UESPWiki talk:Oblivion Houses Redesign Project

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


As pointed out on the project page, one of the requirements for the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project was to add house contents/descriptions to the pages of the various NPC's. Since this project now covers that requirement by creating specific pages for each specific house, what of the OBNPCRP requirement? Should that part of the project be disregarded and ignored? Forfeit (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

That part is to not be ignored as per say. What will happen in regards to that is that the house contents that are found on NPC pages will be moved to their respective house articles and if the parameter for "house contents" in OBNPCRP will be marked as written and checked. I've already moved some of the house contents from some NPC articles over to their house articles for now. But basically to answer your question - no that parameter of that project is not to be ignored, just a new guideline as to filling out and checking it. -helenaanne  talk ♥ 18:44, 25 April 2013 (GMT)
All of the house contents have been written for OBNPCRP, but they haven't all been checked. If you move one over that hasn't been checked, just check it off when you move it. Easy Peasy. Jeancey (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2013 (GMT)
Alright, that sounds like a good approach. Thanks for clearing that up. Forfeit (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

Images Portion on OBHRP Template?[edit]

Like the MWOP, I think that the OBHRP should have a check-off portion on the project template for interior and exterior images of the locations, in this case the houses. What are people's opinions on this? If there is no reason against this or no objection, I'll see if this can't be added by a bot. •WoahBro►talk 01:43, 17 November 2013 (GMT)

It probably could help out, but I don't know if it would be all that useful. All the pages that do not have any images on them are already marked as needing an image, so the tag would be somewhat redundant in a sense (especially for exterior images). This is different from MWOP, where the pages already have images or aren't marked as needing an image. The checking of interior images may not be a bad idea since many of the homes do look fairly identical inside. This could lead to a photographer mixing up which image goes to a particular house or not realizing that they took images in the wrong house. However, I still think that this probably would not happen very often if at all, and sooner or later this mistake would be noticed by someone. So, while these additions to the project template could be beneficial, I personally feel they may be more redundant and unnecessary than helpful. Forfeit (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2013 (GMT)
Another thought: What if while adding the parameter to the template, wouldn't we be able to tell it to take off the ImageNeeded template at the same time? Not sure if it would change any minds, but it's a thought. •WoahBro►talk 17:35, 17 November 2013 (GMT)


Ok - question about headers... How many should go on the page if there are multiple zones? I was trying to follow Pennus Mallius' House as a guideline. Do we like the

==this guy's house== 

and then the

===this guy's house again===

look? I thought it was a bit much, but let me know if that's how I should be doing it?--Beezer1029 16:18, 5 February 2014 (GMT)

Generally we do two-tier (==Text==) all the way down the page, a three tier (===Text===) header is normally a subcategory of content on the page, which I don't think applies here. Plus this is the way it's done throughout all written pages (see examples on Project page).
P.S. Is there a reason you're delinked your signature? --Kiz(email - talk) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (GMT)
Await comment from Silencer, it seems we're changing tactic. --Kiz(email - talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (GMT)
Using headers at level 2 for all zones is in all honesty ugly to me. Which is why I prefer a tier 2 header with the location name, followed by tier 3 headers for each zone. Examples are hard to come by for Skyrim where this is the norm (but multiple zoned houses are rare) but see Skyrim:Hall of the Dead (Whiterun) or Skyrim:Mistveil Keep as 'houses', or Skyrim:Skuldafn or Skyrim:Irkngthand as 'dungeon' examples. This isn't against the layout suggested which is separate sections, just the displayed level of the sections. Having them at tier 2 highly suggests a completely separate zone wholly independent of the others, whereas a tier 3 suggests a reliance and connection. (P.S. Its generally impossible to make examples of headers and have a conversation that makes sense, its best to link examples) Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:59, 5 February 2014 (GMT)
Sounds good - Wilco. PS. Sorry! Didn't realize I was unlinked. Is this better?--Beezer1029 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (GMT)

Start checking?[edit]

It looks like some of the houses under the Pages Needing Cleanup may meet the project requirements. Should we/I start checking them so they can be moved to the Final Review stage?--Beezer1029 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2014 (GMT)

Do a once over on them all, check for correct grammar/spelling as well as that all the required content is there. Then check the ones of that you're sure off. --Kiz(email - talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (GMT)
Question - I've come across a house that has description, quests, residents, inventory, summary already written, but not signed. Do I mark those as checked, or mark them as if I've written them, with the Beezer1029(already written) notation?--Beezer1029 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Mark those with the second choice (the "already written" part) :) •WoahBro►talk 17:17, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
If possible, look through the history to see if anyone person wrote the section (you'll have to check the relevant NPCs history probably too...) - if not, listing Multiple for written then checking it off yourself, has been done on other Projects, though Silencer would have to confirm this is how we do it for this as well. --Kiz(email - talk) 17:20, 27 February 2014 (GMT)

() Not sure if I mention this here or on the house's discussion page, but while I was checking this I noticed the possessive is incorrect in the namespace Rythe Lythandas's House. It should be Lythandas' House. I'll correct it on the page, but I don't know how to change it in the namespace. Sorry unsure of the nomenclature... also please undo this post if it should go somewhere else and I'll repost.--Beezer1029 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2014 (GMT)

Whilst the pagename (not namespace, which would be the Oblivion: part) is grammatically incorrect, if there is a difference between correct and what the game says - we follow the game. The place is correctly named in accordance with the game, even if it isn't actually, and should stay as is. --Kiz(email - talk) 18:14, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Gotcha. I'll ignore the qualms it gives me and the compulsion to correct.--Beezer1029 (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
In regards to checking, I was under the impression that this part involved checking the written walkthrough and other information with the Construction Set, similar to the SHRP's form of checking. The OBHRP project page doesn't really provide much information regarding checking, but I believe that this process may have been intended. I know with some of the house inventories I have written, many of them need a look in the Construction Set to verify everything is correct and to give more precise descriptions as to what are in chests and other containers. This would also apply to many of the other inventories carried over from the OBNPCRP that were never given a CS check. A similar problem could also arise if the pages were never given a check in-game, though I don't think this is quite as big of an issue as the house inventory never being checked in the CS. So I would like to raise the question as to if it would be a good idea to do both an in-game and CS check for at least the house inventory parameter of the project? By this, I mean similar to the OBNPCRP where if something was written in-game it needed to be checked with the CS and vice versa. Forfeit (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
We probably should have been doing that from the start, whilst we can start doing it now, there is no feasible way to know who wrote that section with either the CS or in-game, especially considering some of the editors have left and there is really on a couple of us working the project now (which will get less once Online is out) so it's probably not really important that it's checked both ways, just that the pages are complete and mostly accurate. Ideally I check in-game and CS myself when I write/check anyways, so it isn't really and issue for me. --Kiz(email - talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (GMT)
I am checking in-game as well.--Beezer1029 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2014 (GMT)

Final Review?[edit]

So who does the final reviewing, or what is involved? An in-game run through? If so, I can do this, but then what... do I remove the reviewed houses from the final review list?--Beezer1029 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2014 (GMT)

Be bold, right?[edit]

I've just changed ob:Heinrich Oaken-Hull's House ([1]), since it was provided as an example. Seems like this would also provide a logical place to comment on the exterior of the buildings, as well, by having a natural segue into an "Exterior" section. Thoughts? --GKtalk2me 21:01, 4 January 2015 (GMT)

As long as the information is noteworthy enough, that would be good. But I doubt there's much you can write on it, and I'm not sure if there are that many houses like that (most Imperial City houses don't HAVE an "exterior" aside from the random barrel) ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2015 (GMT)
Yeah, I wouldn't expect very many buildings to have much notable about the exterior... This was mainly about changing the title of the section that describes the interior from a repeat of the name of the article to "Interior". It's something I would've just gone ahead and done on all the pages in times past, but I don't wanna step on any toes :) --GKtalk2me 02:10, 5 January 2015 (GMT)
We had a whole discussion on it a while back for Skyrim, but we didn't really come to any consensus on that part, as I recall. I think Interior/Exterior works well enough; I really don't like having a second- and third-level header, both with the same title. Robin Hood  (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2015 (GMT)
Yeah, I'm thinking that the second-level heading being the name of the building is a hold-over from the houses being described on the NPC articles, where it would've made sense, and the whole section(s) were just copy/pasted. It just doesn't make sense when it's the name of the article as well, though. --GKtalk2me 02:22, 5 January 2015 (GMT)

NPC Schedules[edit]

Continuing on from this discussion, why are NPC schedules currently listed as something that needs to be added to house articles? It's never actually been done as far as I know, and it seems like it would result in a lot of horrible duplication due to the OBNPCRP. Info was moved off of NPC pages to create these house articles, not duplicated. Additionally, schedule details aren't exactly relevant to a place page, and could get really big really quickly for places with multiple NPCs. —Legoless (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2015 (GMT)

Agreed. A full NPC schedule would clutter up the pages and would simply be redundant. However, as Biffa suggested, users are most likely coming to the house page to see when it is convenient to break in. Instead of a full schedule, how about simply listing what times, if ever, the house is occupied/empty?--Beezer1029 (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
I agree with both of the things said here. The only part of the schedules that need to be stated are when the occupants are present, and when they might be sleeping. Jeancey (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
I wouldn't deny that a lot of people reading a house page would be interested in knowing when the occupants are/aren't present but it could be somewhat complex to document for some residences, to the point where the sentences about this could become confusing or lengthy. Most Imperial City homes would have this problem. For example, take Hastrel Ottus' House. All three characters that live here have schedules that vary throughout the entire week and are travelling NPC's that set off on monthly trips to different towns at different dates. This behavior is somewhat common in the Imperial City as well, with most characters either changing up their routine through the week, travelling, or being involved in the unreleased Black Horse Courier quest that changes up their schedule. So I think that while we could document this information on house pages, it would be a lot of work to just put duplicated information on place pages that is better fit to stay on NPC pages for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier discussion and what Legoless said here. Forfeit (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2015 (GMT)
I was just thinking a table with the schedule info. If the schedule is varied, or the house is never empty, that could be easily notated. Just my thoughts, but keeping the schedule on the NPC pages is certainly the less time-consuming option!--Beezer1029 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2015 (GMT)
The only reason you'd want to know schedules on the building's article instead of the NPCs' articles is that you wanted to know when the building would be empty. Otherwise, you'd get schedule details on the NPC's respective articles. So... just a thought; how about something like, "The house will normally be unoccupied from noon until 6pm during the week. Exceptions and details are noted in the [[#Residents|residents']] respective schedules." --GKtalk2me 21:26, 2 February 2015 (GMT)

() This would seem reasonable to me. Putting the longest or most regular interval in which the house is empty would be fairly relevant information to have on the page and would avoid being too lengthy and wouldn't introduce much redundancy to the article. In most cases, it shouldn't be too difficult to determine when this happens as well. The notes section or near the beginning of the article would probably be the best place to put this sentence. Forfeit (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (GMT)

Small wording suggestion[edit]

I found this to be a confusing sentence in the article.

"The opening sentence should describe the location and who solely lives within the residence."

"live" is an intransitive verb here since it used in the sense of "to dwell". "solely" is an adverb of manner, and should be placed after the intransitive verb. So corrected the clause should read " . . . lives solely within the residence " and tacitly implies " and lives no where else." But is that really what was intended? I think not, so I have changed it to: ". . . and list any NPC who lives primarily within the residence." Kalevala (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree the word is confusing. As long as it means "the main residents" feel free to word it better. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)