game links in the prose part of lore articles at all. The rules should probably be changed to reflect currently practice. This is mainly because game content isn't supposed to really make its way into lorespace. If something is notable enough to have a link in lorespace, then it should have a page in lorespace, otherwise, it should have a link at all. If we don't do it this way, we will get all sorts of links that have no business being there, like links to specific taverns or specific people. The gamespace pages would provide no additional lore worthy information, so they shouldn't be linked to. That all make sense? I kinda rambled there for a bit. Jeancey (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2013 (GMT)

Makes sense - as long as you meant to say "...it should have a page in lorespace, otherwise, it shouldn't have a link at all." ;) I believe it's hard to find a rock-solid rule about things being notable enough for Lorespace - it's rather a case-to-case matter. So I hope you don't mind if I have a closer look at Lore:Tel Fyr: Right now, the Corprusarium is mentioned, and the article includes thoughts about its meaning for the society of Morrowind and about the intentions of Divayth Fyr - but basic information such as "...a series of caverns beneath Tel Fyr." or "... victims of corprus disease are sent to the Corprusarium by the Tribunal Temple." (from Morrowind:Corprusarium) is missing. I think that at the moment the link to a gamespace article where such basic information can be found is removed, this information should be added to the prose of the Lore article. Three more examples from Lore:House Telvanni to illustrate my confusion about gamespace links in Lorespace: "He led an expedition to Oblivion:Sundercliff Watch...", "He grew up in Black Marsh under the name Skyrim:Brand-Shei." and "Skyrim:Brelyna Maryon is also a descendant of House Telvanni." What should be done with links like these?! --Holomay (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (GMT)

First of all, gamespace links are a crutch. That is the basic problem with encouraging them in the lorespace; it discourages people from making lore articles for topics which should have lore articles. For instance, we didn't have a lore article for Umaril the Unfeathered until the summer of 2012. If the lorespace had not been linking to and relying upon his Oblivion page, someone would have made an Umaril lore page a long time before that. We want to encourage the maintenance and expansion of the lore section because the results of the survey last year suggest it is a big draw for the site as a whole, and also because there were complaints that it's incomplete/inaccurate at parts. Reliance on gamespace links retards the endeavor to refine the lore section.

Links in the lorespace content sections shouldn't take the reader out of the lorespace without good reason. For example, I think this revert was entirely appropriate, as the Kyne's Peace shout in Skyrim is a game-specific tool separate from the concept, the idea, that the lore page is discussing. While I would like to cut off future edit wars and disagreements with bright-line rules, I do think there are situations are where it may make sense to have a gamespace link in lieu of a relevant link in the lorespace.

Whether to have a gamespace link is a basic question of relevance, and reasonable people can often disagree on what's relevant. But even though some editors, including myself, have been proliferating links in recent years, our Style Guide doesn't actually encourage an overabundance of linking. So keeping links compartmentalized between the namespaces helps minimize irrelevant links. The presumption is that a gamespace link is irrelevant in the lorespace, but it can be rebutted. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 18:59, 16 August 2013 (GMT)

Thanks for the further insights, ME! :) Given the long time it takes before certain Lore pages are set up, it's probably a good thing that the Lore Link template displays a non-link in Lorespace if there is no Lore page to link to. On the other hand, wouldn't it be helpful to have a list of "wanted Lore pages"? To stay with the Lore:Tel Fyr article: There are now two Lore Links (Corprusarium and Molag Mar) which are displayed as non-links by the template - meaning that they pretty much drop out of sight. Checking "What Links Here" gives no results... Would it make sense to modify the Lore Link template so that it still displays a non-link, but at the same time adds the link to a new "wanted" category that could be added to the task list? --Holomay (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2013 (GMT)

That raises an issue when we don't WANT there to be a link at all, but we do when it is transcluded to gamespace, such as with books were specific people or places are referenced that don't really need to be in lore space, Like the Guide to Cheydinhal for instance. Jeancey (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2013 (GMT)

Indeed; I think it's better that the wanted category be under-inclusive rather than over-inclusive. When someone undertakes an activity, such as creating a lore page, and they get overruled by one or more other contributors who don't think the activity is warranted, it can lead to argument and aggravation. People get "butt hurt". Thus, it's generally best to minimize the possibility that people will pursue controverted activities. The wanted pages list is helpful, especially soon after a game's release, but we want contributors to consider the subject's merit first and foremost when deciding whether to create a lore page. It's best not to encourage the mentality that "It's on the wanted list, so it must deserve a page", as this increases the chance that someone will object.

Though there are a few deserving pages which aren't red-linked under this approach, it's better than filling the wanted list with pages which aren't actually wanted. If a subject is truly deserving of a lore page, some user will inevitably take notice of the missing link(s) when that topic is mentioned and then get the ball rolling on a page. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:25, 21 August 2013 (GMT)

(←) Agreed! I haven't thought of the book texts which are unchangeable and contain too many terms that deserve links in gamespaces, but not in lorespace. I just want to point out that my idea was not to add the "invisible" Lore Links to the regular WantedPages, but to a new, special category which I thought could be linked to on UESPWiki:Lore and/or UESPWiki:Task_List#Lore - and discussed before new Lore articles are created. But anyway, the many "lore-unworthy" places and NPCs mentioned in the books would indeed create too many unneeded entries...

However, I'm still mulling over the usage of gamespace links - whether in the form of actual gamespace links or hidden by the Lore Link template - in Lore articles. We've been talking about whether we want a link or not in lorespace - but isn't the more fundamental question whether we want a term to be mentioned in a Lore article? In the second paragraph of Lore:Molag Amur, there's a very detailed topographic description which contains a lot of links to Morrowind articles (Arkngthand, Falensarano, Moonmoth Legion Fort etc.). We could transform all these links to Lore Links and thus get rid of the gamespace links - but the names of the places would remain, most of them probably forever, as non-links because they are not lore-worthy enough. Now, unlike book texts, articles can be changed. So, in cases like this, isn't it better to refrain from transclusion and rewrite the Lore article so that it eventually only contains topics and links that are relevant to Lore? --Holomay (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2013 (GMT)

Hey Jeancey, I'd like to enlarge upon the thoughts of my post above by taking the example of your recent edit to Lore:Ghostgate. It would be great to have your input on this. :)

• You've removed the link to "Ordinators" entirely. Before that, it was a Morrowind gamespace link. I can see that it's now consistent to "Buoyant Armigers", which didn't have any link as well. However, this part of the Lore article is transcluded to the Morrowind namespace, and thus we have no link at all to Ordinators and Buoyant Armigers on Morrowind:Ghostgate. Wouldn't it be better to make Ordinators and Buoyant Armigers {{Lore Links}} instead, so that they both appear as gamespace links on Morrowind:Ghostgate?!
• You've changed {{Lore Link|Dagoth Ur}} to {{Lore Link|Dagoth Ur (god)|Dagoth Ur}}. Thanks for that. I meant to skip the redirect to Lore:Dagoth Ur, but I overlooked that in the Morrowind namespace, Morrowind:Dagoth Ur leads to a disambiguation page. Sorry, my bad! :)
• {{Lore Link|Daedric Shrines|Daedric shrine}} instead of Daedric shrine. Ok, there might be a Lore article on Daedric Shrines sooner or later.
• Then, you've changed Ramimilk to {{Lore Link|Ramimilk}}. I see that now the links in the article are consistent - they're all Lore Links. What I don't understand is why Ramimilk should get a link and both Ordinators and Buoyant Armigers shouldn't get one. I think it's quite unlikely that there will be a Lore article on Ramimilk; Lore articles on Ordinators and Buoyant Armigers are more likely. Also, this part of the article is not transcluded to the Morrowind namespace. Except for the tense, it's the same paragraph as the one under "Getting there and around" on Morrowind:Ghostgate, but as it's not a transclusion, it should be no problem to rewrite it on Lore:Ghostgate. As I wrote above: "isn't the more fundamental question whether we want a term to be mentioned in a Lore article?" Wouldn't it be better for the Lore article to abridge the topographical description to "...before dropping south and turning west again."? We'd still have the information that there were routes along the Ghostgate that allowed a peek into the Red Mountain region. At the same time, we'd avoid mentioning details that don't really need to be in lorespace - such as the fact that the route was "skirting the Daedric shrine of Ramimilk".

--Holomay (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2013 (GMT)

I didn't remember about the second part not being transcluded. Since that is the case, the ramimilk part can likely be removed, maybe along with other things. The ordinator thing is because the ordinator page in the morrowind namespace doesn't actually cover the concept of ordinators (which is what would be needed here), but rather the NPCs named ordinators (it is possible the page has been updated since I last saw it). Since there is no lore page for ordinators, I removed the link entirely. That was my thinking anyway. Jeancey (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2013 (GMT)

Just a Small Task…Edit

In my sandbox, I am working on Gaenor's page. While I am working on the dialogue and things, while you're here, can you quickly sort out the NPC Summary Multi thing that needs cleanup? Guard of Dragons^{Speak To Me} 07:33, 18 August 2013 (GMT)

I've taken care of it on the main article, feel free to copy/past the infoboxes from there. — ABCface^◥ 18:46, 18 August 2013 (GMT)

Why do you remove loc fields on non-relevant NPC templates?Edit

Why do you remove loc fields on non-relevant NPC templates? How is that a useful cleanup? What harm do they do? --Gez (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2013 (GMT)

Gez, the location field is still in that template, so you need to rephrase or be more specific. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 10:17, 18 August 2013 (GMT)

Actually, while the location field is in the non-relevant NPC template, it isn't actually utilized by the NPC Data template that calls it. All of the locations across the entire site are added by hand. Therefore, having the location on the non-relevant NPC pages is useless and just serves to clutter up the pages. I'm removing them as I find them so that, once they are all removed, I can remove the field from the template itself without any issues. Jeancey (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2013 (GMT)

Image uploadsEdit

Thanks for fixing my image names. I've been screwing up my uploads royally, and am now trying to fix it. I accidentally uploaded the raw images first. I'm now going through and replacing them with the correct images. I'll use the right name for the rest of them. Thanks again. --Xyzzy ^Talk 04:47, 24 August 2013 (GMT)

No worries. Everyone makes mistakes. I have no problem fixing image uploads and such. Jeancey (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2013 (GMT)

Morrowind Population (including non-relevant NPCs)Edit

How many NPCs are there in Morrowind altogether (excluding NPCs from expansion packs) — Unsigned comment by Dragon Guard (talk • contribs) at 10:25 on 31 October 2013

See here :) •WoahBro^►talk 11:17, 31 October 2013 (GMT)

OMG! 2,675 NPCs. DG^{Any Questions?} 11:39, 31 October 2013 (GMT)

I had no idea these pages existed. Thanks for linking them, WoahBro :) --Xyzzy ^Talk 20:58, 6 November 2013 (GMT)

Emperor's DialogueEdit

You mean that, in order for the subtitle to appear, you would possibly have to TCL out of the cell and get close to him.

Well, I don't know about him saying if often. Renault responds to him, but she has never done that in my game. Could that be due to hear dialogue AI package being made to say other dialogue, and other dialogue always takes priority? DG^{Any Questions?} 20:56, 5 November 2013 (GMT)

It's possible that you can interrupt the response if you are near the front of the cell before Renault responds. I have heard her say it though. Jeancey (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (GMT)

I have heard it as well. --AN|L (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2013 (GMT)

Anil, were you at the front of the cell or not when you heard it? DG^{Any Questions?} 21:27, 5 November 2013 (GMT)

Also, Jeancey: If that's the case about interrupting the dialogue, I feel that it should definitely be mentioned on article(s). It would be confusing for people who don't even know it's said if it isn't said in their game. DG^{Any Questions?} 19:22, 6 November 2013 (GMT)

For the record, I have also never heard those two lines (this is on the 360 version). She goes straight from "My job right now is to get you to safety." to "What's this prisoner doing here?" Maybe it's dependent on the amount of time taken to get to the cell; if they get there quickly, the next package kicks in straight away. --Enodoc (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2013 (GMT)

(←) I have heard them, once, during extensive testing when doing Captain Renault's page. I couldn't replicate it though. It is entirely dependent on when she reaches the cell door as the line 'whats this prisoner...' takes precedence. Without use of console I couldn't accurately ascertain the technical details of how the conversation plays out, as it doesn't always start at the same point, and doesn't seem to play out at the same length (i.e. they would reach the cell door at different times of the conversation). Also, your position in the cell seems to play a part in it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:43, 6 November 2013 (GMT)

I just looked at the scripting and tested about a bazillion different things, and I think I've finally figured it out. (Edit: I hadn't noticed Silencer's response until after I posted...looks like we're on the same page.) It looks like the "What's this prisoner doing here?" line starts whenever Renault reaches her marker outside the front of the cell. Unfortunately, that usually happens before the "I know this place" dialogue and her response to it. If you TCL out and block her path for long enough (might work best if you can stand right where she's supposed to, I didn't specifically try that) or if, perhaps, some anomaly causes the three of them not to path down the stairs like they usually would, then you'll hear the Emperor's line, and possibly Renault's response to it. (I say "possibly" because if she arrives at the right spot after the Emperor's line, but before her own, she won't give her response.) It looks like most of the time, though, those lines would never play. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:45, 6 November 2013 (GMT)

Hi，Jeancey，why do you keep making changes to my method?Edit

Hi，Jeancey，why do you keep making changes to my method? What you did completely massed it up，have u even tried it?

Command the dragon to land and WAIT for the dragon to land and attack Miraak are Totally different，please do not make changes you know nothing about.

---Islandking Islandking (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2013 (GMT)

It's not the method per se that's the problem, it's the fact that you're using console-specific wording and the fact that you're inserting some odd commas that show up in the middle of the line instead of in their normal place. I realize there's already a "press L" even in the existing text, but that sort of wording needs to all be removed and just use generic wording that works on the PC as well as a gaming console. So say something like "have the dragon attack" (or whatever's appropriate) instead of "press L". – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:04, 12 November 2013 (GMT)

ok, how about this:

Ignore Miraak, ride a dragon, lock on Miraak and let the dragon attack him. To speed up the progress, *WAIT* for dragon to land, each time the dragon is about to finish its attack, command the dragon to attack again, this way, dragon will continue attacking without flying back up. After a while, Miraak will kill the dragon and absorb its soul, repeat this until all three dragons are dead. Problem solved. — Unsigned comment by Islandking (talk • contribs) at 05:33 on 12 November 2013‎

That should be fine, I think. Someone else who's more familiar with dragon-riding and Miraak can review it later, hopefully. In future, please don't change things in several places (I've removed one), and when someone objects to an edit you've made, keep the discussion on the talk page until you've come to an agreement. Once you have, then the article itself can be updated. It only causes confusion and a lot of redundant edits otherwise. Thanks! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:54, 12 November 2013 (GMT)

I saw Xyzzy's edit, it's great, let's keep it like that.— Unsigned comment by Islandking (talk • contribs) at 06:03 on 12 November 2013

Hi, Jeancey, I do not know if Xyzzy is still there, can you make him see the following?

Hi, Xyzzy,

One thing though, we only need two Bend Will instead of three, because when battle starts, Sahrotaar is ready for ride so we do not need Bend Will on him. The first dragon to ride should be Sahrotaar, for I do not think the main character can command two dragons at the same time, it's better to mention that. — Unsigned comment by Islandking (talk • contribs) at 06:58 on 12 November 2013

The best way to get Xyzzy's attention is to leave a message on HIS talk page. ThuumofReason (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2013 (GMT)

(←) I think your change to the bug report is fine. --Xyzzy ^Talk 04:14, 13 November 2013 (GMT)

Hag's End CleanupEdit

Hi Jeancey, Can you explain to me why you've amended all the trap links in the above walkthrough, when in the past, with many of my walkthroughs I've had prominent wiki'er adding the Traps# to my walkthroughs. I don't mind which way it should be, but get aggrieved when I try and conform to a standard and it seems to be a moving target with some people wanting it showing as pressure plate and others wanting it as pressure plate, especially as both formats take the user to exactly the same place! Biffa (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2013 (GMT)

Hey there, Biffa. I'm not Jeancey, but I can answer your question. What you said is true; both links bring you to the same place, but redirects are usually—if not always—preferred over the anchored links if the redirect exists. This has been practised for a long time by many patrollers and users, including myself, and this has been (and should still be) the standard for the site.

According to Wikipedia's manual of style, the advantage of redirects is that they allow us to determine which pages link to the given topic using Special:WhatLinksHere, which in turn allows us to:

• Create a new article when a significant number of links to that topic exist.
• Maintain links, e.g. by filtering incoming links and identifying related articles. ~ Psylocke 13:39, 27 November 2013 (GMT)

Thanks for the reply, but unfortunately I don't speak wiki very well, I still learning, so which should I be using going forward with or without the Traps#. Or does it depend? If so on what should I base the decision on? Biffa (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2013 (GMT)

Well, if the redirect exists (which is most probably the case), then you should link the text using the redirect, i.e. without the Traps#. ~ Psylocke 13:50, 27 November 2013 (GMT)

No probs, will do from now on. Biffa (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2013 (GMT)

Happy (wiki) birthday!Edit

You have been given a cookie! Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: Grats on being here a whole year! --Nocte|Chat|Look 04:56, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

Congrats on reaching the 1-year mark! You've given us a new understanding of the words "obsession" and "workaholic". • JA^T 05:54, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

LOL, yeah, what Jak said! Good work over the last year! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:16, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

Jorunn and MalbjaarnEdit

Regarding the recent edits over the list of high kings on Lore:Skyrim, I noticed this edit from May which seems to conflict with your current outlook. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:08, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

Changing him to High King? There isn't any question of HIM being High King, just whether his MOM was High Queen. Right? Or am I missing something? Jeancey (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

That he became High King is one of the many circumstantial things which, I believe, make it more likely than not that Malbjaarn was High Queen. For one, war heroes, no matter how successful, aren't generally able to seize the throne without a fight unless it has been recently vacated. Malbjaarn is the only Skyrim ruler we're aware of who had recently left an open seat, so to speak, and there's no evidence that there was a power struggle between Jorunn and the outgoing High King and/or his heirs. So, for Malbjaarn not to be High Queen, several blind assumptions about the surrounding events would have to be made, whereas for the opposite to be true, one small, logical assumption has to be made. But I took this up at Lore talk: Skyrim. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:39, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

I'm just confused on how that edit was in conflict with my view? The text specifically states that he becomes "High King" whereas it doesn't specifically state that for his mother. I'm just going by how she is referred to, which is queen of windhelm, not of skyrim. I replied as such on Lore talk:Skyrim as well. Jeancey (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

I misread your reversion edit summary. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:48, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

Oblivion: Lost HistoriesEdit

I just played that part, and I edited it to the exact way he said it in-game. - poikins 06:45, 6 December 2013 (GMT)

I went ahead and found the in-game dialogue for that line and fixed it to exactly what Amusei says. -- Hargrimm^(T) 08:20, 6 December 2013 (GMT)

Simply ignore me. Jeancey (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2013 (GMT)

MWOP House QuestionEdit

Hey Jeancey. I noticed you changed the project template on a couple NPC pages, such as Sjorvar Horse-Mouth, from having been marked as not having a house, claiming the character in question has a house. While this is true, the house actually has its own page in this case (Sjorvar Horse-Mouth's House). So, really it would be redundant to include any house contents information on the NPC page since it would be included on the house page. This same idea would apply to the farmers that live in farm houses that have their own pages. So in these cases, couldn't the house parameter of the project be disregarded since all the relevant information of the house will go on the house page rather than the NPC page? While putting none is somewhat misleading, the template could just be filled out as something along the lines of "N/A; lives in Sjorvar Horse-Mouth's House" in this example. Forfeit (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

Ideally, they should ALL have a house page. The house parameter should really only be marked off when the house page has been created and it is entirely completely. This is so we can mark off which people have had their house pages created and that house has been completed. In some cases it may be redundant, but the vast majority of NPCs with houses don't have pages for them yet. Hopefully this explanation makes some sort of sense. It should only be marked off when the house page itself is complete. Jeancey (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

Okay, I understand. I wasn't aware that house pages were going to be created for each character's house. Sounds like a good way to keep track of things in the present state then, since as you said, there aren't too many house pages yet. Forfeit (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, some of the Vivec canton house pages have already been created, but it takes a large amount of effort to do all of them so not much progress has been made yet :) Jeancey (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

I was thinking about this some more and while I agree with the procedure you proposed for the most part, I don't know if it would be all that necessary to not mark the parameter as checked on the NPC page until the house page is complete. When a house page would be created, it would have a MWOP place tag on it and would have a walkthrough parameter that would need to be marked as written and checked. So when the walkthrough has been marked as checked on the house page, that would show when the walkthrough/inventory of the house has been fully documented. Therefore, it would seem redundant to do the same on the NPC page, although I do understand your point about using it to keep track of what pages have been made/completed and which haven't. However, I was wondering what you might think about treating the house parameter on NPC pages similar to what was done with OBNPCRP when the OBHRP started. The parameter could be marked as written when someone adds an inventory to an NPC page. Then when a house page is created, once the inventory has been moved over and integrated into an either complete or incomplete house page, the parameter on the NPC page could be marked as checked. This method still would allow us to keep track of what house pages have been created without the need for the house page to be complete. It would also help to show which house pages would be ready to be created as users could look in the category for houses written/unchecked to see which NPC's in this category have had inventories added to their pages. So while I think we have the same general idea, I just don't see the need to wait for the house page to be completed since the walkthrough tag on the house page will cover that aspect. It would seem more useful to use the writtenby part on an NPC page to mark if an inventory has been added to an NPC page and then the checkedby to mark when a house page has been created, as once a house page is created, the house contents are no longer a concern on the NPC page. Forfeit (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (GMT)

I assume you mean house contents when you say inventory, and if so, then that makes sense to me. Seems to be a good way of doing it. Jeancey (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2013 (GMT)

Uriel VII Arena end cutsceneEdit

I think Resonance Gamer was referring to his in-game depiction. He talks to you a little bit in-game after you defeat Tharn. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:49, 17 December 2013 (GMT)

Ah, I didn't realize he ever actually appeared in game. He isn't on the list of the 16 people in game, so I assumed he wasn't actually in the game, just mentioned. Jeancey (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2013 (GMT)

Adamus Phillida:Edit

Opinion: I believe his age is nothing more than a trivial note, and thus believe that it should be noted under the "Notes" section of the article.

Query: Why do you think it shouldn't be noted under the "Notes" section of the article? Also, if it isn't put under the "Notes" section of the article, then where would you want it to be noted? In the main passage of the article itself?

— 176.251.153.77 20:17, 25 December 2013 (GMT)

If it needs to be in the article, it can be incorporated into the main text, for example in the first sentence that describes him. However, simply describing him as "over 40" isn't really useful in any way, as it doesn't really affect the game and isn't all that specific. Jeancey (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: It will be put in the main text then.

— 176.251.153.77 20:25, 25 December 2013 (GMT)

Consensus not reached. There is no point in trying to describe his age based on this statement. The article already says he has been in the Legion for 40 years. Let's just leave it at that and not speculate about his age. --Xyzzy ^Talk 03:38, 26 December 2013 (GMT)

Ayrenn's Full NameEdit

Hey there, just thought I'd drop in and say that I've restored that edit with Ayrenn's full name. It's mentioned on the Aldmeri Dominion page of the ESO website where she signs off the call-to-arms Your Queen Commands, and it's also the name on the lithograph. --Enodoc (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

Ah! Okay. Thanks for checking! Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

"ESO"Edit

Hey Jeancey. I'd like to poke you towards this discussion, in regards to this edit. —Legoless (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (GMT)

Community feature!Edit

Hello Jeancey! Just a message to let you know you've been featured in our every-other-week Community Interview! This is shared with everyone at UESP and on our social media pages. Congratulations and enjoy your 15 minutes of fame! :) Please let me know if anything looks incorrect. Thank you for participating... Avron the S'wit now owes you a sweetroll! --Kiz^{(email - talk)} 19:46, 11 February 2014 (GMT)

Skill book page messEdit

I'm letting you know because you probably know what, who, and how this happened. Someone in the IRC noted it, and there was no-one else around, and I don't want to forget telling someone. Just to clarify, I assume you see most of the books having missing icons, info, and the skill links are broken and undefined and all that ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2014 (GMT)

That particular page is fixed now, I will check/fix similar pages. It was a MetaTemplate caching issue, the page didn't load any data about individual books at all. Visiting each individual book page, then purging the skill book overview page did cure it. --Alfwyn (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2014 (GMT)

Beta wiki contentEdit

Shouldn't we just wait for this stuff to be merged and moved instead of adding it all manually? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 19:41, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

I'm not actually sure if it can be merged. The beta wiki didn't have namespaces set up, so the ESO is actually part of the name of the article, plus, none of them had templates or any sort of formatting, so we'd have to go through them all by hand anyway, plus, we have to either merge them to lore or Online, either way we have to make a second article by hand anyway, so I think we should just do it by hand. I'm also double checking spelling errors and such as I transfer them. Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Have you guys been hiding a beta wiki somewhere? Need any help with moving stuff over? --Enodoc (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Possibly, and only daveh can give you access. Jeancey (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Ah that makes sense. Thanks :) Enodoc (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

20,000 Articles!Edit

You have been given a gold star! For the amazing feat of breaking the 20,000 article barrier, and still going strong after that, I am awarding you with this golden star to commemorate your ability and dedication. Good job! --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:30, 15 February 2014 (GMT)

Thanks!! Jeancey (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (GMT)