Semi Protection

UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 15

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


Reorganization of CP Archives

I've reorganized how the Community Portal page is laid out (in particular the discussion links at the top of the page); changed where the archives and major discussions are listed; and, moved some discussion that was on this page elsewhere. One of the key concepts in this reorganization is that it is not necessary for all discussions to be held on the community portal. In many cases, there are other talk pages that are more appropriate for long-term organization of the site's discussions. Accordingly, I've chosen to not explain everything that I've done here, but instead I've started a discussion of the whole reorganization at UESPWiki talk:Community Portal/Archives. This notice is primarily to let the community know about the discussion; I invite anyone who has feedback to provide it at the talk page rather than here. Thanks! --NepheleTalk 22:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


Sortable Tables

I've made some updates to how sortable tables work, adding some new useful features. The changes are documented at Help:Tables#Sortable Tables. To see the changes you'll probably need to hard refresh (Ctrl-F5) your browser window. If you notice any sortable tables that are broken by the updates, let me know. Or let me know if there are problems with the new features, or requests for other tweaks (not guaranteeing they'll be doable, but you can always ask). --NepheleTalk 02:11, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Sweet! Did you get this code from somewhere or write it yourself? If you wrote it, you should let the Mediawiki people know - there's some pretty good improvements there I think they'd be interested in. (I put in a request for descending sort on their page months ago, and never got a response. I was really surprised that feature wasn't included by default.) As for the changes to Morrowind:Merchant List, I guess the letters instead of icons are a reasonable compromise, if that's what's needed to make the page viewable again. It's too bad you can't do something equivalent to the "Freeze Panes" feature in Excel. Having a header column that stays visible on the top while the rest of the contents scroll below it would be REALLY useful, but I can imagine how that would be tricky to code in a wiki. (Though maybe possible - If you think that just about every browser-accessed e-mail site manages to do something like that, I wonder if something along those lines would do the trick - but it's probably not worth the effort.) Another tweak that would be nice is some way of dictating the format of an entire column by choosing a class in the header cell. You can do it easily with rows, but not columns. A good example where this would be handy would be the colored columns on Morrowind:Spell Merchants. If you could just set something once on the first cell and have it carry all the way down the column instead of treating every cell individually, this page would load MUCH faster, I think. Assuming it's possible, which I'll leave to your judgement, of course. Anyhow, nice work there. --TheRealLurlock Talk 02:37, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
The code updates are mine; I put them together a while back for my "real" job and finally took the time today to port them over to the wiki. Some day here I'll get around to sharing my wisdom with the Mediawiki developers :P
Setting properties for an entire column in a table is basically just not possible with HTML. HTML doesn't have a concept of columns, only rows and cells. The code I've put together for the sortable tables starts to simulate columns, but this code is all javascript-based. In other words, if we wanted to pursue column formatting, the formatting would only be available to readers with javascript-enabled browsers (OK, that's probably most everyone today, except perhaps security-paranoid people). And it wouldn't really make the page load that much faster. The HTML would be a bit smaller, but our performance problems come from images and templates, not from raw HTML. Then once the page gets to your browser, there'd be an additional delay added as the javascript processes the page--effectively just adding the missing HTML back in. --NepheleTalk 04:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)


Tamriel Namespace Moving

The move to the new Lore namespace is finally under way.

This is currently in progress, so until the process is complete, please:

  • Do not rename any Tamriel or Lore articles (bots are going to assume that before-move name is the same as after-move name, and that assumption has to hold until after all the links are fixed)
  • Do not attempt to fix any Tamriel or Lore articles that appear in Double Redirects (the bots should be fixing all of these; if any are missed by the bot, then the bot operator needs to know about it to update the bot code, and will probably want to test the updates on the existing problem case).
  • Any new articles that need to be created should be created in Lore and only in Lore. But first make sure that no Tamriel article with same name exists. If there's a Tamriel article, edit that article instead of creating a Lore article.
  • Standard edits to Lore/Tamriel articles can still be made.

–Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:57, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

The move is now complete. There's still checking to be done, but these restrictions no longer apply. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 02:31, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Update 1

The move phase is now complete - all required pages have been moved to the new Lore namespace. I've manually updated the templates that mention Tamriel (except Template:Tam - which probably wants deleting at some point) and I'm going to wait until the job queue drops to something more sensible than its current 14,670 before starting the relinking process (unless NepheleBot wants to step in first). –Rpeh•T•C•E• 08:04, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

One thing I've just noticed is that there are a few pages like Tamriel:Suran and Tamriel:Silt Strider that aren't going to get recreated in the Lore namespace at the moment. The reason is that they are just redirects out of Tamriel into the gamespace (both Morrowind in this case). I'd like to suggest that we do not fix these by creating new Lore redirects. In general, I do not believe Lore should be redirecting to gamespace; rather, Lore should contain a generic article about the item and then should be transcluded into the game page where more detail can be added. Of course, if others have sound objections to that idea... –Rpeh•T•C•E• 09:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd agree that in general we don't want redirects from Tamriel/Lore articles to other namespaces, especially in cases such as Tamriel:Suran where the page is an orphaned redirect. Also both of those examples were created nearly two years ago, back when the site had far fewer features than nowadays to help readers and editors find articles. So even if they once were useful, I don't think they are any more. At some point we'll need to fix any links to those articles, and it might be good to get a list of such articles just to make sure nothing has been overlooked. But I'd say both of those are low priorities and can wait until the rest of the move is finalized. --NepheleTalk 20:13, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Tamriel (continent)

Okay, I've noticed that I've sort of broken that first rule by creating the Lore:Tamriel page, but I left the Lore:Tamriel (continent) redirect in place, so the bots shouldn't have a problem with that. At any rate, all links to either Lore:Tamriel or Lore:Main Page are going to have to be manually reviewed after the relinking is done, because it would be impossible for a bot to decide which page is more appropriate in each case. Hope this didn't throw a wrench in anything, but it seemed it was the appropriate time to do this. --TheRealLurlock Talk 09:58, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes... I'd deliberately left the continent page in place, but I'm sure the bots will deal with it. I would strongly advise against doing any moving around at the moment. There's enough going on in the job queue without confusing the site further. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:02, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I already undid the Tamriel (continent) move. By default every link to Tamriel:Tamriel is going to be changed by the bots into a link to Lore:Tamriel. Which means hundreds of links that say "see the [[Tamriel:Tamriel|Tamriel]] namespace" are going to become links to Lore:Tamriel. Readers are going to be really confused if that takes them to a page that doesn't contain navigational information for the entire namespace. I think the best thing to do with Tamriel:Tamriel type links is to work towards changing them into links to either Lore:Main_Page or Lore:Tamriel_(continent) to make it clear that the link has been examined and someone has determined what page is most appropriate. Once we have essentially eliminated all Tamriel:Tamriel (or Lore:Tamriel) links, then I think we can safely move Tamriel (continent) to be the only Tamriel article, and at that point bots can easily remove "(continent)" from all of the links. --NepheleTalk 10:42, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Onto the Cleanup

It's been nearly six months since the great namespace move. The Original Plan was to add a notice to each Tamriel page indicating that it's now out of date. Is everybody still okay with this? –Rpeh•T•C•E• 02:22, 28 January 2009 (EST)

The notice I'm planning to add is this:
This page was moved to Lore:16 Accords of Madness at the end of July 2008. It is being flagged now to allow external links to be updated. It will be flagged for deletion in early August 2009 and deleted about a week after that.
If there is a link to this page that cannot be adjusted, remove this notice and the page will not be marked for deletion.
If there are no objections, I'll be doing this on Wednesday 4, a week after my first post. Let me know if there are any suggestions for alternative wording. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:30, 2 February 2009 (EST)
Done. See you again in August 2009! –Rpeh•T•C•E• 05:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Update 2

There are still some pages linking to Lore:Tamriel, but almost all of them are archive pages. If anybody feels they need relinking, the list is here. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 02:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Probably should, because if Lore:Tamriel (continent) ultimately gets moved to Lore:Tamriel, then the links in those archive pages won't make any sense. They should be changed with discretion, of course, because some of them may be more appropriate to link to the continent article than the main page. I know there's a "don't edit archive pages" rule, but I think it should be suspended in the case of correcting links, otherwise there's not much point in keeping the archives if their links don't make any sense. --TheRealLurlock Talk 09:55, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
It already says at the top of every archive page (at least every archive page using the Archive Header, e.g., UESPWiki:Community Portal/Archive 1 or UESPWiki:Archive/CP Biographies?): "Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links." What else are you suggesting is needed? --NepheleTalk 11:18, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Me? I was just suggesting that the links should be updated by a human, rather than a bot, because some of them should point to Lore:Main Page and others should point to Lore:Tamriel (continent). That's all I meant by "discretion". --TheRealLurlock Talk 10:48, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

(Outdent) Can we make Lore a default selection for searches, like Tamriel was? Driving me nuts ;) --Benould•T•C 11:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

You can do that in your Preferences. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 12:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks rpeh, that helps ;) Although Lore should still be included in the default searches, like Tamriel was. --Benould•T•C 16:00, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Lore is being included in default searches, the exact same way that Tamriel was. Every custom reference to Tamriel in our PHP code has been replaced by a reference to Lore; Daveh installed the new PHP over the weekend. I tested and everything seemed to be working properly. For example, doing Go Vvardenfell when on an Oblivion page took me straight to Lore:Vvardenfell (not to a Tamriel redirect). --NepheleTalk 17:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

New User Log

We need a new user log, kinda like what Wikipedia has (click). It'd enable the creation of a Welcoming Committee (I could be the founder!) and we'd also be able to spot Sockpuppets upon creation. All in favor? Daedryon•T•C•E• 00:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Aye --M'aiq the Liar 03:59, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not so sure about that. We seem to have been doing a fine enough job welcoming new users as they make their first edits. We've also never been surprised by a sockpuppet that I'm aware of; if there's a reason to suspect, an admin can check and then deal with the problem. For a wiki as large as Wikipedia, it makes sense, but at the moment I don't see the need for it here, unless the editors currently serving as the "Welcoming Committee" think it would be useful... --GuildKnightTalk2me 19:39, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Us welcome committee people are quite unofficial, as is the theme around here, I admit that, but so far I see two supports (me and M'aiq) Daedryon•T•C•E• 23:34, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't see that it's necessary either. It's easy enough to spot new posters from the recent changes page (any account with a redlink for a talk page). Currently we have 3198 users who have made a post [1] but 17,315 users who have made an account (Special:Statistics). I'd rather only welcome the users that actually post. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:46, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
The numbers are less disparate if you count all the IP editors as well (not sure how to go about getting such a count, but whatever). But I'd agree that it doesn't make much sense to give out welcomes to people who haven't ever posted. (I actually think that'd be slightly creepy, getting a welcome message when you haven't actually done anything yet. Sort of an "I'm watching you, scum." sort of feeling. Okay, minus the "scum" part, just had to make a Morrowind quote there.) So I don't see this being too useful for that purpose. On the other hand, if it's farily simple to install, and has no negative impact on the site, I don't see that there's any reason not to add the feature (with the stipulation that we don't give welcomes to non-posting lurkers), but there's no need to go out of our way to do so either. --TheRealLurlock Talk 17:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd be in favor if the welcoming message actually said, "We're watching you, scum."-Ratwar 18:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
I support that. I'd like to have a Welcoming Committee on UESP. C Teng [talk] 08:56, 11 November 2008 (EST)


Template Documentation

I would like to propose a change in the current layout of documentation we have for the documentation of templates. Currently, template documentations are either set up like Template:Oblivion Places Summary/Doc, or have their own unique setup. Here I have an example of how the new format for documentation should look like. The actual content of the template will be includeonly, and the documentation is divided into four sections:

  1. A summary of what the template does.
  2. An overview of all the possible parameters, the conditions on their value, and what they will affect.
  3. A code example.
  4. An example on how the template will display the the previously given code example.

With smaller templates it will be possible to merge the last two sections, which will work better for templates like Key Note.

With the current preformatted text documentations I always have thought it slightly weird that we didn't make full use of the Wiki markup. --Timenn < talk > 13:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, you're absolutely right. I've used a mixture of the "pre" style and custom ones (like Template:Year).
It's worth mentioning that templates can be included on themselves to just one level or recursion exactly so that examples can be given so we're definitely behind the times on using the old style.
While we're at it, it would be a good opportunity to move more documentation to subpages if we find widely-used templates that have their documentation on themselves. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:28, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm all for this change. The new layout is clear and easy to understand. With the <pre></pre> documentations it's often difficult to understand which parameters do what. They also look a bit scary to a new user who doesn't know how use templates; a brown box, with only text inside. In comparison to the new one: A quick summary, a table explaining the various parameters, an example of the code, and a preview of what the template will look like.
I don't think there's much question here. I'm for the change. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 18:41, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree that documentation such as is used on Timenn's first example can be difficult to translate at times. It seems that this suggestion would work well. So, that's a "support" from me. --GuildKnightTalk2me 01:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't Prod Redirects

(moved to UESPWiki_talk:Deletion_Policy#Don't_Prod_Redirects) –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


Signature Templates

I was wondering if signatures with templates in them were allowed on this wiki. I searched UESP for any signature policies, but I couldn't find any. Are there any signature policies on this wiki? I know Wikipedia does not allow templates in signatures, but many other wikis do. If I wanted to put my signature in a template, all I would have to do is put {{SUBST:Nosubst|User:C Teng/sig}} in the "Signatures:" category and check the "Raw signature" box. (Template:Nosubst would have {{{{{1}}}}} in it.) C Teng [talk] 16:31, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

We allow templates, but they have to be subst'ed onto a page. See this discussion, currently on my talk page. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 16:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, this should be made a policy, then. C Teng [talk] 17:56, 20 October 2008 (EDT)


Multilanguage

What do you think about an UESP with more than 1 language? This would be more usefull and interesting. I thought on something like the German Version of UESP? (Sorry for my bad english)--80.108.254.186 10:15, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

In the past I've considered proposing this myself. We already have a few multilingual ingredients lists and having a second language section would make UESP a more useful place to the non-english players of Elder Scrolls.
The one thing that I'm slightly uncertain about is whether we will have sufficient hard-workers who are willing to put a lot of effort into this. Setting up a wiki from scratch is a very long business and requires a lot of time, work and patience.
I think that German would be a good choice for our first non-english UESP. The reason for this is that we currently have two patrollers who can speak and write german, as well as a handful of other editors, some of whom administrate other wikis, which shows that they are capable.
I personally would be willing to help set up a German wiki. If a few others are willing to help, then I think it could and should be done. A minimum of four other definates, along with myself, would be necessary though.
This would require a large amount of planning. The last thing we want is to have a few quest pages, a few place pages, and a few NPC pages, etc. We need to plan out what sections we create and in what order. That way we can more easily control what is being added and make sure that each sections is ready and complete before moving onto the next.
Finally, if this project does go ahead, I would be willing to be Project leader, if no one else objects. Before we even talk about details, though, I would like to know what the rest of the community thinks about this proposal.
- Game LordTalk|Contribs 11:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
At the least we could allow willing users to translate pages and place links in the article's external links section.Temple-Zero 12:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Because the english UESP is nearly complete, I thought that the german-speaking users could translate. sure this will take a lot of time, but this is a great thing about a wiki!--Vvardenfell 17:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
BTW, German has been discussed before. Russian has been suggested once as well. --Wrye 22:32, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I remember a discussion a while back that made me think there is already a German elder scrolls help wiki. I don't know the exact site, but it would be worth searching for if you understand German better than English. --Timmeh Talk 12:07, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
There's a good chance it's one of these. If it isn't, then it should probably be added to this list. I do sort of like the idea of a collaborative project like Wikipedia's many language versions, but I just don't think we have enough international visitors to the site (from non-English-speaking countries) to organize such a project. The link posted above shows only 7 people from Germany, and while there are probably a few more who just aren't using the German userbox on their pages, it's still a very small percentage of our editors. Unless you're as big as Wikipedia, it's probably going to be very difficult to arrange such a project. --TheRealLurlock Talk 17:56, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
In fact, the thing that should be done would be this: let the gamers of different countries have their native wiki/community site. Cross-link most interesting and/or important topics across those sites, maybe "sidekicked" with some translated local copies or annotations. Bethesda themselves don't have translations for all topics into other languages than US-english, and users still manage to get all the info they need, because of this method.--84.144.17.64 03:58, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
I actually think that 5 users would be enough to start a german UESP. Note that I said "start", not "manage". When UESP started it had very few users. If you look at the list of the oldest contributers on my userpage (yes, I know it's not the most reliable source), but you can see that between February and August 2005, only around 10 editors were working on UESP. And look at it now, over 7000 registered editors.
So I think that if we start the wiki, it'll start small, obviously, just as all wikis do, but it will grow with time, as the UESP did. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 06:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
I started a Hungarian version some time ago, if you are interested in how I made it (or making it), please ask here. I licensed the work under CC, too and I link to you a lot of times, so I hope I don't make any copyright infridgement :) It has few articles (near 100) but it is growing continually --Szotsaki 06:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
Currently you're running under cc-by-sa-nc, while we're running under cc-by-sa. I would strongly urge you to switch to cc-by-sa. This leaves you the option to add advertising (to help support the site) at a later date. There are problems with the NC version in that it restrains people in a problematic way, and can lead to quite a bit of community problems down the road. (E.g. Obliviowiki had a major problem related to their using cc-by-sa-nc.) Also, if you're going to be using translated material from us, then it's definitely better to use cc-by-sa (as we do). (For example, if you take an article of ours and expand it, then we can't take and reuse that expansion because we're a non-nc site. So in fairness, you should be non-nc if you're using material from UESP.)
Aside from that, be sure to give proper attribution. Best ways to do that are: 1) a general notice about the site using material from UESP, and 2) for any page that starts as a translated version of a UESP page, the history should say something like "Translated from UESP [name of page]" (e.g. UESPWiki:Community Portal). --Wrye 13:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)


Stubs vs Incomplete Pages

I think it might be a good idea to start distinguishing between a Stub and an Incomplete page. Stubs are defined as pages with minimal information, which need to be expanded on to become full articles. Incomplete pages are already full articles, but just missing some information. We've had the Incomplete template around for years, but it rarely gets used. But look for example at Oblivion:Mage Scholar. It was tagged as a Stub, and then the tag was removed, and then reinstated because the page is missing detailed NPC stats. I think if this page were tagged as Incomplete rather than a Stub, it would be a more accurate description. Other than the missing stats, there's not much else you could add to this article. Additionally, unlike the Stub tag, the Incomplete tag gives you the option to explain why you think the page is incomplete, which will make it less likely that somebody will remove the tag prematurely. There's a lot of pages on the site that are labelled as Stubs which really don't fit the criteria - some of them are decently long articles that bear the tag just because there's still some small thing missing. These should be labelled as Incomplete instead. Anybody with me? --TheRealLurlock Talk 09:35, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I've already been using the Incomplete template on a few pages, and I know a couple of other people use it too - see Category:All Incomplete Pages for the full list. The Mage Scholar article has always been a stub - this morning's edit was to remove a parameter that doesn't work in the stub tag.
I would broadly agree with your descriptions, but there's an extra one:
In between there are pages like Daggerfall:Knights of the Dragon, currently marked as a stub but possible more incomplete. In general I'd say that it's not worth splitting hairs in most cases. I suppose if somebody starts removing stub tags en-masse then there's a case for an editor who disagrees replacing it with an incomplete tag listing what needs to be added. I definitely don't think it's worth going through all 500 current "need improvement" pages and changing their current category. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 12:52, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Actually as a followup, there are pages like Shadowkey:Places. I know this isn't ready for prime-time but I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done. Calling it "incomplete" would be wrong since there's nothing specific I have to suggest, but it doesn't really fit into my definition of "stub". I think it comes down to "If you know what needs to be done, and there's not much, use "verificationneeded" or "huh"; if you know what needs to be done, and there's quite a bit, use "incomplete"; otherwise make it a "stub". –Rpeh•T•C•E• 15:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I wouldn't call that a Stub OR Incomplete. Looks like a finished article to me. Minimal, maybe, and possibly improvements could be made to the formatting, but for a page that's really nothing more than a table of contents to link to other pages, (see Morrowind:Items for a similar example) I'd say it's pretty much complete. Then again, I know pretty much zilch about Shadowkey, so I could be wrong, but it looks like that page has all the information it will ever need to have.
I don't think the "if you know what needs to be done" criterion makes much sense, really. There are times when I might create an article just as a starting point - I know it needs more, and I know what it needs, but I just don't have the time/energy to do it now. In that case, I'll label it a Stub and either come back to it later or hope somebody else does. "Verification Needed" means what it says - if you see a questionable claim on a page, you mark it so that somebody can check to see if it's correct and verify/refute it. It can also be used as a placeholder for information you don't have at the moment. But I don't see it as just a weaker version of "Incomplete". --TheRealLurlock Talk 23:42, 10 November 2008 (EST)
You just said it yourself, "It can also be used as a placeholder for information you don't have at the moment." In that case it's a weaker "incomplete" tag. If you don't like the criteria I suggested, perhaps you can come up with your own? Until then, since it's of little importance, I'm going to keep using the tags in a way that makes sense to me. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Well, by "information", I meant things like fields in an infobox or a disputed claim in the text or something. Another major difference between VN and Incomplete is that VN refers to a specific piece of data that is missing or needs to be checked, while Incomplete and Stub refer to the whole page or section they're in. You can have multiple VNs on a page for each piece of data that's missing, but there shouldn't be a need for multiple Incomplete/Stub tags on a single page. (I suppose if you're referring to a section of an article as incomplete/stub rather than the whole article, there might be more than one, but we haven't really done that sort of thing too much.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 08:35, 11 November 2008 (EST)


Place Summary Templates

I've been thinking that it might make sense to start phasing out the game-specific Template:Morrowind Places Summary and Template:Oblivion Places Summary in favor of the generic Template:Place Summary. For the most part, these all do the same thing, except that the Morrowind and Oblivion ones add a few parameters unique to those games. Adding a few game-specific options to the generic template would be all that would be needed to make the others completely obsolete. We already do this for the NPCs, Creatures, Skills, Artifacts, Books, Effects, and Ingredients. Places are currently the only major subject which still has separate templates, even though a generic template already exists and is widely used. (Not counting those specific to Daggerfall or Shadowkey, which have several templates for things which have no current parallel in the other games.) I've been doing some of this myself, with the new Morrowind service pages, and I'm also finding that those already-existing pages can transfer over from the Morrowind template to the generic template with almost no changes. (Certain fields I've omitted because they aren't all that useful - the "Zones" and "Occupants" fields which exist in Morrowind Places Summary are not really relevant when talking about a store or a temple. They're mostly only of interest for hostile locations such as caves and ruins. Still, it would be trivial to add these fields to the generic template if we decided to use it across the board.)

Using a single template makes things easier for editors, since they don't have to remember the subtle differences between one template and the next. It also means that any changes to the layout need only be made in one place, not all three. All in all, there's really no good reason I can think of to keep these templates separate, when they all serve essentially the same function. --TheRealLurlock Talk 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

The original purpose of the Place Summary was to be a small, lightweight template for the places that didn't need the full game-specific versions - it was supposed to have little more than name, location and code on it. The pages that were being created at the time (and which are still being created) didn't have enemy occupants, zones, treasure or any of the other things that fill up the larger templates, and it made much more sense to have a simple template with as few parameters as possible. See the original documentation for how simple it was to use.
I'm afraid to say I think your recent changes have ruined the template. Instead of putting MW-specific params on the MW-specific template we now have TWO templates related to Morrowind. We also have a mass of interdependent parameters that make using the template vastly more complex than it was. The thought of combining everything into one, vast template fills me with horror - both at the complexity required in such a template and the thought of the server resources it'll need to process. You've already made the Place Summary template so complex that you had to ask on IRC when you had a formatting problem, and it's just going to be worse the more you do to it. I also with you'd had this discussion before embarking on such a wide range of changes.
As for making it easier for editors, I disagree there too. People are only creating simple location pages, not ones that require a huge number of parameters. It would have been much easier for people to use a template with just nine parameters instead of one that needs a manual and a flowchart. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Can you please explain to me exactly how I have "ruined the template"? Or what pages I've used it on that aren't minor? So far I've used it on stores, temples, guild halls, ships, and other such locations, none of which have enemy occupants (other than an occasional rat or two), or anything else of particular significance. A possible argument could be made that guild halls are not minor, but these required no changes to the existing template, so it's really irrelevant. I was suggesting that it could be used on other pages, but I haven't done it yet, nor did I plan to without community approval, so I think your outrage is a little unfounded. As for the changes I've made, well, let's see:
  • Adding the Proprietor (and propname) field. Well, the template was already being used on store pages in both namespaces, so this one just seemed like a no-brainer. And oh, I made it possible to call the proprietor by a different name, nothing revolutionary there.
  • Adding the Dest parameters. Since I was using the template on MW ship pages (which you can't possibly argue are not "minor"), it seemed like it was incomplete without these. I don't see mcuh problem with adding them.
  • Adding the Almsivi/Divine parameters. Okay, not exactly necessary, but not earth-shattering either. Could be potentially useful on all MW pages.
  • Making the Locationcode parameter optional. Let's face it, some locations (see MW ships) just don't have locationcodes. People were making stuff up in order to not have it display "Unknown". Try going to the console and typing COC Harpy. It won't do anything, because there's no such location. Making this field a requirement just confuses people. This, by the way, was the edit for which I went to IRC for assistance. Instead, I got nothing but derision from you for having the audacity to tinker with your template. (By the way, thank you Game Lord for actually taking the time to look at and correct the mistake instead of ranting at me about it.)
  • Making it possible to specify a City instead of a Region. This one just made sense because the vast majority of pages that this was already being used on are located within cities. Having Eight Plates show up in Morrowind-Places-West Gash just seemed ridiculous. So I changed it so that it shows up in Morrowind-Places-Balmora instead, which makes much more sense. This doesn't have to be Morrowind-specific either - most of the Oblivion pages that use the template could be pinned to a city rather than a region as well.
As for the interdependency of the parameters - half of that was already there. I just had the temerity to actually document it. And if you think this template is going to be a huge strain on the server, what are your opinions on the NPC Summary, which is FAR more complex, used on a much greater number of pages in five namespaces, and yet still seems not to cause undue strain on the site. All in all, I don't think I've done anything out of line here. I made some small changes (sure I stumbled over one of them, but let's face it - wikicode is a pain to read and debug sometimes), and I offered the suggestion that this template could be used more widely. I was expecting discussion, but not a flat out scolding for making what were really minor and sensible changes. --TheRealLurlock Talk 08:12, 21 November 2008 (EST)
As I said in my first post, you've taken a template that was specifically set up for one purpose and changed it into something else with no discussion. You've added several MW-only params despite the existence of a MW-only template.
  • Proprietor (and propname) Simply unnecessary. Being able to have Trebonius down as the guildmaster on the Mages Guild page infobox doesn't add anything that isn't already on the article.
  • Adding the Dest parameters. MW-specific. Also makes more sense in the article text given that the articles are about the ships.
  • Adding the Almsivi/Divine parameters. MW-specific and unnecessary.
  • Making the Locationcode parameter optional. Given that the raison d'etre of the template was presenting locationcodes in a standard way, making it optional doesn't seem like the best plan. Sure some of the values were wrong but the correct thing to do would have been to replace them with the coordinates for the coe command, as has been done on other pages.
  • Making it possible to specify a City. That one's sensible enough. Fine.
Anyway. In general, you asked what we thought about merging the templates and I think it's a bad idea. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 08:53, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion of merging these templates into a single template.

Even if the original intent with the Place Summary template was to create a simplified template, that clearly is no longer how the template is being used. Complexity is not going to cause any server processing problems with this template: it is only used once on a page (particularly on the simple pages where it was first introduced). If pages can handle having the NPC Summary template used ten times on the same page, then I can't even anticipate there being any problems if for some reason the Place Summary template does need to appear more than once on a page. And as long most of the parameters for the template are optional, their presence doesn't really make using the template any more complicated: a simple template usage example such as {{Place Summary|type=House|locationcode=LordDradsEstateFarm|region=Gold Coast}} (or even just {{Place Summary|type=House}}) would still work. If those are the only parameters an editor cares to use, or the only parameters that are appropriate, the rest of the options can be ignored. The work required to expand the Place Summary template to cover all three templates is not so daunting: adding all of the functionality into a single template is basically just some cut-and-paste work; Morrowind Places Template and Oblivion Places Template can just be turned into redirects to Place Summary, and instantly all of the pages are converted to the same template.

On the other hand, having three mostly overlapping templates is unnecessary, difficult to maintain, and frustrating. We don't have any real guidelines for which template is supposed to be used on which type of page. At the moment, it seems to be primarily "if there are no enemies, use Place Summary, otherwise use one of the other two" -- which is a pretty insignificant (and potentially even arbitrary) criterion to use. The original intent of "simple" pages using the Place Summary was just as arbitrary: the game doesn't have a clear division between simple and non-simple places, so why should our templates impose such a division?

If we want to add a new feature to the place pages, edits now need to be made in three different places instead of just one. Or, even worse, editors keep getting frustrated because a feature that works on one page doesn't work on another page, or works differently for some mysterious reason. The most recent example I just ran into was for almsivi and divine intervention: it should be possible to add those parameters to pages such as Morrowind:Mzuleft, especially since that information is partially (previously completely) covered by a note on the quest page. However, the almsivi/divine options only exist for the "simplified" Place Summary template, not for the "comprehensive" Morrowind Places Summary. So at the moment, there's no consistent way to add that information to all relevant Morrowind pages -- for no real reason other than the fact that these templates are currently unnecessarily difficult to maintain and use. --NepheleTalk 13:22, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Well given that the Place Summary has been effectively MWed anyway, I suppose merging it into the Morrowind Places Summary makes sense. I'd prefer to keep separate templates for Morrowind and Oblivion though and begin to look at splitting up the NPC Summary template into separate games too, while we're at it. The NPC template is already too complex and I don't want to see the Place templates heading the same way. Sometimes merging makes sense (for instance, when I merged the Shivering Places Summary into the Oblivion one: both games use the same params so it made sense to use the same template. I'd just rather not see the option to include the number of Kollops on Oblivion place pages.
Additionally, look at the future. Fallout 3 has already introduced some new features that might well make it into TESV: Alignment, Disposition Base and Mood are three that seem possible. Having so many optional parameters is just bad programming. If consistency across games is important then we should look at specific templates and then sub-templates for common areas. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Full Moon

I know there's no such thing as "finished" on a wiki, but as of today we have no Wanted Pages in the Bloodmoon namespace and neither are there any BM pages needing Cleanup, Verification, Images, or Maps. No BM pages are Incomplete, Works in Progress or need Userfication. We don't even have any Questions Needing Answers relating to the BM namespace. In other words... I think there's room to call our Bloodmoon section "Provisionally Complete".

There are probably many pages that can be tweaked for completeness and accuracy but the basic information is all present. I think everybody who has contributed to the Bloodmoon namespace can give themselves a pat on the back! –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:59, 23 November 2008 (EST)


's

I've got a bit of a community wide question to raise. I've been working on correcting spelling, mostly in Lore pages (and yes, I know what not to touch, and what to edit), and lately I've noticed that, during a sentence, I come across something like Guar's.

Now, I personally edit it to be Guar's, but what I want to know, before doing a UESP-wide spelling sweep, is...which does UESP prefer? The " 's " after the brackets, or in the brackets? I've seen both used, but I'm just hoping to clear it up before I do my sweep. I just wanna know if there's a big issue with having something like Vivec's link to the Vivec page, or if it should be Vivec's. Those are just examples, but you get the idea. Daedryon•T•C•E• 05:40, 31 December 2008 (EST)

I would treat the links as parentheses, encompassing the relevant word. "Guar's" looks good. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 05:55, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Personally I think plurals should be part of the link, but possessives shouldn't. E.g. There are five Guars, but The Guar's saddle. To be honest, this is one of those things, like the Quoting and Punctuation Format we use where, even if we come up with a policy, it'll be widely ignored anyway. I certainly wouldn't start changing lots of links to use a particular style. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 06:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)
I agree with Rpeh. Links shouldn't be broken in the middle of a word, that's why it can be done with a possessives, as the ' seperates it nicely. --Timenn < talk > 06:51, 31 December 2008 (EST)
That's exactly the example off of which I was running. I stopped using traditional quotes in 6th grade, when I started programming. It's not natural for me to punctuate inside quotes, parentheses or double-brackets. I was extending this logic to contractions. The word "o'clock" shouldn't be linked "o'[[clock]]", should it? Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 09:59, 31 December 2008 (EST)
That's a contraction, as is Fo'c's'le, but possessives aren't. Contractions form new words; possessives don't. That's the difference. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:34, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Oh, I see. So properly we would link it "the [[Guar]]'s potato" and "the [[Guar's]] hot"? It still looks weird, but consistent style is important. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 10:41, 31 December 2008 (EST)
What about words with apostrophes, and no "s", such as "the guards' barracks"? (Wiki language puts that inside the bold.) Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 10:46, 31 December 2008 (EST)
This really isn't important. I'm just going to keep doing whatever I feel is right at the time. If you want to see what Wikipedia does, read this. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:55, 31 December 2008 (EST)
I don't think that existing links should be modified just to change the location of a trailing "s" or "'s". It's not a spelling mistake. In most cases, it makes absolutely no difference to readers: the entire word, including trailing and preceding letters is turned into a link and is displayed in a blue font -- with the (significant) exception of when punctuation, such as an apostrophe, is introduced. The upshot is that it's normally a difference that's only noticeable to editors, and therefore nearly irrelevant.
As for which is better, neither is better. If you're entering a link, typing in [[Jauffre]]'s is far easier than [[Jauffre|Jauffre's]]. (Note that following behind-the-scenes magical expansion, the two links are much more similar: [[Oblivion:Jauffre|Jauffre]]'s versus [[Oblivion:Jauffre|Jauffre's]]. Also, Lukish's [[Guar's]] example wouldn't work -- it would be a redlink. It needs to be [[Guar|Guar's]].) So why should we tell editors to waste their time (and more than double the chance of introducing typos -- given that typos in the link are always detected because the link becomes a redlink; not so in the label) by using the second form? Followup edits to "fix" the location of the "s" (whichever way around you're moving it) just seem unnecessary: they imply the first editor made a mistake; they take up time on the second editor's part; the move needs to be patrolled. And unnecessary edits, in my opinion, just increase the chance of new errors getting introduced.
Obviously, I just don't get it. --NepheleTalk 21:11, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Ideally, of course, that "behind-the-scenes magical expansion" should be smart enough to recognize the 's as part of the word, and thus properly expand [[Jauffre]]'s into [[Oblivion:Jauffre|Jauffre's]]. But that would require some probably-not-insignificant modifications to the wiki software, which is really a lot more effort than this fairly minor issue deserves. I agree with Nephele that there's no reason to go around changing all such links to include the 's. But if you happen to be editing something else on the page, there's no harm in correcting these at the same time. I just don't think we need to put any special effort into such a trivial little discrepancy. --TheRealLurlock Talk 23:05, 3 January 2009 (EST)

\=> I, in return, don't understand the emphasis on how we all shouldn't waste time on it. As I see it, the question was not whether all instances should be fixed, but what to do if you encounter one while editing. Better said, it was a simple style question, and not a request for change. --Timenn < talk > 05:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Mhm, it was simply a style question. Also, I encountered the wiki-formatting thing when I kept typing [[Morrowind:Guars|Guar]]'s and it kept turning into Guar's . It was scaring the heck out of me every time I'd put something like that in, and it would automatically change..Prince of MadnessDaedryon 10:46, 4 January 2009 (EST)
The gist behind what rpeh, Neph, and Lurlock are saying is that it's really not a style question... the links you've noticed were not done that way because of "style". The reason that there are links like that is that if the page text contains "Guar's" it's a lot easier to just highlight the portion that is the article name, "Guar", and then click the brackets in the box below the edit window to turn it into a link. That's what I'd been doing as I went through adding a butt-load of links to Lore pages. Doing that turns the word into "[[Guar]]'s", and then when you save the page it becomes "[[Morrowind:Guar|Guar]]'s". It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of the wiki software making it easier to edit pages and add links.
So, essentially, if you're already editing the page and it bugs you that badly then go ahead and change it, but it's not a big deal. Similarly, when you're editing a page, feel free to take the time to type out the longer link if you like. However, if an editor went through making edits solely to change things like "[[Morrowind:Guar|Guar]]'s" to "[[Morrowind:Guar|Guar's]]" it would likely be considered a nuisance by many patrollers, because it would not contribute to the quality of the article and would take time that could be spent checking other edits. Links will continue to be added the way I have been adding them - leaving trailing "s"s and "'s"s outside the link brackets - not because it is an approved "style", but because it's easier to expand the page that way and does not at all detract from the "readability" of the article for readers. --GuildKnightTalk2me 23:31, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Once again, yes, it is a style question. As for a nuissance, and other edits, there's not much to do on this wiki. Most everything is complete except for the mobile games, and of course, Lore. I doubt the other editors would mind a series of edits. Prince of MadnessDaedryon 23:41, 4 January 2009 (EST)
For a wiki with "not much to do", we still manage to consistently see over 500 edits on a slow day, so obviously some people are able to find things that still need work. I'll repeat what was said before, though - I strongly recommend that you don't make it your personal mission to go around fixing these links. As others have said, it does not noticeably improve articles, and it creates a lot of work, not just for whoever does the edits, but for whoever has to patrol them all later. Yes, it is sort of a style issue, but an extremely minor one, and simply not worth the effort of fixing on a wide scale. And even if it were, it'd probably be much more efficient to have a bot do the work (not that I'm suggesting that at this time). At any rate, we've always favored a "content over style" philosophy on this site. Adding information and correcting errors is always far more important than making sure it all looks pretty, particularly when it's something minor as these apostrophes. Wasting the time of editors and patrollers for such an absurdly trivial issue is just ridiculous. If you're looking for something to do, I'm sure we can find plenty of more productive means to occupy your time. --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I'm late to the party, but apostrophes should only be part of the link when they are part of the noun or phrase the article is named after. Mentally replace the possessive case by an "of the" or "belongng to the" construction, since semantically it's what it means, so that "the guar's potatoes" becomes "the potatoes belonging to the guar" -- would it make sense to have it be "the potatoes [[guar|belonguing to the guar]]"? Of course not. Likewise for contracted verbs -- "the guar's dead" for example -- but that point is moot since contracted forms of verbs shouldn't be used at all in articles, instead it should be "the guar is dead" in this example. --Gez 12:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Slow site

Can anyone tell me if they're experiencing very long load times like I am? I'm pretty sure it's not my internet or computer, because everything else works fine. Is something wrong with the site? I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this, but it seemed like that's what this page is for. --98.213.150.63 16:56, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, the site was very slow and has only just recovered. From the occasional server status page I got to load it appears that somebody was trying to download a copy of the site: there were lots of simultaneous accesses to several different Morrowind potions for instance, and later on to scrolls. Note to anybody trying to download the site: it's a stupid idea because of all the "redirects to broader subjects" we use, but if you really, really want a static copy of a dynamic site, please use only one or two threads. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:06, 18 February 2009 (EST)
Wow, I hope their cable company throttles their bandwidth in revenge :P --98.213.150.63 01:26, 19 February 2009 (EST)
The site still seems to be slow every so often, but not nearly as much as when I posted that (I was that IP.) I saw the upgrade page, does this mean the site is still having problems? --Macros the Black 16:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not exactly sure of the cause of the site issues in the past few weeks. I, and others, have noticed people abusing the site in various ways that basically use up all the available CPU power. The site itself has always been CPU limited which can be seen during peak traffic hours. I'm trying to implement something on the cache (squid1) to help prevent one or two sites from taking over as well as order some new servers to setup a load balancing configuration for the content server. The first is easy and already done...just have to monitor and tweak it as needed. The latter is more involved but should increase the overall responsiveness of the site for logged in users (who always bypass the squid cache). -- Daveh 21:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Oblivion:Mage Apprentice page

It seems there is something wrong with that page. If I try to enter, all that shows is a white page. Codex 12:36, 21 February 2009 (EST)

That's probably the old cache bug. I just purged the page - try again now. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 12:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
That did it. Thanks. Codex 16:47, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Oblivion: Merchants page

Same as the problem described above. The Merchants page is blank.--220.235.133.253 12:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Okay I purged that one too. Should be okay now. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 12:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm... odd... didn't seem to work. Any other suggestions? (I have tried Shift-F5 on my end) --220.235.133.253 13:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)
I've tried again, but the site is very busy at the moment. You might just have to wait until it's less busy. Sunday afternoons/evenings are never good for performance. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:31, 22 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks. Working now --220.235.133.253 07:45, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Good. I purged the page again a little while ago but I was waiting until I could load it before posting... I think my company's proxy server is having a fit over it. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 08:04, 23 February 2009 (EST)


Leyawin redirect

I came here and tried to find the page on Leyawiin, and typed "Leyawin" into the search bar (I was unsure of the spelling, but expected a redirect to be in place). This told me the page did not exist, and returned two search results, neither of which was particularly helpful. "OK," I thought, "so the redirect does not exist, so I will create it myself." Having found the correct spelling elsewhere, I thought I would make [[:Leyawin|Leyawin]] a redirect in the interests of improving this wiki for others, but there was no link to create the page. The instructions said I must first choose the correct game from the list on the left, so I clicked on Oblivion, and was just taken to the Oblivion page. How is that helpful?! I had to type into my address bar http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Leyawin to find the option to create the page, which I selected by following the "Start the Leyawin page" link. Then I was told that you "do not allow unregistered users and newly created accounts to create new pages", so even if I took the time and trouble to register just for the sake of creating this redirect, as a new user I still would not be able to do so!

So finally I am doing the only thing I can do, which is following the instructions to post a message here. The reason I love wikis is that anyone can edit, and I'm pretty well versed in editing them, but this is a huge ordeal to endure when all I wanted to do was to make a small but helpful change. I read this wiki quite often, but have never had the need to edit it before. Many wikis suffer from vandalism, but is this really the solution? In any case, if someone else could create that redirect, future users would be very grateful.  :-) Leevclarke 90.200.42.156 16:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Being unable to create new pages if you are an anonymous IP address is a standard restriction that exists on every wiki I know of (including, most notably, wikipedia). So, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to criticize UESP for following the same practice as everyone else.
As for the specifics of the page you've been trying to create, we do not want a redirect created for Leyawin (or even Leyawiin) in the main namespace, which is very intentionally why we removed the "create a page" link for main namespace articles. We use namespaces more extensively than most wikis. Therefore an article on an Oblivion-specific topic, such as Leyawiin, belongs in the Oblivion namespace, not the main namespace. If you had tried to "go" to "Leyawin" from the Oblivion page to which you were taken, then you would have been given an option to create a version of the page in the Oblivion namespace. I'll admit that our namespaces can be somewhat confusing for new users, but I'm not sure what we can do differently from what we're already doing. You may find it frustrating that you can't create a main namespace article -- but if you were free to create it, you'd be just as frustrated (if not even upset) when that article was immediately deleted because it is unwanted, and multiple other editors on the site would also be frustrated by having to clean up the unwanted article. It's not an anti-vandalism measure, but rather a necessary measure to make sure editors create articles where they belong.
Beyond that, there is then also the question of whether a redirect from Leyawin to Leyawiin should even exist. We don't generally create redirects for misspellings -- the only exception being words that are actually misspelled in game. If we created redirects for every misspelling ever used by readers we would have ten times more redirects than articles on the site. Furthermore, such redirects would then promote the use of misspellings on other articles on the site -- if an editor were to accidentally type Leyawin instead of Leyawiin, the resulting link would be a valid link, instead of being highlighted as incorrect by showing up as a red link. At the least, I think that before starting to create such redirects for misspellings, there should be a community discussion about whether they should be created and, if so, which misspellings deserve such treatment. --NepheleTalk 17:30, 22 February 2009 (EST)
OK, well thanks for clarifying your position. The thing is though, without the redirect, I am unable even to locate the article I was looking for. Now I know that you can't (and shouldn't) account for every misspelling, but if someone links to "Leyawin" (misspelt) from another article, with a redirect to Oblivion:Leyawiin in place then people using the site will at least be taken straight to the information they were looking for. Additionally, without the redirect in place, red links will be appearing in articles where their intended target was fairly obvious. Aren't these two together a bigger problem than worrying about too many redirects being created? Even if you did have ten times as many redirects as articles, if they all serve a useful purpose then what is the big deal? In any case, as a non-registered user I understand that my opinion doesn't necessarily matter, so I will let you decide your own policies.  ;-) Thanks again for explaining your position. 90.200.42.156 19:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)
We have thousands - quite literally - of redirects in place to make searching and linking easier. What we don't want, though, is a single incorrectly-spelled one. If somebody links to "Leyawin" or another favorite misspelling, "deadric", they'll get a redlink that should be adequate warning that there's a mistake. If you don't know the spelling of an item, then the site is logical enough to make it easy to find. Click "Oblivion" in the list to the left, then "Places" and it's right there. The only misspellings we want are for those items and places the developers misspelled themselves. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:11, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Sanguine Talk

I've had some issues that wound up making me fail this quest in my current game (succeeded before) I've been visiting the page (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion_talk:Sanguine) a bit. There's a lot of text on the talk page, and I tried a bit of reordering to make it easier to find information. I'm probably part of the problem for posting in frustration, but I think it might be worth someone with a bit more seniority / investment in the wiki cleaning it up a bit, or maybe the article too, to make the page & talk more useful for those having problems with it. The very volume of chatter suggests that there's interest in the issues.--DoubleGrande 22:54, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I edited that talk page before I saw this comment. This wiki uses chronological order for discussion pages, so I did that, and archived the conversations over a year old. If there's information on that page that's useful in completing the quest, it should be integrated into the article. Go ahead and give it a shot yourself; worst case scenario is that it's reverted...  ;) --GuildKnightTalk2me 00:28, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks. Now that I've verified the arrest, charm the guards, and escape scenarios and Hermaeus Mora I tried to add a relatively short note to the notes section explaining exactly when the Countess becomes non-essential and that the loss of the Sanguine Rose is the only long term impact on a game.--DoubleGrande 06:02, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Prev: Archive 14 Up: Community Portal Next: Archive 16
Retrieved from "https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki:Community_Portal/Archive_15&oldid=2306185"