UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 38

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

A More Detailed Oblivion Max Difficulty Walkthrough

I have been working on a Maximum Difficulty Walkthrough for quite some time now. Any Recent Changes Patroller probably saw my changes at some point, as there are quite a few. Anyway, you can see it here. I was wondering if there was any chance putting it here, or at least putting a link to it there. I want people to see it, because otherwise I wouldn't be creating it in the first place. Grim765^{The Reaper} 19:47, 21 June 2013 (GMT)

I think a detailed walkthrough for each quest is unnecessary. We already have quest walkthrough articles, and any truly noteworthy tips for players on hard difficulty could be included on the individual articles. —Legoless (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (GMT)

Notice about the wipsandbox tag

This is a quick notice to the editors who put the wipsandbox template on these articles. Please remember that the tag may prevent other users from editing (and improve) the articles and that you are supposed to be working actively in the linked Sandbox. A week from now, I’ll go through all the tagged articles and remove the inactive ones – the tag says “a while”, so let’s just say that one month of inactivity is sufficient for the tag to be removed. --Krusty (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

stuck in rocks

for some reason both me and my sister have gotten stuck in a triangle of rocks, not even able to jump and had to do several minutes of walking before we could get out — Unsigned comment by 74.196.175.145 (talk) at 18:13 on 27 June 2013 (GMT)

This is a very common issue in ES games. If this happens, it's best to just use a previous save or just toggle clipping if you are on the PC version. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:13, 27 June 2013 (GMT)

Or just fast-travel outta there. Grim765^{The Reaper} 18:33, 27 June 2013 (GMT)

Undisclosed Change in Unofficial Dragonborn Patch

Neloth refers to the Nerevarine as a male with the line: "You are too young to remember the Nerevarine. He defeated Dagoth Ur and saved us all from the blight."

That's a note at Dragonborn:Neloth. It has come up on a couple talk pages now that the makers of the Unofficial Dragonborn Patch secretly changed this dialogue. It irked me when I found out they did this, but I decided to let some time pass. Someone brought it up again on a talk page, and I'm still indignant not just at the unnecessary perversion of Bethesda's product, but at how they went about it.

It wouldn't be that big a deal; I'll be the first to admit there's ample reason to believe that Bethesda hasn't diverted from their policy of treating past heroes in a gender-neutral way, and that this was a mistake. But the makers of the UDBP didn't disclose the change. I'm not sure just how often the unofficial patches make undisclosed revisions, but they must have known this wouldn't be seen as just another bug fix, and it was bound to be challenged, so it's apparent that whoever made the change decided it would be easier to just not mention it. That's bull****.

I propose we call out the UDBP for their duplicity here. If we're going to essentially advertise for the unofficial patches on the UESP, we have some responsibility to make sure they're being upfront about the revisions they're making to our readers' game experience.

I brought this up on the Community Portal because I believe that questionable behavior by the makers of the unofficial patches is a community-wide problem, and we should be on the lookout for what other parts of the games they've decided to secretly "fix" which may not have actually needed fixing. But all I really want to do at this time is add the following note to DB:Neloth as a corollary to the note above:

Bethesda has not addressed this, but the creators of the Unofficial Dragonborn Patch elected to treat it as an error and removed the "he" from Neloth's dialogue, changing the subtitle to match. They did so without giving notice of the revision.

I mean, we're supposed to document the unofficial patch "fixes" anyways, right? And it's just stating the relevant facts for the edification of our readers (after all, we can't trust the UDBP to do it). Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:36, 1 July 2013 (GMT)

I don't feel nearly as strongly about this as you do. I say we simply state that the UDBP "addresses" this, possibly with a minor note that Bethesda may have actually intended to refer to the Nerevarine as a male. As for it not being listed in the patch notes, contact them and let them know that they missed something. Reading their patch notes, they are very meticulous about documenting changes, but it's entirely possible that they missed some. After all, they make hundreds of changes with some of the updates, and some changes major and minor may slip through the cracks. Maybe you're right and they intentionally left it out, I don't know - I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Either way, I don't think we need to make a huge deal out of it. • JA ^T 07:45, 1 July 2013 (GMT)

Agreed. If this were the only change that they neglected to document, then I would be more suspicious of sneakiness. I don't know if this is the case, but being an amateur student of human behavior, nothing would surprise me. I think a neutral note, and one that does not contain speculation about motives, would be appropriate. --Xyzzy ^Talk 15:28, 1 July 2013 (GMT)

It's a one word change, easy to slip through the cracks. I hardly think it is evidence that the unofficial patch people are secretly changing the game. For some of the bugs like this they have to make a judgement call to whether it's intended or not, and I think we can forgive them if one time they made a change we don't all agree with. --AN|L (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, I agree—I don't really see any reason to suspect them of anything sneaksy or underhanded. We feature the unofficial patches for a reason (they're historically very thorough, well-documented, and fixtastic), so I don't really see the need to go any further than putting a note about it on our pages and maybe mentioning to the patch developers that they should add it to their notes as well. ⇠eshe^talk 15:52, 1 July 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim Interior Maps

I've already started adding interior maps to some of the skyrim dungeons, but now that Kalevala has joined this matter, I'd like to get the community's opinion on some points before going on:

Should the maps be added at the start of each Zone-Section (like in Skyrim:Fort Greymoor) or as an additional topic (see Skyrim:Fort Fellhammer#Maps)? The former may make it easyer to compare the walkthrough with the map, while the latter will not clutter up the page that much, if there's an additional screenshot for each Zone.
Is it allowed/approved to edit the maps for a better visibility? The maps will not look exactly like the ones seen in the in-game map screen, but will have some unnecessary detaily cut out (compare File:SR-map-Arkngthamz.jpg (edited) to File:SR-map-Arkngthamz Comparison.jpg (unedited) ) ?
How should maps of houses look like? / Do we need them at all? (For example, look at this. Even if there are some markers added, there's not much to see...)

If I have any more points needing clarification, I'll add them to the list. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 15:32, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

I like the maps being at the start of each zone section, as it makes it easier to compare the map with the text walkthrough if you are looking for something. I don't think it really clutter the page to have them there.--AN|L (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree that the maps are better at the start of the zone. This makes them much more useful. However, I'm a bit confused about the difference between the unedited and edited maps. I see the differences, but I don't understand WHY they are different. Is there an advantage to editing out details? I would prefer them to match in-game maps as closely as possible, unless there is a compelling reason for not doing this. --Xyzzy ^Talk 15:53, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

About the need for some editing: Well, one needs to compare a complex building's .dds file unedited version to the edited one. For example, the Goldenglow Estate main floor and second floor show the ceiling joists and floor boards. The wall caps are either parallel to the ceiling joists or to the floor boards, consequently it is very difficult to determine where the walls are. They are essentially camouflaged even at 200% magnification of the original 16 meg downloaded .dds file. From above, this (an older unused upload) confirms the hidden nature of the walls and the need for some editing to explicate them. However, the basement is as clear as a bell and the sewer is a marble-chute - one can't make a wrong turn. So only the main and second floor have been edited to show the walls which arguably is the purpose of a map. Philosophically, a map is an abstraction emphasizing details of interest rather than a photograph, hence there are road maps, political maps, topographical maps, etc. The details needing emphasis here are the path or road through the interior where the interior is complex or offers more than one path. (In the Goldenglow estate example, on the second floor, does a stealth character want to stay in the hallway and avoid the two bedrooms before entering Aringoth's master bedroom? His plan could well hinge on an accurate understandable map of the area.) Thus clarity of information is the prime compelling reason for editing, which is time consuming and rightfully should be held to a minimum so that the map and in-game view match up closely. So we actually agree and this is an offer in explanation of "WHY", I can only hope it is sufficient. Kalevala (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

Map location: Well, consistently placed adjacent to the walk-through with text flowing around it or ahead of the zone explanation seems very useful. Currently, most are placed in a Map section similar to the Gallery section. Of the 158 maps placed on pages just under 90% are handled this way. However, that can be changed with a little work. (Aside: In visiting page after page of locations, I am struck by the inconsistency of section naming and placement on the pages. Is there a standard? I ask because the order for Related Quests, Notes, Residents, Gallery, Bugs, Zones and Maps varies wildly and I don't know where to look for an answer. So if the maps are to be relocated, then re-arranging the sections to a standard order may as well be done while the page is being edited.) Kalevala (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

Mapping houses: I would posit that any location that can be seen in its entirety after taking 5 or fewer steps and having the character do a 360 degree rotation is not in need of a map unless there is some obscure treasure or hidden object of interest like a skills-book, and perhaps not even then if the text covers the hidden nature of the object. I would posit that the second criterion for inclusion is whether there are alternate paths through the location, and whether those are immediately obvious. So, for example, in the Goldenglow basement there is more than one way to go depending on the nature of the character. One may bypass the honey and hay storage area and/or bypass the hide storage room. While there is no need to edit the basement map, it would qualify as needing a map since there is more than one path, and the view can not be easily encompassed shortly after entry. Kalevala (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

I guess that some players would use the maps to plan out things like stealthy routes, but it seems to me that the most common use for a map in the article is for someone who's lost in a complex dungeon and needs to try to figure out how to get to their destination. Another common use would be locating important/quest items within a location if they are marked with pogs. As long as the map makes it clear what passages lead where, and helps differentiate passages/rooms/chambers/et cetera from one another, then the minute details of overhead/foot-level details vs. walls don't seem significant to me. --Xyzzy ^Talk 23:47, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

I've created an example of how the maps could look like in the end here. Feel free to make suggestions ;-) -- SarthesArai ^Talk 13:26, 5 July 2013 (GMT)

Nice example! Well, we need now to develop some protocol for "pogging". Several issues come to mind. I don't have a position on these but it would be nice for everyone to be producing maps to the same standard of quality and I really don't want to waste time doing the wrong thing.

First, the map needs to be verified as aligned with the NorthMarker, if there is one. Not to do so would mean the map might later be updated to true north, but all of the pogs would be out of place, and would need to be re-positioned. That would be inefficient.
There needs to be a list of standard things which if mentioned in the text are then pogged, since it would be nice for different poggers to produce the same result and to connect the map to the text.
Likewise, there needs to be a list of things pogged regardless of whether they are mentioned in the text, because again it would be nice for different poggers to produce the same result.
There needs to be some goal as to how many pogs.
1. We don't want to clutter the map with so many and ones so large that the map is hard to read.
2. Pogging is a time consuming activity, so some goal/limit/policy might help us finish the mapping project before the next Elder Scrolls game comes out. Confirming the location and nature of things such as exit destinations often requires a re-visit to the area in-game (my memory sometimes lapses) which also takes time.
There needs to be a list of standard icons to use for things pogged. Book, door, or just a simple yellow/white pog?
There needs to be a standard as to Mark_Link's. It seems reasonable that they be limited to the zones on the page.
Formatting should be consistent.
1. The example's maps on the left and pictures on the right with text running in between produced an attractive page.
2. The map size on the page should likewise be consistent.
The list of standards needs to be readily available to anyone wanting to assist in pogging maps.

Well, that's all I can think of at the moment, but it's a start. What do you think? Kalevala (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) I was thinking of making map-related replacer-Templates for Perk Tree Setup, Perk Tree and Image Mark, as well as some additional icons. The exact locations of all poggable items should be determined via the CK for it gives the most detailed information and may even cover some things that were not mentioned in the walkthrough. I'll take care of these issues as soon as there's a decision from the community about how to handle this matter. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 16:59, 5 July 2013 (GMT)

"Questions Needing Answers"

As someone who deals primarily with Oblivion, I feel like it would be a step forward to categorize questions by wiki space and not date. I want to be able to go to a directory of questions pertaining to Oblivion instead of combing through years of comments with the question tag. Grim765^{The Reaper} 17:36, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree with this idea and it would make things much easier. Vely^►t►e 17:43, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

It would be helpful as there's no point in me looking at a question from Arena, for example. Right now, I just look at Category:All Questions Needing Answers and from there I can pick out the namespaces that I'm knowledgeable about. Forfeit (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

I've updated {{Good Question}} to include a namespace-based category. It'll just take a few minutes for the server to sort all that out, then the categories can be created. I'm also going to add a table to the Questions Needing Answers categories that sorts the questions by namespace, for easy navigation :). ⇠eshe^talk 17:59, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

All done! Each namespace category uses the table on Questions Needing Answers, so if any changes to be made (like a question made in a namespace that isn't listed yet) they can be made there. ⇠eshe^talk 19:06, 3 July 2013 (GMT)

Page for Generic Dialogue

Since we already have a page for Guard Dialogue, should we also have a generic dialogue page? We can have sections specific to each race ("Azura curse you!" "Nerevar guide me!") or voicetype ("Divines smile on you, friend."), each faction (e.g. for Imperials and Stormcloaks), generic greetings ("Need something?" "Yes?"), generic combat dialogue, etc. --Quill-Tail^? ^! 18:15, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, this is needed. There's nowhere else to put the generic dialogue, but since we are documenting other dialogue we need to do this as well. --AN|L (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

Makes sense to me, I support this endeavor. *WoahBro^►talk 19:41, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

Might also be a good idea for Oblivion. —Legoless (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but I do question the need for it. Is it actually helpful to list every single line of dialogue somewhere on the site? Do we need a list of the grunty combat lines from Skyrim ("Waaagh!""Naggh!" "Unh!")? Do we need "Yes?" and "Hello" lines listed out? I have no problem with using dialogue lines to help tell the story on quest pages, or using interesting scenes on NPC pages, but I wonder if this would be overkill. I would personally be much more interested in seeing a page dedicated to dialogue that, for some reason or another, you never get to see in-game. ⇠eshe^talk 20:37, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

This is only worthwhile, IMO, if we are interested in full documentation of the games, which I think is a fine goal (check out the last 12 lines of dialogue on Tsun's CSList entry). --Xyzzy ^Talk 20:47, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

Unused dialogue should go to respective NPC pages. (I think that's how it's done here.) And I don't think we should be listing every single line the game has, but the notable ones, like race or voicetype-specific ones that say something about the speaker's culture (like the Dunmer lines above). There's also the faction-specific lines that people might want to check out to gain more information about the faction. Maybe we can put more specific dialogue in the appropriate pages, but what about voicetypes? The MaleCondescending voicetype tend to have interesting comments.
--Quill-Tail^? ^! 20:54, 9 July 2013 (GMT)

Generic dialogue is large part of the atmosphere. Grunts and other combat noises don't need to be included, but unscripted dialogue should definitely go somewhere on the site. For example, if ever guard says "Something to report, citizen?", then that should be added somewhere. It could arguably be added to the guard page (and it should), but what about generic greetings from every NPC in the game. It would be very inefficient to add generic dialogue on every NPC page, but somewhere on the site it should say the dialogue itself does indeed exist. Grim765^{The Reaper} 06:16, 10 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) I think it is a good idea, although I’d like to see a Sandbox example on the layout. Saying that, it would also be useful to have the dialogue listed, especially when users add generic dialogue to NPC pages. --Krusty (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2013 (GMT)

I'm working on it now here. Anyone can edit the page. --Quill-Tail^? ^! 09:30, 11 July 2013 (GMT)

Deletion Review for Lore:Smuggling

The deletion review for Lore:Smuggling seems to have gone stale, with only the nominator having voted. Did anyone else have any thoughts on the matter, or shall I let HnB's recently added archive header stand, and remove it from the Deletion Review page? – Robin Hood ^(talk) 05:35, 11 July 2013 (GMT)

I thought a deletion review was the polite thing to do, but perhaps it should've been a prod. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:40, 11 July 2013 (GMT)

I just added a comment on it - not noticing the do-not-edit header. Oops. Anyhow, I do think that with the new ESO lore headed our way very soon we should consider holding off on any such deletions until we know there won't be anything more to add. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2013 (GMT)

Morrowind Weather Tables

I was talking to Jeancey on the IRC about the weather tables on some Morrowind and a few Oblivion pages such as this one and this one. We (or rather Jeancey) came to the conclusion that Morrowind and Oblivion aren't the only games anymore with randomly generated weather anymore and therefore it isn't unique that only Morrowind and a few Oblivion pages should have them. We also decided that they often get in the way hahaha. What Jeancey wants to do is remove the tables from pages that have them. What are the thoughts of the community on this issue? *WoahBro^►talk 00:23, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Just to update, if you see me editing the tables, that's because the Morrowind Weather template was moved to simply {{Weather}} a while ago and never got updated. So I'm updating the ones that remain. I don't really see it as notable the exact percentages that the weather may appear, especially given that all of this information could easily be contained on a single weather page in each namespace. As I had said to WoahBro, when morrowind came out it was a big deal that the weather changed in a single location. Before that, you went to the snowy area, it was snowing, you went to the desert, it was sunny, the weather didn't change in a given location. Nowadays, however, pretty much any game that COULD have weather change, does. In all, I don't really see how a table which messes up the formatting on quite a few pages is really useful in any way. Jeancey (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Could just be moved to an individual section of the page, to get rid of the weird layout. —Legoless (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Kk, the morrowind weather template instances have all been moved to the generic Weather template. All but 10 of the uses of the weather template are on morrowind related pages however. Do we need to exact percentages in there? Could we just have a line of prose saying that the weather is blank most of the time, with occasional instances of blah and blahblah. Would that work? That way, the template goes away, and the formatting is saved. Jeancey (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Sandbox Restrictions?

Okay, this came up in IRC discussion and is apparently an issue for some of our editors, so I come to propose some new guidelines pertaining to sandboxes {please reword them as needed):

A sandbox without any notice on who may edit is restricted to the owner's edits and no one else (without the owner's consent).
A sandbox which is restricted to the owner's edits only shall not be copied into another sandbox by another editor, without the owner's consent. An editor wishing to work on the same page may copy the source from the page only, not another sandbox.
An editor who is currently active on the wiki but refuses to respond to a request for consent is automatically assumed to provide consent.

What does everyone think about this? --Nocte|Chat|Look 05:19, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree with numbers 1 and 2, but I disagree with #3, because it's somewhat vague. How long do we wait until it's clear that they're ignoring the request? One week? Two weeks? There are a number of reasons why they may not approve the request - their internet or computer may be MIA, they may be on vacation, or simply distracted with other things. I'd hate to work very hard on a sandbox, mostly finish it, then come back 3 weeks later to find that someone has changed everything around and it looks nothing like what you worked so hard to make.

However, I agree with most of what has been proposed, and I will explain the underlying logic to those of you who weren't part of the IRC discussion. Wikipedia has a relevant rule, stating that no user owns any article, including user space. However, they make no mention of sandboxes. The main issue with allowing anybody to edit your sandbox is evident: they'll derail your train of thought, possibly do things not to your satisfaction, and the writing styles will be mixed together, possibly in a distracting way. The main issue with having another user copy your sandbox is that you'll now have two competing sandboxes, which is definitely not a situation we want - two or more users fighting over which sandbox is better. Because of that, I propose the following amendment:

3. An editor who is currently active on the wiki but refuses to respond to a request for consent is automatically assumed to not provide consent.

4. Any sandbox that is inactive for 3 months is automatically made available to the community to edit in any manner seen fit.

If they are intentionally ignoring your request, then that's kind of rude, but I'm not sure what we can do about that. If anyone has a better alternative, by all means propose it. • JA ^T 05:43, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I would like to see number 4 in your proposal be one month, not three. Three seems too long. --Nocte|Chat|Look 05:45, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Okay, My turn. Basically, the wiki is about collaboration to create the best possible collection of information we can. If you aren't working on a sandbox, and someone comes along to take your quality information and improve on it, why not? What I see happening here is that we are prioritizing people's feelings over the quality of the wiki. DpwnShift said something on IRC which I think is entirely valid. If you don't want someone editing your work, don't put it in a sandbox at all. Use word, or something along those lines. Once you put it in a sandbox, it can be used anywhere else on the wiki. Keep in mind, this only applies to copying someones work and working on it in your own sandbox, not to editing someone else's sandbox. How would this be any different that the multiple times that someone has proposed new rules in a sandbox, and during the discussion someone else copies those rules into their own sandbox and provides a modified option for people to choose from? I've seen it many times here on the CP. Under these guidelines, that wouldn't be okay, and thus, we would be stuck with poor rules because someone could have had their toes stepped on a little bit. I guess my main point is, no one cares about your feelings, only the quality of the work. If someone can improve on your work without editing your sandbox, and it creates a better article for the wiki, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you know that you are creating the best possible page already, then you have nothing to worry about because your version will be the once that ultimately makes in onto the wiki. Jeancey (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I think 3 is a bit vague. Nobody should ever edit another's sandbox without permission. If we restrict copying, then allow copying after a time, but do not allow editing if not permitted.

I agree with 1.

I disagree with 2. In most cases, such an act would be redundant. However, if someone copies the sandbox and reformats it, then says "I think this way is a bit better", it's there for a comparison to the other's work. And what if someone is experimenting with something else and needs to copy dialogue, so takes it from another's sandbox as an easily formatted item? What if someone's merging two pages and would rather take from the sandbox than the wiki article?

The only issue I see with a copied sandbox is wasted effort/redundancy (two people working actively on the exact same thing).

Per Jak's amendment under point 4, isn't one month of inactivity the limit on WIP tags? If we restrict copying, then whenever a WIP tag is removed from an article, the sandbox should be allowed to be copied. Vely^►t►e 06:19, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I'll first paste what I said in IRC: "*MY* personal opinion is, if you don't want anyone posting/editing/copying your submissions, don't put it on the wiki- ANYWHERE on the wiki! Save it on your computer, pastebin, Evernote, or even encrypt your sandbox until you want to release it! (Though I think this would harm the collaborative intent of the entire site)"

I'll also add that I am not a admin/moderator/patroller (and don't really even edit that much), but I am still passionate about this subject, so please don't take offense if we don't see 100% eye-to-eye! The wiki format is unique and (in my opinion) the absolute best way of documenting a popular subject, especially a complex RPG game. The quality achieved through incremental improvement, overlapping verification, and crowd-sourced consensus is quite simply unrivaled. Please don't add restrictions to this site, it will only harm the output. For this example, if someone is at a specific point in their game, in a 'contributing' mood, or just browsing a certain section of the site, they should be encouraged to submit good-faith edits NOW, not wait a month (or three!). We all know that it literally only takes a single click to undo someone's work if the edit takes away rather than adds to the wiki, but I would also ask that we remember that the BEST version of the wiki should be the ultimate goal, not who typed out what. It's easy to get offended about where material came from, but it should be more important that the community has the material, and in its best form. This isn't just about not scaring new contributors off; I feel that, like in Skyrim, the power to create something special of outstanding quality cannot be underestimated, and everything else should come secondary. DpwnShift (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Number 1 is already enforced policy, so if it isn't in the written policy(s), it needs added. One month isn't long enough on sandboxes. Eshe, active the whole time, worked on the Skyrim:Bandits page offline but kept a sandboxed version. At one point there was a gap of just over 6 months between edits. I would agree to a time of three months for inactive users' sandboxes, and that means not one edit between then and now. For active editors I would presume non-agreement all the time, no matter the activity on the sandbox; if they wish to let the WIP notice on the article expire, so be it. If you wish to sandbox the article yourself, do not copy their work, both on the grounds of redundancy, and the grounds of the "Be nice when editing." part of the etiquette policy. Creating your own sandbox in deliberate competition to another is, as I see it anyway, actively discouraged, as wikis frequently cite co-operative editing. The exception to that is dialogue, which can be easier to copy and paste from a wiki page, and will be the same regardless who creates the "finished" article. All this came from one editors complete lack of patience. In two hours an editor went from mistakenly editing another users article, having that undone, asking the sandbox owners permission to edit it, to creating a rival sandbox in an act of provocation towards the other editor ("If I can't help in the sandbox by [removed]. I will offer him a race him to see who can finish it first in our own sandboxes."). All this happened without the other editor having a chance to respond to the request. Why we need to have a rather redundant CP discussion in response is a bit beyond me, as none of the proposed guidelines would have allowed the user to have done what they did. Finally, in response to "anything on the wiki is not yours", common courtesy dictates that you do not mess about with another user's userspace pages. It is actively discouraged, and wikipedia is rather vague on the idea of sandboxes. While technically pages are not "owned" by the user, there are no guidelines at all on user sandboxes (there is a circular between userpages and about the sandbox). This leaves a mix of "do not edit userpages" and all edits can be edited.

(edit conflict) The Wip notice does discourage people from editing the pages, which is why it is limited in the time it can be on a page. It doesn't mean you can't edit the page, just doing so may be futile. Also "Be Bold" when editing overrules this as a higher policy. I also completely reject the idea that you should only post what you don't mind others editing (which is different to knowing it can be edited under circumstances). As already said, its your userpage, and there are almost limitless reasons why doing so is a must; from an editor asking another to proof-read their work, check some of it through use of the CK. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 07:38, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree with Silencer's points above. If a user has clearly abandoned a sandbox after a set amount of time, then of course it should be fair game to sandbox the page yourself and work on it - no arguments. However, if it's clear that the user is still working on the page, then it makes no sense to have two competing sandboxes (one using all the content of the other, such as in my case). It will just lead to conflict that nobody benefits from. It also needlessly places pressure on users to finish their sandbox quickly, in worry of someone else finishing what they started. Yes, we should strive for the best content regardless of who writes it, but competing over pages counter productive. Something similar happened on Template:Shout Summary. Two users began to argue over the template so one went off and made his own in a sandbox while the original user was still working on his. It created a mess.

If other users don't have permission to edit the sandbox directly, then the talkpage should be where suggestion go. That way other users can still contribute and add to the wiki. True, nobody owns any page - but users should be able to work on their sandboxes at a reasonable pace without having to worry about someone else using all their work and launching a page before they even have the chance to finish the sandbox. Such a thing would make users think twice before embarking on sandbox projects, and that doesn't help the wiki.

Policies and rules aside, I just think it's bad form to create a competing sandbox if you didn't get permission to edit an existing one. Jeancey said: "no one cares about your feelings, only the quality of the work." - I disagree with that. Personally, if I saw a sandbox and thought to myself I could do a better job, the last thing I would do is create a competing sandbox. While your intention may be to create the best page possible, Some people are going to feel insulted by that - it's like telling them they are doing a poor job - so why do it? If anything, at least wait until the sandbox is launched before making additions - what's the rush? --Jimeee (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) I basically agree with Jeancey and DpwnShift's stance on this. Nobody owns anything on this wiki. We only restrict editing another's userspace as a nod towards common courtesy, as I think we can all agree that having somebody edit your work-in-progress is incredibly disruptive. To me, the idea that once you place your WIP tag on something or copy it to your sandbox that it becomes some version of "your property" is completely contrary to the collaborative process of a wiki. I suspect that if I were more active in sandboxing and writing articles, I would be singing a somewhat different tune, but I strongly feel that personal feelings should always take a back seat to creation of quality content. As far as a time limit on a WIP, I think 1 month is a good balance between giving people a reason amount of time to work on something and discouraging others from contributing to an article for fear of wasted effort. --Xyzzy ^Talk 13:59, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

The time for having a wip template on a page is about that time, though it only currently states "a reasonable amount of time". The controversy is the time a person is "allowed" sole preserve of their own sandbox. Don't misinterpret my words as meaning the person "owns" the page, but it is in their name, they are working on it, and it is the result of their work. Jimeee summed it up perfectly: it puts pressure on that person to complete their sandbox quickly. This goes against one of a wiki's main policies, There is no deadline. By explicitly allowing multiple sandboxes on an article we encourage sloppiness. By discouraging, but not denying, multiple users to work separately, we encourage a founding principle of a wiki, co-operation, and another more important thing, quality. We differ from wikipedia in that we do not need multiple people working on the same articles in sandboxes. There are few enough people making these large articles that we should actively seek to encourage them to keep going. I could name these people out-of-hand, and count them on less than two hands. It may be an uncomfortable truth for some people, but people tweaking grammar and spelling are a dime-a-dozen, people willing to invest their time and write 60k word articles are rare jewels in our crown. Please think hard before proposing any rules that discourage an investment of personal time from these people. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 14:30, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Silencer puts it perfectly. I also argue that having rules to govern sandbox development is essential to keeping the wiki running smoothly and effectively. If we allow people to just copy someone's work or write their own article in the name of improvement, it creates a bad possible situation of multiple people creating their own version of the article and having a "popularity contest" on which one should be used. Another backbone of wikis is cooperation, and allowing people to do their own versions of articles that are already being developed discourages (not encourages) cooperation, imo. Remember also that we are all volunteers who work on this wiki of out own free time. Having some safeguards to make sure people don't "get their toes stepped on" and that their time isn't wasted doesn't seem like a huge reach..--AN|L (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

This looks like a case where something odd and against the normal modus operandi happens, and people suddenly feel the need to try to create new policy over this one odd case. We do not need to do anything here, as basic courtesy has been effective for the most part. As one of those editors who prefer to primarily make large contribbutions, I am against anything interfering with the way our sandboxes currently work to try to stop ONE user from breaking the unwritten rules. I can see one case in which this has happened, there is no need to change over it.--AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:55, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree with AKB. —Legoless (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

AKB is exactly right. There are good points on both sides here, but the fact is, this all stemmed from one situation which is highly unlikely to happen again. We've been just fine up until this point, and I don't see that changing just because one user has a hard time understanding basic practice. Any odd cases like this recent situation can be handled on an individual basis. — ABCface^◥ 16:52, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

I completely agree. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ⇠eshe^talk 16:55, 12 July 2013 (GMT)

Repeated blessings info

We currently have Dragonborn Blessings info located in 2 places: as a stand-alone page at Skyrim:Blessings and as a sub-section of the Skyrim:Blessings page. Should we remove this info from the Skyrim page, delete the DB page, or just leave it mirrored in the 2 locations? --Xyzzy ^Talk 03:46, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

A simple transclusion would seem most appropriate, I think. — ABCface^◥ 03:52, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

I assumed that it already was transcluded. Jeancey (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

Transcluding isn't ideal, since the info is integrated into separate tables on the Skyrim page. I say delete the Dragonborn one. —Legoless (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

There is a separate table for Dragonborn blessings in the first section, while Dragonborn is integrated into the second section with the standard {{DB}} tag. It should be more consistent, either with all Dragonborn blessings separated or all of them integrated, regardless of section. If a transclusion is done, a separate section just for Dragonborn blessings would be best, but the types of blessings wouldn't be kept together that way. — ABCface^◥ 04:04, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

I am with Legoless on this one. Delete the Dragonborn page, leave the Skyrim page as is. --Nocte|Chat|Look 04:05, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

Well, not delete. Redirect instead. Jeancey (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) This problem, however, is not unique to the Blessings, the Skyrim:Spells and Skyrim:Powers pages are also done that way, but not Skyrim:Shouts. We should agree on an uniform way to handle them all. And while I think it's no problem for the Blessings page to exist solely in the Skyrim namespace, having a list of spells/shouts/powers/whatever unique to DB and even DG would be nice. I am for a separation of the DLC-magics from the vanilla ones and therefore a transclusion of the DB ones onto the SR pages. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 10:52, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

To List or Not to List – Residents

Due to the Houses Redesign Project, I have noticed several instances where we list specific NPCs as residents, even if they never set foot in the house. They may own a bed in the house, or belong to a faction, but what is the general opinion – is it correct to list Urzoga gra-Shugurz as a resident in the Smelter Overseer's House even if she lives in Cidhna Mine? Is it correct to list Adeber, Ennoc, and Willem as residents for Left Hand Miner's Barracks, although none of them ever leaves the mine? I’d like some opinions – either we follow game data, or we follow what is actually in the game. My personal opinion is that they should be removed from the residents' tables, but mentioned in notes. --Krusty (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree. I think it is misleading to call them as residents, especially when they are never actually in the residence... --Nocte|Chat|Look 07:30, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

If we did so, we'd have to list them as direct residents of their actual location, e.g. Left Hand Mine. But not listing anyone as a resident would perhaps raise the question why noone lives in this house or why some people carry keys to "foreign" houses... -- SarthesArai ^Talk 10:52, 24 July 2013 (GMT)

Google+ Button Toggle-ability

If we're going to be including social media buttons on the site, I think it would be a good idea to offer the ability to toggle them on and off in user preferences for security reasons. I know this can already be done with ad blocking software (and can also possibly be done by editing your personal Monobook.css page or something), but I think having an easy-to-use option for users would be worthwhile. —Legoless (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2013 (GMT)

It can definitely be done by modifying your /monobook.js page, as my sidebar already doesn't include them for that reason. Anyway, I'm in support of adding a user preference setting to remove them as well. — ABCface^◥ 22:52, 1 August 2013 (GMT)

While still not easy for the newbie, it can also be done by adding any or all of the following to your common.css, as desired:

#n-Facebook { display:none }
#n-Twitter { display:none }
#n-Google\.2B { display:none }

– Robin Hood ^(talk) 01:28, 2 August 2013 (GMT)

Would it help to also move the G+ button? Other than the links under "community" it's the only SMP button I see on site, but I don't think it has to be right under the search bar; it leads for a few misclicks if you're not careful. I asked Dave to incorporate it onto the site so we can adequately get data to feed into the Google+ page. (If it also helps, +1-ing a page on here does not give your information to the UESP Google+ page. If you have a Google account it may reflect there, but you can easily disable the visibility of +1s - and turn them off, I believe - in your account settings.) --Avron the S'wit (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2013 (GMT)

The security concerns I mentioned specifically refer to cookies. —Legoless (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (GMT)

Ah, yes...can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the clarification, Legoless. --Avron the S'wit (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2013 (GMT)

Question On Etiquette On Personal Attacks

Is telling a user to shut up grounds for an immediate block? Dragon Guard (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2013 (GMT)

Personal attacks cover a wide range of behaviors, but IMO this falls under the category of discourteous behavior, and should be handled less drastically. It's just a rude way of saying "I don't wish to interact with you at this time." --Xyzzy ^Talk 14:26, 3 August 2013 (GMT)

So, are you saying that if a user told someone to shut up that they would get reminded on etiquette? Dragon Guard (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2013 (GMT)

That sounds about right. Just make sure not to come on too strong, as it can kind of undermine what you're saying. Trust me, I've made that mistake before. -_- ThuumofReason (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (GMT)

Another thing to keep in minds is that "grounds for" doesn't necessarily mean "must give". Each situation is different, and any given administrator will handle it how they see fit, which may be slightly different from how another administrator would handle it. When there are strong disagreements about how to handle things, admins will usually discuss it with one another, either privately or publicly, depending on the situation. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (GMT)

Site Updates

I just uploaded a number of minor updates to the servers to ensure that all our custom extensions are compatible with future versions of MediaWiki. In theory, they should all be unnoticeable, but given that there are so many extensions affected, I thought I should mention it just in case anything goes wrong. Please let me know if you see anything unusual in the near future. (Hey, the site didn't blow up, so that's a start!) – Robin Hood ^(talk) 04:37, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

I am seeing many broken templates, especially the trails at the top of pages. Not sure if this is server-side or a cache issue on my end. But it is unusual, so I am telling you. :P --Nocte|Chat|Look 04:38, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, I just noticed that after saving the page. It wasn't there before. I'll have a quick peek and if necessary, revert to the old copy till I can figure out what's wrong. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 04:40, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

And after posting that message, they're fine again. Caching issue, maybe? I'll hold off for a minute and see if things stabilize. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 04:41, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

Mine have been off and on. An edit fixes it, but only temporarily. Maybe purging the pages? --Nocte|Chat|Look 04:43, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

Okay, people are still having issues 20 minutes later, so I'll put the older versions of UespCustomCode and MetaTemplate back for a start, and see if that helps. If it's a caching thing, that may only make it worse as it gets confused as to what version is what. If it's not that, however, then everything should revert to what it was. I'll post again when I'm done, and we can see where we're at. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 05:01, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

(←) All servers have now been reverted to the old versions of UespCustomCode and MetaTemplate, which seemed to be causing the problem. I'll investigate further tomorrow on the development server and see if I can figure out the source of the problem.

Purging may still be necessary in some cases to fix any faulty pages. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 05:15, 5 August 2013 (GMT)

Prev: Archive 37

Up: Community Portal

Next: Archive 39

UESPWiki β