UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 50

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.

Daggerfall Namespace Talk

It's come up that the guidelines for Daggerfall namespace could use some attention. The last big effort there was many years ago, and what was agreed upon then isn't really accessible to editors who weren't around for it, and there have been issues recently. So, it was suggested a reaffirmation may be in order, and since we were at it, possibly updating the rules for the namespace.

The last redesign project accomplished an enormous amount, and it's all helpful info. But it is showing its age compared to spaces for later games, and a lot of it is presented in a way that isn't quite user-friendly to new players. So, I would like to see if there is any interest in at least revisiting the standards and maybe coming up with something more current? The 20th anniversary of the game's release is in just a few days, seems like as good an excuse as any, and it might even draw a few curious new players. Echo (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any standards in-particular you wish to change? The only ones I'm aware of that apply to Daggerfall and Arena are that we do not try to force Morrowind and newer developed standards onto those games as they can't always meet them. Those impossible standards include the use of only .jpg for images and the minimum size of images. There are other standards that apply to DF and AR such as page creation, as 'every' NPC is named but done randomly, so the same person could have different names on different playthroughs, and dungeons, where there are over 4k but only a handful of layouts and totally random enemy spawns.

One thing I've thought about recently is extracting mod data to mod spaces for those namespaces. Another thing that has recently cropped up is the use of which patches are standard, that should be cleared up. The standard should always be the latest standard official one, and any other official ones that aren't part of the main series of patches should be included. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 10:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

For my part, I think that a lot of the changes Echo has been making are a step in the right direction. As someone who spent a great deal of time cleaning up the DF namespace myself, there are a few changes I would like to see, mostly dealing with how to integrate mods and patches into the game. Given that the unmodded game contains a number of severe bugs in its final incarnation, I think it would be good to list information from DFQFIX on the articles, since DFQFIX is essentially Daggerfall's answer to the Morrowind Patch Project or Arthmoor's Unofficial Patches and it restores a lot of content that was intended to be in the game but was bugged out. It's true that we can't have articles for each individual NPC or dungeon due to their randomly-generated nature, but I think a bit more information on skills, spells, and spell effects might also be useful, since we currently only list them in a series of tables with just a brief description of what they do. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad someone thinks so. I hope it's a step in the right direction, the problem is I don't have a map. For example, I've been just going off what Help:Images says about images (at least, as far as one can go with those in DF). I fear I've broken more things than I've improved, and would like to stop doing that (breaking things, that is). Echo (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there are now images of things that didn't have them before is a good place to start. If necessary, they can be cleaned up later (to whatever small degree is possible). If nobody else has any suggestions or objections, I may start working on articles for the individual skills.

In terms of how to treat quest fix mods, I would like to know how the community feels. As stated above, I'm of the opinion that quest fix mods (DFQFIX in particular) should be treated like the Unofficial Patches and mentioned in the article, but mods that ADD quests that weren't originally part of the game shouldn't be mentioned. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) I think we should try to limit unofficial information to the Notes/Bugs section. For example, we don't document the "Meat Pie" item added to Skyrim by USLEEP (at least, not in the Skyrim namespace - might be a good thing to have in Tes5Mod). Similarly, we shouldn't be adding sections to Daggerfall walkthroughs which aren't part of the base game/official patches. Even just separating this stuff off in a section at the bottom would be preferable; it's obviously good info to have, but third party fixes should always be secondary information.

As for third party content patches, I wouldn't object to hosting that stuff if it's popular. It's a shame we don't have a mod namespace for Daggerfall but I think it's far too late to implement something like that after all these years. We have pages like Daggerfall:AndyFall, so having third party quest walkthroughs seems fine as long as they're marked as such - maybe they could be subpages, like DF:QuestMod/Quest1 or whatever. —Legoless (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Something like this, then: A Great Errand? It's written out the way the quest should go if it worked properly, with the broken bits moved to the Bugs section, and a subnote that there is a fix for it and what the fix does. Echo (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a good format to me. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, so in regards to this page (which prompted this discussion in the first place), what about something like this? Both edits smashed together. Feel free to edit as you see fit. Echo (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with everything up to the Notes section. My only concern from that point forward is that the bit regarding the alternative walkthrough seems spread across the Notes and Bugs section, so it looks a bit messy. My preference would be for that information to get its own subsection under the main walkthrough, with a disclaimer or template at the top of the section saying something like "This section contains information relating to bugged content that was restored by unofficial patches following the release of Version 1.07.213. This content may not be accessible without the proper mods installed." Then we could just migrate the necessary information about the differences into that section, which would make the Notes and Bugs section a bit tidier. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 15:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) I have begun to add journal and dialogue information to Daggerfall quest pages. Just a heads-up and a chance for anybody to voice their opposition. - KINMUNE ﴾TALK﴿ 03:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks good I think, those dialogue bits don't really fit into a walkthrough, but are still generated by the quest itself. The one thing that sticks out though is the quest log entry; it would probably be better served with a more specialized template. Echo (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The quest log for Daggerfall can be a bit glitchy, and it may be a tad more difficult to check than in newer games that have Construction Sets, but it's probably good to have at the bottom for completion's sake. As for the note on "any news", I've never seen NPCs respond to quest events like that before. For me, the "Any News" button always caused the game to either freeze or CTD, but if the information can be verified, it's definitely the kind of thing that belongs in a notes section. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

MWOP

On the Non-Relevant NPCs page, a Morrowind NPC is relevant if "The NPC has unique dialogue." Additionally, it says immediately afterwards that "If an NPC will give you any information, no matter how mundane, that cannot be found anywhere else, they are relevant." The problem is that these contradict each other. For the former, the page of an NPC which holds a non-relevant status would transition to relevant status if the only unique dialogue they had was "Hello, how are you today?" On the other hand, add the "information" part into the equation and you cannot used the aforementioned unique dialogue hence the definition of the word. From the dictionary, information means "facts provided or learned about something or someone". If you had the option to reply with unique dialogue—providing factual content about yourself, I would say include the NPC's question—it would serve as the cornerstone for your response.

Here on the CP is the ideal place to reach a consensus. In fact, I propose that we should turn non-relevant pages into relevant ones, even if it's just "dialogue"—even dialogue that does not provide any facts—that necessitates a page's creation. Additionally, I would like to get some guidelines about the dialogue layouts created. First of all, I propose that all Morrowind-related NPC pages have the same layout. Second, we need to have a layout which everybody can follow when adding dialogue. Would we like to have the conditions before the dialogue? After the dialogue? Are we going to write verbatim when it comes to receiving items in conversation—for example, should we say "4 scroll of whatever has been added to your inventory" like it does in-game? That sort of thing. I would personally like to write it verbatim. As for the disposition, I would say write "Disposition +/-(whatever; insert number here) for increases or decreases, and for what disposition an NPC has to have, I would write "Disposition (whatever; insert number here)."
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 20:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If the dialogue is unique, I don't think there's any harm in giving the NPC a page for completion's sake. —Legoless (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me throw this out there. The main reason given to deny all Morrowind NPCs an individual page was the number of them. Given how many ESO NPCs there are who have no relevance except as bodies to fill out cities, I would support a move to give all named Morrowind NPCs a page, no matter how relevant they are. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't use the Morrowind namespace, so take my opinion for what it's worth, but I feel like in the absence of anything really noteworthy about a character, tables serve the same function in a more compact way. When you think about it, the only difference between a lot of Morrowind NPCs and the randomly-generated ones in Daggerfall is that the Morrowind NPCs have fixed locations and names. Other than that, they both serve the same functions as sources of generic information pulled from a common pool. NPCs with unique dialogue can at least be said to provide information that can't be obtained elsewhere, which makes them noteworthy in a sense. The only question is whether or not enough information exists about a character to flesh out an article. I would think a case-by-case basis would be the best way to go, but that's just me. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 21:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's why I make the comparison to ESO. There are at least as many irrelevant NPCs in ESO as there are in Morrowind. These are the NPCs you can't even steal from or kill, nevermind the ones you just can't talk to. I would estimate that there are more NPCs in ESO that would completely fail Morrowind's relevancy test than there total named NPCs in Morrowind (which is over 4k by one respected editors figure, or 2.5k by the two categories). The relevancy test had some measure of reasonability when the following games had about the same amount of people as deemed relevant in Morrowind, but when there are over 15k NPCs with pages in Online with zero interest in limiting the numbers of pages there, it just seems ludicrous to deny ~1,300 NPCs in Morrowind a page. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a slight difference in that ESO (thankfully) does not bother giving names to most of the random hostile NPCs you meet in the wild, while MW does - there's a large percentage of MW NPCs for whom the only notable thing you can say about them is that they exist in such-and-such cave and will attack you. There are a few who can be Calmed and even offer training or other services, and these are indeed notable, but the vast majority of them are nothing more than cannon-fodder. Now I would also say that many of the ESO NPCs who have pages now are not exactly relevant either - the only reason they all have pages is because they were created by a bot from data mined by the UESP Log addon. At some point, these are going to need some level of human intervention, and that intervention might take the form of simply saying "Hey, this NPC is not relevant, maybe we should just make this page a data-holder and redirect to a location page as we've done in previous games?" But that is a monumental task given the huge number of NPCs in this game, so it may take a while to complete, if indeed we ever do. The fact that ESO is an online game that is continually being updated means that we may never be able to keep up with it, and that's okay - some of those pages will just be stubs forever most likely. That does not mean this should serve as a model for the older games, for which we have all the information we will ever have and can easily make an informed decision as to what is and is not relevant, because they are not going to change. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well now I think we should turn all non-relevant Morrowind NPC pages into proper pages, not just NPCs that have unique dialogue. Plus we've still got pages with MWOP templates on, some (dare I say dozens) of which that need a large overhaul, meaning hours of work put into making them complete. If you think about the term "non-relevant", you aren't going to be spending a long time getting those pages done. As the term implies it, there's not much to say about them. I was writing dialogue for Synnolian Tunifus the other day, and that literally took hours to write, considering the parts I had to underline for the topics, which are represented by blue text in-game. "They're a character, therefore they get a page."—that's how I see it.
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 22:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) I don't really see the need to create pages for all the NPCs in Morrowind. If they have any unique dialogue or fit any of the other criteria listed here, then sure, they should have an article. But if the character is purely a background character or some hostile bandit, there simply won't be anything to say on the article other than the name, class, location, inventory, and spells. This wouldn't make for an interesting article to read at all. In contrast to ESO, most of the NPCs in Morrowind even look the same so the image wouldn't even be all that remarkable to document. In ESO, at least the NPC will have a fairly distinct appearance rather than looking like just another Dunmer wearing netch leather.

The amount of work in creating pages for all the characters in Morrowind shouldn't be underestimated. All these new NPC pages would need images of the characters and we don't exactly have that many people contributing to the Morrowind namespace as it is right now, let alone contributors who are taking screenshots for that namespace. Also, many of the characters may know a selection of spells and it can take a while to type these up. Overall, I see a lot more work being created for little gain when efforts in this namespace should be spent on expanding the pages of relevant NPCs in accordance to the MWOP. Forfeit (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Forfeit, just a question for you: by "any unique dialogue", are you proposing that you would like to see the criteria altered so that if a character provides any kind unique dialogue, not just dialogue that provides facts (e.g., if the only unique dialogue they had was "Y-y-yes, wh-what's up?" and you couldn't respond directly to their question), their page can be a proper one?

In general, one non-relevant page takes less work to complete than a relevant NPC's. There are currently 1,231 relevant NPCs and 1,321 non-relevant NPCs. Whether we want to have proper pages for each of the 1,321 NPCs is one thing. How we will see to it is another. Having said that, the wiki is a collaborative effort—there's no rush with it. The snail pace way would be to do one page per day, that would take several years.

A trial run would be good so we can see it would be like. That would be a matter of doing about a dozen of them. There are characters that have a lot of spells, characters that have a lot in their inventory, characters that have... That are this, that, and the other.
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 11:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that a trial run just opens it up to "Why are these not done when these others were". It's not like we are gonna turn them back into non-relevant pages if the trial was deemed not successful. I think that we should complete the relevant NPCs articles. After that, we can talk about turning the others into full articles. Jeancey (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Every relevant NPC article? And Jeancey, while you're here, please can you explain this? I know that if an NPC provides information and the or part of the dialogue falls under the dictionary definition of that word, it can be added, but it doesn't mention anywhere in the MWOP guidelines/rules that a character must have at least two unique dialogue lines for them to get a proper page simply on the basis that they have more than one unique dialogue line—that's what you were implying, at least to me.
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 17:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

TRL brings up a point I forgot, many of them are simply enemies who in other circumstances would be generic 'bandit' types. That could be a reasonable unfuzzy cutoff point if we decided to alter the test for NPCs to get full pages. EG All non-hostile pages get full pages, and only notable enemies (eg bosses, possible merchants/trainers), get a page to themselves. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dragon Guard: Yeah, I personally think a character with any unique dialogue should have their own article. The relevancy criteria does say, "The NPC has unique dialogue" as being one of the criteria. Even if the dialogue is very mundane, it should still be documented and the only place it'd really make sense to do so is on the NPC's article. Like I mentioned a while back though here, I think the page should be mostly complete when it is changed from a redirect to a proper article. This is to prevent creating work for other editors that only benefits the wiki marginally. The article should look more like this after being changed from a redirect to an article than like this. I agree with Jeancey though that the focus should be on completing relevant NPC articles for the time being. Forfeit (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As-is, the wording will bamboozle people. It mentions "information" after the "unique dialogue" part; that's what my concern is. Does this mean that all unique dialogue, no matter what it may be, can be added, or not?
•D. G.|Talk|Work• 22:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I see where there can be some ambiguity, but the way it was written and with how dialogue is treated in other namespaces I think that extra bit was put in to actually support the inclusion of "What's up" type lines of dialogue. I think the point that second sentence was making was that such lines of dialogue should be considered to make a character relevant despite how mundane they are. The only thing that is really debatable in my eyes from reading the criteria is making an NPC relevant that only has a unique greeting that may not be very special. If they provide unique information on a topic, it makes a distinct entry in the player's journal and fits perfectly with the whole "information that can't be found anywhere else" part since only that person can add that information on that topic to the player's journal. However, this isn't the case for a unique greeting which is not added to the player's journal.

However and again, I agree with you that any character with any unique dialogue, be it voiced, greeting, topics, barter, bribe, or whatever other types of dialogue should be given an article. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the wording on the Non-Relevant NPC page if the consensus was reached that any character with any kind of unique dialogue should be relevant to remove any confusion. Forfeit (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(←) Now let's look at the layout of dialogue. I think it's important we do so as there are quite a number of inconsistencies across the Morrowind-related articles. I've been meaning to have a discussion about this, but I haven't got round to it yet. •D. G.|Talk|Work• 20:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In my view at least, the presentation of the dialogue on some pages being at odds with others isn't a massive problem. I know that both content and style and preferable, but on this wiki, we prioritise the former. That said, I put dialogue conditions in square brackets on NPC pages; that didn't exactly help matters as it failed to create or maintain consistency when there's curved brackets on other articles. I do seem to recall a discussion about this and things taking place a year or two ago, but can't remember where.

So for giving non-relevants full-blown pages—a yes or no has not been set in stone via consensus yet. I do agree about not embarking on this task just yet. I think that at the earliest, towards the end of doing the relevant pages—maybe when the "big" ones (characters that have lots of dialogue and things) have been done and there's only dozens of small ones left that take just that little bit more work than the non-relevants to do, I guess. At the latest, we will do it after every relevant NPC page has been completed.

But wouldn't it be better to produce a page of non-unique dialogue for Morrowind, in between relevants and non-relevants, or even alongside doing work on relevant NPC pages? Quill-Tail did an amazing article like that for Skyrim at a time when NPC pages in the Skyrim namespace were not all 100% complete, so I don't see why we can't currently do that for the MW/BM/TB namespaces. •D. G.|Talk|Work• 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd support a page for generic dialogue over creating pages for non-relevants. —Legoless (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I did do some work on generic dialogue for the game a few years ago, but I believe I lost interest and stopped working on it. It's on the wiki somewhere, in one of my sandboxes. If we end up doing the non-relevants at the end of things (even if we had a generic dialogue page completed prior as it was considered more important), that's fine by me.

As the chances of embarking on the transformation of all non-relevant articles before work on the relevants is finished is extremely, extremely unlikely, I don't think we should think about that until at least we're at least towards the end of completing relevants. But let's discuss if a generic dialogue page is wanted first. •D. G.|Talk|Work• 00:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Chat Client Not Working?

Whenever I try to access the chat client, I get the error message "Unable to connect. Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at irc.uesp.net:9090." I can see at least one other case of this happening, which makes me wonder if there's a problem with the client. Has anyone else been having any difficulties using it recently? Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The operation times out on the UESP-hosted chat. On the other web-based chat (Xertion's) I connect but no one is there (which makes me think its going to the wrong place). —likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the chat's not been working for at least a good while. And, a handful of admins are aware there are issues anyway, as it was mentioned previously and again just the other day on RH70's talk page.

Thuum, do we even have an IRC address at irc.uesp.net? I was never aware of that, and in any case, the wiki's IRC channel is on Chatspike. Likelolwhat, did you just enter /join #uespwiki on Xertion? You would have created and joined an empty room on Xertion, not joined our Chatspike room. Or, did you manually enter commands through the IRC client to connect it to Chatspike and made an error? (I've not used the forum's IRC client, btw)

In any case, the server information is on the IRC page. so if you want to connect badly enough to IRC, download a free standalone client (I use Hexchat on Windows and Colloquy on OS X if yo want examples) or get a browser extension like Chatzilla. Then, add a server at the appropriate button on your client, enter irc.chatspike.net for the server, 6667 for the port, enter your preferred nickname, and you should join the channel. Should be guides on adding servers to your client of choice on Google if you need assistance. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 17:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've always just used the "Chat" tab at the top of the site. It didn't use to be an issue, but now it gives me the error message whenever I click it. I can connect using Mibbit, so maybe it's an issue with Special:WebChat. Zul do onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 19:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is specifically with Special:Webchat. As RH70 said on his talkpage, it was created by Jak Atackka in a coding language that he [RH70] isn't familiar with, which is why it's not been fixed yet. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ESO NPC Reactions

Should we describe an NPC's reaction as "Varies" if it changes at some point? There are plenty of NPCs who are initially friendly and turn hostile, and the parameter doesn't even really make sense on species pages like ON:Guar or whatever. —Legoless (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There are indeed many whose reactions vary, and they're usually quest NPCs. Sometimes the circumstances in which the reaction changes is difficult to describe in a template, so yeah, 'Varies' or similar language would work. Also, I believe the initial idea for the parameter was just for individual NPCs/creatures, so I agree that it should be left off on species pages. Unless we make certain that, for example in the case of ON:Guar, it is understood the generic wild version being referenced.

Generally, named pet guar are Friendly, unnamed domestic guar are Justice Neutral, unnamed wild guar are Neutral (? I think that's what we called the yellow glow), and ON:Bittergreen the Wild is Hostile. That's a lot of variation. —likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox on pages like ON:Guar should resemble those creatures that are simply labeled "Guar". If there are "Guar"s of different reactions, I think a "Varies" is a good way to go. For those NPCs and creatures that change reaction depending on quest progress, I would suggest documenting their initial status and mention that it changes / may change during quests. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 15:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure initial state is the way to go, since there are a lot of bosses like The Mage who are initially "friendly" in cutscenes. If we want to note the changes, we could just say "Varies (Friendly, Hostile)". There should be plenty of room in that row for non-Justice NPCs. —Legoless (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Varies" sounds fine to me. Tib (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

there are some generic npcs that are in some instances friendly and in others justice neutral (like soldier, or some of the thalmor npcs. What should be done with those? Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, so - Varies (x, y)? Jeancey, I'm not sure about generic npcs, but why can't we use the same principle? Feel free to give examples if there's anything specific troubling you. Tib (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification - "Varies" is vague enough that it covers it all, I think we can specify more in the notes, if needed. Like Autra Snake-Tongue, becomes neutral after a quest. Tib (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"Varies" is reasonable. We should also add in the notes the conditions upon which it varies. Regarding cutscene friendliness, I would suggest that for all practical purposes, that is effectively irrelevant. If an NPC invariably turns hostile after an interaction, there's not much benefit to adding that they are initially Friendly. --Enodoc (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

One Tamriel on PTS (2.6.0)

As you all may or may not know, OT will be on the PTS for testing soon. Should we try to get some events going on the PTS as a guild so that we can get info on the new updates ASAP? Might be fun. :D Contraptions (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fun :) I'll try to get the invite to UESP NA guild once I'm on PTS. Tib (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The patch notes are up and the PTS is now patching (and oh jeebus are there a ton of changes). Once the server is up we should get something going. Contraptions (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's downloading sooo slow. Lots of interesting changes on PTS patch notes, oh boy! Tib (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

by the way, I'm at the one tamriel panel at pax, so if you have any questions about it in the next few minutes, let me know quickly. Jeancey (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) Big changes to consider from the patch notes:

All monster levels are being removed - what do we want to do about those that we don't yet have documented?

Craglorn has been redesigned - we need to see how the quests and POIs have been affected.

Loads of changes to Itemization - sets, quest rewards, drops, and loot have all changed.

World bosses have been "redesigned" - not sure what that actually means.

Duelling has been added.

Weapon lines now have Ultimates.

FG, MG and Undaunted now have Dailies.

Yes there's loads more, but I think those are the primary things to focus on, as they require the most effort on our part to update. But feel free to add anything else that you think is major, as you may all have a different take on what is most important. --Enodoc (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing we should really work on are dro-m'Athra images, since the base game NPCs will be getting the Thieves Guild textures. It'd be good to get at least some high quality shots of the current shadow cat textures.

Like I said in the archived One Tamriel discussion, monster levels aren't really gonna be a thing anymore. We need to decide if we should even bother keeping that data; obtaining undocumented levels for countless mobs isn't likely to be useful. It's kind of a shame to lose it but honestly I think it would be simplest to just remove that parameter outright, and maybe note it on major pages instead (i.e. ON:Eastmarch can note the original level range and Veteran ranks). Keeping useless depreciated level data on certain pages won't be useful going forward, and it's not the first time we've outright removed outdated data - when the health system was overhauled, we disregarded the old values for NPCs.

As for world bosses, the patch descriptions are vague but the changes seem pretty significant. At a cursory glance it seems like we're mostly set to document the changes made, but it'd be great to make a concerted effort to fully document the affected locations on live just in case. —Legoless (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

hey! So I actually have an answer on world bosses. Basically, all world bosses will be akin to the orsinium bosses. In general, the bosses will be higher level that's planned for 4ish people. There are mechanics changes too, but that's more complicated.Jeancey (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, so all the levels will now always be just v160? Yeah, then the level is probably not interesting anymore, but health still is I guess. Tib (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) Some things I noticed on the PTS.

NPC levels are no longer displayed. This probably means anything related to level info can be removed.

Health values have been standardised. There are 4 standard health values for normal mobs and a variety for elites/bosses. All mobs of the same type have the same health. (this should make it easy for us to record NPC info. No more arguing about different "versions" of the same NPC. Now there is only one.)

Craglorn changes are still not complete, some areas are clearly still balanced for groups when they're meant for normal mobs. Various new point of interest icons have also been added. The group areas are all world bosses now. Contraptions (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Certain overworld areas of Craglorn are denoted as "group areas", so perhaps that's the balancing issue you ran into?

The world boss change means Group Events have essentially been done away with, but Group Delves are still a thing. —Legoless (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly. Some clusters of mobs randomly scattered around are still in groups of 5 and above, when normal world mobs never cluster in more than three. These mobs were not involved in any group event as well. Although I do think this was mentioned in the patch notes where certain mobs were still more difficult than intended. Contraptions (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to see groups bigger than 5 in Craglorn yet (but 4-5 can be challenging to kill, ofc). The bigger change is that they have increased difficulty to some, but not all places. For example Szeknorist is prob intended to be soloable, it still has like 250k health. But Shaukadur the Impaler now has a whopping 1,5-something million hp. Same goes for the delves as well. I wonder what the final adjustment of Craglorn will look like :) It feels mixed solo/group so far, definitely not super solo-oriented. And def not an easy ride, tbh I kinda like the difficulty as it is right now. Tib (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Forget about "Group Events"; I think that was a classification that we came up with to group Magical Anomalies, Anka Ra sites and Nirncrux Mines together for our own purposes. If they're now all Group Bosses, that's fine. --Enodoc (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) After watching the PAX panel, it appears there has been a major overhaul to Pledges. As a result, I would suggest that we don't try to update our existing pledge pages to compensate, but that we instead deprecate all of the old ones, and create new ones. --Enodoc (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. —Legoless (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the pledges changed, but dailies got added. The pledges, there's just a third person giving them, I don't think the actual pledges changed much. They added more, and they award similar stuff instead of gold silver bronze. Jeancey (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit Break: OT Quest Levels

(←) Quest levels are also becoming meaningless. What should we do with them? We could scrap them completely, alongside location levels and NPC levels, or we could keep a "Recommended Level" visible. Personally, I think we may as well do away with them, as with battle levelling, there's nothing really outside of story order that a recommended level would be useful for. --Enodoc (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's not displayed anymore I would support removing it. If an activity or quest isn't level locked I don't think displaying a level for it will be useful anyway. Contraptions (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing is that they are still displaying levels on quests. But I can't see why; the level that is displayed is always equal to character level, so it's useless. If they were to remove quest levels from the journal completely then that would be better (and would probably make it easier for us to come to a decision). --Enodoc (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Presenting NPC info for OT

I hate to dig up an old topic, but I feel the OT update is a great time for us to finally fill in most of our blank NPC pages. While there was a discussion some time ago, the complexities of presenting multiple "versions" of an NPC which differ based on level/location/health/reaction as well as normal/silver/gold versions meant that no real consensus was met. However, with the upcoming standardization of level/health and the removal of gold/silver and vet/normal distinctions, I think most of the previous problems have been resolved (save for location/reaction). Based on what has been seen on the PTS, NPCs will not display level values at all. This includes all NPCs both friendly and hostile. Technically they are all CP160, but that can only be seen using an addon. So, how should we deal with this? Should we leave it as 50, or should we write it as CP160?

Secondly, some templates which need level info such as Template:ESO Veteran and Template:ESO Health might need some retooling since some of their parameters are now obsolete (there may be other templates that I'm forgetting). Once that is done, we could get a bot to implement them en masse. Do note that the above applies more to overland entities since dungeon/trial/instanced NPCs will behave differently. Thoughts? Contraptions (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think leveled should go, so its not displayed, as all but the passive creatures will be leveled. If all leveled NPCs are level CP160 can you see how leveling is done instead, leveled attributes? I.e. how will a level 5 character see the game compared to a CP160 character. If the attributes are identical then they should go too (document on the NPC page). If attributes are different yet leveled on enemies then there's no question the should stay.

If anyone is interested in a multi-infoboxes, the Final Fantasy wiki uses them, so it can display multiple versions of the same enemy by clicking a tab at the top for the location you are in. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 14:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we no longer need to display level data or souls on NPC and creature pages. Suppose this would also solve the problem of the soul and gender clashes. Health might be useful to keep, but I'm guessing our current figures are gonna be outdated again?

The new leveling mechanic is already explained at ON:Battle Leveling, which explains how player attributes get buffed. No specific figures, but I don't think that data is available to us. —Legoless (talk)

Hostile NPCs will always appear to have the same health no matter what level your character is. In fact for almost all non-elite overland hostile enemies I already have the new values - 13187, 29870, 31364 and 34501. For justice neutral (except guards) the value is 39959. I think we can keep health, gender and location etc., but anything that varies based on level including soul info can be removed as well (since the only soul gem size after OT is Grand anyway). If anyone needs more details I can gladly provide them. Contraptions (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Are we sure these are the values? 39959, 59939 and 25974 are the current values for various justice neutral NPCs in the DLC zones (which one would assume are not changing, since they are already set to the level and values that the other zones are being increased to). of those numbers, only 39959 is on the list you provided. The other question to ask is layout. Currently level shares a line with health. Without level, what should take its place? Health does not need a full line. Likewise, for soul/gender, the gender of creatures isn't really a good stat to use because something like 90% of all non-humanoid creatures are listed as male, including such creatures as the Betty Netch, the Mudcrab Matron and all the Lamia. In fact, the only female appearing creature that is actually listed as female (from my cursory check) is the Spriggan. Thus, what should we put for creatures instead of soul and what should we put for everyone instead of level? or should we rearrange the entire infobox? My though is that we could KEEP level, and just hardcode it to display 160, since theoretically they could increase this cap in the future (though unlikely). That way, everything in the layout stays the same, but we don't have to go around adding level to all these pages by hand. Jeancey (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

From the PTS: "Final battle leveled combat balance is still being iterated on, and improvements will be ongoing throughout PTS testing." The health figures are likely being tweaked, so I wouldn't depend on live.

The datamined creature genders are of zero relevance and are also evidently inaccurate, so I don't think we should note them. This isn't like the singleplayer games, the raw game file data we work with is pretty wonky and not important to the reader. If anything, most creatures should probably get an "N/A" in that field. I think the simplest solution is to move the gender and health boxes onto the same line. There's no point in displaying "CP160" and "Grand" on every single page on the wiki.

I believe it's been confirmed that they'll be bumping the level cap in future, so that's even less of a reason to display the 160 figure everywhere. We only need a centralised page for that sort of basic game information, such as ON:Leveling. —Legoless (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So if Gender and health are on the same line, all creatures will just have N/A for health? Does race then get an entire line to itself (which it doesn't really need? Jeancey (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No no, I mean most creatures should probably have N/A for gender. The health values are still important, albeit standardised. Perhaps race and gender could go on the same line then, and give health a full line? Some boss values are incredibly high, so a little extra space would probably improve layout. —Legoless (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) I meant gender there :P. Actually, there is a parameter in terms of the game that we don't record at all, which is the little pips to indicate difficulty. We record this a little bit, for bosses on the dungeon pages, but for other mobs and NPCs we don't record it at all. This information is even gathered by ESOlog as "Difficulty". Would that make more sense to be paired with health and leave gender paired with race? Jeancey (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea! —Legoless (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So... we are replacing level with difficulty, Soul will now always be gender while everything else stays the same? Contraptions (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree to scrapping Level and Soul, and keeping Gender paired with Race. Since Race becomes something else for Creatures anyway, and Soul is gone, we can scrap Gender from all Creature pages (it's only shown on Creatures if Soul is undefined anyway). Adding Difficulty sounds like a good idea as well, and putting it inline with Health makes sense. --Enodoc (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

When should these changes be done? I suggest that while we remove the level requirement from being displayed, it probably can be removed by hand as pages are edited, as it is a GREAT marker for pre-OT pages that haven't been updated yet. Aside from that, I'm not sure difficulty is required for many NPCs that aren't enemies, as for 95% of all NPCs it will be 0. It might also be better to come up with names (if we can find them in the data) for what 0, 1, 2 and 3 difficulty should be called. Something like normal, elite, champion, boss. Or something like that. In any case, as OT is released tomorrow, the template changes should probably happen ASAP. Jeancey (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If we're happy with what's going to be done, then we can do it imminently. If no-one's got around to it by the time I get back in a few hours, I'll do it then. Regarding the names, some of ZOS's official names are pretty ridiculous (Normal, Scary, Hard, Deadly), so I suggest we use the same names that we have at {{ESO Boss}}. Although we would need to check that those names actually do match up with function, as I'm sure ZOS have changed the pips on some bosses before. --Enodoc (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

All done, let me know if I broke anything! --Enodoc (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Arena Places

Many of the pages on the Arena places list are non-existent. I would be willing to create all of these, with locations on the world map and pictures of the place for each one. However, I'm not entirely sure if this would be necessary as all that really can be included is the general location and a link to the lore page.

Personally I think that there should be a page for each area. Despite there not being all possible information on UESP we generally aim to have all information about a game documented, and Arena should be no exception. With a page for each place, people would be able to view necessary information about that place without being redirected to a lore page that is not relevant to Arena.

What is everyone's opinion on this? If there is general consensus to create pages for each location I'm happy to get to work doing that. However, if the general consensus is that there shouldn't be a page for each area, and that the links should just redirect to lore pages, I'm happy to do that as well. AlphaAbsol (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you see a redlink then 99% of the time that page is desired. I think the reason they've been untouched is that there are reports that the locations are random, that is the buildings and the city layout, making it hard to have anything much useful to say. That of course is not a reason to have a page in that namespace for them. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I myself am not entirely sure as to whether city layouts and names of locations within cities are random, so if I do create pages for all of them I won't include those until there is full confirmation about that. AlphaAbsol (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Arena is as random as Daggerfall, meaning the game world was created randomly during the development, but the final game world is the same for everyone, just to make the "random thing" once and for all clear, at least to the people who read this. An that's the problem, there is not much unique information one can provide for a given location, one mage guild of a given type looks the same as any other mage guild of the same type. And especially Arena has only a limited number of models. Another thing is, the game has a very limited draw distance, so there is also not much a picture will show and the auto-map is also similar to the one in Daggerfall. Too big for one screen so you have to scroll and thus creating an auto-map of just one given place is a lot of work. It would be a good approach to create an overview of each location, what shops, services etc. can be found there as well as their qualities. These are information that are really interesting for players. But this is really a lot of work and I know what I'm speaking of. For Daggerfall there are some good and advanced tools in existence that can extract game data, but even by using these tools and self-created applications it was a lot of work to get all desired information. Getting them manually would have been impossible or a life-time endeavor. And although Arena has far less locations, getting the relevant information manually would be too much works for just one person. And I'm not aware of any tools that can show/manipulate the data of Arena. For the quest relevant locations it would be much easier to create such overviews, because there are only a handful of them, but for the remaining almost 200 locations this seems way to labor-intensive for a single person. But this just my opinion, you can try and see how far you will get and how monotonous it will become after some time.--PLRDLF (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do see your point. However, I personally find methodical, repetitive tasks quite enjoyable and relaxing which is why I'm fine to do this. From the testing I have done, I've come to the same conclusion as you; that is, that all locations are previously generated and therefore the same in each game. While it's too hard to get full maps of each area, there could be a listing of inns, temples, and other services. I reckon there's enough consensus agreeing that there should be individual pages if possible; so I'll get to work ASAP. AlphaAbsol (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Legends card categories

A few of us have started updating the card pages, since the templates have been updated to include Obtainable, Unique, and Subtype (thanks, Enodoc!). However, we'd like opinions on two things:

• The idea with having Obtainable as a parameter - and in a category - is that when we eventually get cardlist pages up, we will want to display only cards that can actually be collected by the player. (Preferably a full list, and each of the category pages containing their own - attribute, rarity, etc. I'm picturing it being based on this, which was absolutely invaluable to players when that game was around to help us build decks.) Right now cards have categories such as Legends-Card-Creature-High Elf-Obtainable. Are these categories as they currently exist the best way of going about it?
• What should we do with cards that seem to have been removed (e.g. Shimmering Scimitar, which has been replaced with Sentinel Battlemace)? Should that be an optional parameter? Should they have a special category? (Again, how should they behave in cardlists?)

~ Alarra ^(talk) 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have Legends, so I don't know specifically how these pages would be used, but hopefully I can still comment on implementation.

• The example you've given from Rage of Bahamut relies heavily on Semantic, as it uses the #set and #ask functions to store data and create the table. Without Semantic, we can't create the table in the same way, but we would hopefully be able to do something similar using #save and #load from Meta (and possibly even #listsaved, but I've not used that one before so I'm not sure how it works). Another way to create a table would be to use DPL, which I've used before, but I'm not sure if we have that installed here either. Definitely if we were to use DPL, and possibly if we only use Meta, we wouldn't need individual Obtainable categories. For DPL, we'd only need Legends-Cards-Obtainable, and we'd take the intersection of that one with each of the other necessary categories.
• Is Legends still in beta? If so, there's probably not much need to hold on to removed cards, unless you want a single page to list them all on. For ESO, anything that was in beta or PTS and disappeared before launch is only mentioned in notes, if it's mentioned at all.

--Enodoc (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It still is in beta, and I think a note "X was called Y during the beta" (or notable changes, such as Staff of Storms once being neutral) would suffice. I expect quite some cards to change , some even several times (for example Edict of Azura, which was Anihilate, and Raze before that).

I have no Idea on the technical nature of assembling such lists, but we may want to consider creating categories for specific keywords (guard, pilfer, last gasp...), and creating lists for them, too -- SarthesArai ^Talk 09:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree to simplifying all of the long-winded unobtainable categories into just Legends-Cards-Unobtainable.

However, I disagree with grouping by keyword, as many keywords are conditional.

While I'm here, just a quick question: Should Blood Magic have its own category? - KINMUNE ﴾TALK﴿ 10:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be displaying creature subtypes like "Creature (Argonian)" in the infobox, since that's not how it's displayed in-game. Strictly speaking there is no "Creature" card type. —Legoless (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel that it's the best way to describe those cards, and that having a type/subtype is the most useful to users who are coming to the wiki to help build a deck. The glossary in-game also describes Creature as a type, and the others as subtypes of Creature: "The card types in The Elder Scrolls: Legends are Action, Creature, Item, and Support. Creatures have individual types of their own, such as Wood Elf, Orc, and Daedra." ~ Alarra ^(talk) 06:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

All the subtypes are already listed exclusively on LG:Creatures. Aside from categorization purposes I don't see a need to use that word in the infobox unless it appears on the card; it's implied that an Argonian card is a Creature, and it's described as such in the article's opening sentence. —Legoless (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated ESO Zone Colouring

With the release of One Tamriel, two colour schemes we've been using here are now deprecated. The first is the Adventure Zones colour, which existed to indicate zones that were only available to Veteran characters. The second is the Battle Leveling colour, which indicated zones that used battle levelling, and the level that players were scaled up to in those zones.

Craglorn is now just like any other zone, just with a few group-focused areas. If we were to keep the existing colouring for Craglorn, what would that now indicate, and what should we replace the "Veteran zone" icon with to match? The standard icon for a Neutral location is the Ouroboros (except for Guild-run and Daedric locations), but that is usually paired with standard colouration.

I also noticed that Wrothgar, which is a Neutral zone, is using the Neutral colour but is using the Orc heraldry icon, presumably to indicate affiliation to the Orsimer Kingdom. If Craglorn is to retain its own colouring, should we define a new colour for Wrothgar too, to go with its icon? This would then introduce a precedent for the upcoming Vvardenfell to need a colour of its own too.

Thoughts? --Enodoc (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't see too much use in keeping the battle level colour scheme around in any meaningful way, but I don't see the harm in keeping the Craglorn colours. Unlike DLC zones, Craglorn still defies generic categorisation in its current free to play hybrid form. If Coldharbour gets a colour scheme, so should Craglorn. I agree with replacing the Veteran icon with the ouroboros though.

That's not to say DLC zones shouldnt get a non-generic colour though, to distinguish them from unzoned areas perhaps. Not sure what that would look like though, and it would get a little confusing with green IC pages and generic coloured DLC-specific unzoned areas. I added those Orc icons to Wrothgar pages to match what we've been doing with certain unzoned places but I'm not wholly convinced it needs its own colour scheme as well. —Legoless (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

New maps and statistic data

Hi everyone!

I would like to contribute to the wiki some maps and statistics on lore and ingame information, but I would like to consult with the community the format and nature of some of these contributions.

1. The maps.

I have some little thematic maps that I think could be a good addition to some articles, but I don't think if i must change the style or the fonts. If you have another suggestion, please let me know. A near finished example, a bit too dark maybe:

-Ashlander settlements in Vvardenfell (Sorry I don't know how you put external images in smaller sizes):

image

2. Statistic data.

I don't know if you had any discussion about what data are interesting to exhibit in UESP and what not, but I have also collected a huge amount of data of statistic nature.

Examples:

-A very detailed demographic distribution of NPCs in Morrowind, by settlement ruling faction, by cultural affiliation, by region. A lot of little details in Oblivion and Skyrim demographics too.

-The exact number of interior cells in Skyrim, Oblivion or Morrowind, the objects x cell in great amount of cells and their median (probably the possibility to make a exact total median of every game object x cell in future).

-The total number of unique dialogue lines in Morrowind, median of words x line, topics with more different answers etc. The exact count of words in different dialogue lines in skyrim (WIP).

-The exact word count of TES games books, the median of each game, a classification of books by word average, etc.

The demographic data I asume that is ok, but do what do you think about include "game internal data" and "where/how", new list-pages?

--Illo (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, we aren't very fond of user-generated content here at the UESPWiki, I doubt your maps will get a great resonance, I'm sorry...

We have some Demopraphics pages, but I don't think they are not of a great relevance. Of course, if you have something to add, feel free to do so. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 13:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for answer.--Illo (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

For content like this you can always add it as a user sub-page like User:Illo/Statistics1 and then get direct feedback on each page. If the statistics are verifiable they might be eventually added to an "official" page. We tend to like to put only verified official content in the main namespaces. You can add your map on your user page or subpage but when uploading it make sure you name it something that identifies it as a user made image (or likely some admin will help rename/categorize it). -- Daveh ^(talk) 18:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy 21st

Cheers, the UESP can now legally drink in the US! At leas, it's Fall. The actual day was unfortunately not recorded, for posterity, as far as I am aware. We should probably decided on some date as the "official" day. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Twenty-one years old, eh? Best be bustin' out that special vintage brandy soon, since this is a special occasion!

Congratulations, Dave, for keeping the dedication up for this series for so long and enabling over two decades of fans from around the world and web being able come together as friends and create such a great community. It's been a fun ride so far, and long may it continue, skipper! -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 17:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday UESP! It's hard to believe that it's been around for as long as it has. Seriously, it's a few months older than me. It's been through so many changes over the years and it has seen a lot of people come and go, but it just keeps on trucking along. I don't mean to get all sappy, but I love you guys and I love what everyone has done to make UESP what it is. Here's to another great year! Lorenut (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Quest Icons

Bringing back an old discussion since there now are different icons seen in-game for quests: Is the standard one, but there's also a blue version for repeatable quests, as well as an icon with a plus symbol in the corner to indicate quests which are meant for a group - mainly used in Craglorn as far as I know. I haven't found the official graphics for these new icons - they don't seem to be in the latest icon-pack from the data-miner, but if you've played the game since Update 12 you know what I'm talking about. I think it would be helpful to add these icons to the Quest Link template, similar to how icons appear with the Place Link template. Also might be worth adding to the quest pages themselves, maybe in the upper-right corner, or the quest description, not sure which would be best. Just opening up the discussion here so we can work out a plan to handle these. (Ideally, one which doesn't require changing every quest page individually, though a bot might be able to take care of that.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's found in the GameUIArt download rather than in with the Icons. This image needs to be replaced with the blue repeatable marker; the brown colour was only on PTS. Not sure where we could actually place the images though. Online:Repeatable Quests already displays the repeatable icon but I suppose it could go on the individual articles too. —Legoless (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone could find these icons, I would be happy to add them to the Quest Link template and the Online Quest Header template as well, but I'll need the icons first. Alternatively someone else can add them to the templates if they want to. AlphaAbsol (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

For the most part, these are already in place where appropriate. It seems that the icons added to Console for Normal, Main Quest, AvA, Crafting, Dungeon, etc have been removed again, so these icons can be put there instead. Check Category:Online-Icons-Quests, as we may have them already (there's a few group ones in there: ) --Enodoc (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the blue quest icon, but cannot find a quest marker with a plus sign anywhere in the zip file. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, just found it myself - had some trouble with the file - it has a ".zip" extension, but wouldn't open until I changed it to ".rar". I'll see if I can find the other one. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the icon I was seeing in game is actually this one: , not an arrow with a plus. It only shows in the quest window, not the compass. But it could be a good icon to use to identify group quests. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

At the base level, this is now implemented (to match the Journal appearance, so no icons at all for the majority of quests). There will be some tweaks needed; for example, the Undaunted story quests like Blood Relations will need to have the Group=4 parameter changed to Dungeon=4, as Group= is now the parameter for overland group quests. --Enodoc (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Turns out that specific example is invalid, as that quest never even had the Group parameter. Anyway, the parameters needed are Solo=Yes for , Group=2–4 for , Dungeon=4 for , Trial=12 for , and Repeatable=Yes/Daily/etc for (per the Journal, this one appears in the content of the header only, not as a main icon). --Enodoc (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Patroller Nomination

Hi everyone. Since it's been a while since we've had one, and people may not be monitoring the page, I just want to direct people's attention to a new patroller nomination. It's only had one vote in the five days it's been up. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

For everyone's information, the one week interval is over now, so I don't believe any more votes are accepted on the nomination from now. Thanks to everyone who voted! AlphaAbsol (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The nomination is still open, so I've been wild and rebellish and thrown in another vote. Feel free to count it out, if it isn't eligible. Hugs, Tib (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Voting has to go on for at least a week, not just one week. It can continue until an admin makes a decision. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 13:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

DF:Vampirism's FA status, with regards to KINMUNE's rewriting

KINMUNE has done more than just a "minor rewrite" on a Featured Article. How does the current drastic change and his intent to rewrite the article differently affect the status of it as a Featured Article? I'm not nitpicking that he's rewriting it, which is his prerogative, I'm asking about the FA aspect of it considering there's a large material change in the shape it was in when voted on. I can't think of any precedent for when an FA was put up to someone's desires to massively rewrite it, nor can RH70 after an IRC convo, so I wanted to put this up to a discussion. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 03:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that since it's such a big change it should go through the voting process again to see if people still feel that it is deserving of its status. If people think it still deserves its spot, then we keep it there and if not, then it goes back into the clean up pile. Lorenut (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Lorenut's idea may be feasible if the voting process occurs after I have completed all relevant tasks on the article, which may take a while. What would happen in the meantime?

Secondly, I'd like to apologize for taking such an action without consultation of some sort; I was tired and didn't think it through. - KINMUNE ﴾TALK﴿ 06:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably have to go through the process again, as it's no longer the article that was initially voted on. As for the meantime, if I remember standard practice correctly, something that is tagged with a maintenance template (Cleanup, stub, incomplete, WIP, etc) is usually considered ineligible for nomination, as such a template is a direct reference to the article not meeting one of the FA criteria (content, style, completeness, or quality), so its current featured status should probably be suspended. --Enodoc (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, I agree that it should be suspended; after all, the page is being reworked. Once it's finished, it will hopefully be eligible for this status again. AlphaAbsol (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(←) Given the consensus here and the strong precedent set by our 2011 revokation of Lore:Khajiit, I've revoked the article's FA status. Like Lore:Khajiit, it can go through the nomination process again, but considering our shifting standards of quality it isn't guaranteed to be restored at any point. —Legoless (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start a new topic, but similarly I added substantial information to the Skyrim:Ulfric Stormcloak article a while ago, so should it be required to undergo the featured article process again? Most of the changes were additions rather than alterations, but it still certainly changed the layout and "feel" of the article with the amount of content that was added. I was simply unaware of the Lore:Khajiit precedent or I would've brought this up sooner. Forfeit (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the amount of information added, it really shouldn't have been featured in the first place on the grounds of missing information. That said, substantial additions that don't change the page's layout or 'feel' wouldn't necessarily require a rethink on the featured status, because, if it was good enough before, then being more complete wouldn't change anyone's vote. In my opinion there is no need to rethink Ulfric as you successfully integrated the new information into the layout. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, most FAs have probably been improved upon since their nomination. Unless it's a serious rewriting or a significant difference compared to current standards, I don't think FA status should be rescinded automatically. That said, if people feel strongly about the changes made to SR:Ulfric Stormcloak we could do the same. —Legoless (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 49

Up: Community Portal

Next: Archive 51