UESPWiki talk:Policies and Guidelines

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

Adding some guidelines for talk pages[edit]

I feel as if there should be some simple ideas to keep in mind in talk pages. Such as questions on the article, discussion of content, improvements, and corrections. And users should refrane from adding opinions about the Person, Place, or Item, and should consider going to the forums to discuss that criteria. Western3589 20:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

oh oops:( im new to this... very sorry :) !!!Vikixox 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, it gives the rest of us stuff to do. Just try to minimize your mistakes as much as possible by taking your time. Also read this article. It provides a guide for new users such as yourself. We all make mistakes, and we all learn over time. I encourage you to join the forums. Western3589 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea actually. We follow standard WP guidelines when we don't have our own, so this policy applies, but it might be worth having a UESP-specific version. rpeh •TCE 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad advice[edit]

Not sure if this is the best place to bring this up, but is there anywhere we can add to a list of "dos and don'ts"? In this case I'm thinking of the age-old bad advice of using placeatme to summon missing NPCs, which has been known for a long time to cause all sorts of problems, but I've seen a rather worrying increase in suggestions to use this command following Skyrim's release. I understand that it's well-intentioned, but it is potentially rather game-breaking and best avoided. I've been going around advising not to use it where I've seen it mentioned, but I figured something more official than a random and not very active editor's opinion may be useful to have. --Vometia 17:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted Additions[edit]

There seems to be an unwritten policy (please point me to it, if this is not the case) that certain additions to individual pages are not wanted. Usually they are just removed, but the justification for doing so is somewhat unclear. Those unwanted additions include:

  • Youtube video guides
  • Etymology
  • Easter Eggs
  • Trivia not related to the game
  • Console cheats

I realize that trying to formalize rules for such things will probably be a bit of trouble, but in the long run probably less than trying to argue those cases over and over again. In part this suggestion to have some formalized rules is prompted by this edit history where the etymology was removed at least 5 times, but there are many other cases. --Alfwyn 14:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to say that the first four are things I do on sight, but the last one is always a case-by-case basis for me. Console codes are alright, if they are a easy-ish fix to a problem that exists as a proper bug. If its a very long winded solution, written incoherently or in first person, that seems to solve a very small or non-existent problem/bug I will remove it. I generally try to shorten and format/write properly some of the long-winded console sections if they may be useful. --Kiz ·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•· 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we post the etymology on pages? I find it interesting that the names of two of the Companions translate into "wolf". I can't understand why etymology is unwanted. Besides, how many pages have an etymological meaning? Most of them are plain old words (Solitude), compound words (Whiterun), Earth names (Alessandra), or completely made-up names (Azzadal). ~ Jak AtackkaTalk 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Because, quite frankly, most of the "translated" versions of names were absolute garbage. As an example from the old etymology page, between the useful ones that were probably intend, we got a few dozen gems like: Procyon Nigilius -- "Procyon -before the dog (Greek)". There simply wasn't a way to order them as the bads ones just multiplied at an exorbitant rate. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I see. That would be a problem. Would it make sense to make exceptions for Vilkas and Farkas? I'm sure that it matters for those two. Also, this project page (Policies and Guidelines) needs to be updated to reflect that view, as well as Alfwyn's unspoken rules of UESP • JATalk 06:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
...So, was anything ever decided about the etymology thing? I've noticed few pages which have been edited to have etymologies removed, but also many Skyrim pages which still include this. And I find it pretty amusing that this editing war has taken place on the Farkas page which led to a note in the editing section not to include the etymology, while the page for Vilkas has included etymology the entire time (surely someone else has noticed this?). Personally, I don't care whether it's included on pages or not, which is why the only editing for any etymology information I've done is spelling- or grammar-based only, but I do think there should be some consistency across the Wiki. Has a decision been made? Should a decision be made? As for the other stuff on the list cited by Alfwyn above, I agree with Kiz. Alphabetface 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
As long as we can agree on the status quo, I don't see any problem with articulating it, though I agree with Kiz about console "cheats". I also agree that most etyomology is garbage, but the ban on it is not absolute: if a translation is derived from a TES language, then it's okay to include it on the appropriate page, such as the dragon language translations of the names of dragons found on their pages. I haven't seen this rule written down or discussed anywhere, but that's my impression of what seems to be the status quo.
For Vilkas and Farkas, this means including the translations is not appropriate because they're derived from the Lithuanian and Hungarian languages respectively, not a TES-specific language. I think these translations in particular belong on the easter egg page, but not elsewhere. Minor Edits 15:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree, but I would guess that it would be shot down there, since it isn't a "real reference" (I think generally it would be consensus that these two stand out over more far fetched etymologies like one I encountered on a Dragon Age Wiki, where "Leliana" was derived from "Alina" and somewhat indirectly linked to the meaning of that name). While I agree that we cannot include every small thing made for people to enjoy without any deeper meanings (set up skeletons reaching for a beer and suchlike), that page is as of now a tad too strict in its definition and would exclude these two. --Ulkomaalainen 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
As someone who occasionally adds to the wiki in their own way, I think this is something that should be added both to the easter egg page as it is one, and to their individual character pages as it carries a significance to their stories. As for the beginning of this section: there are console cheats and console edits. I'm in favor of the latter and not the former. 72.47.10.157 14:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A humble opinion[edit]

I've noticed that seldom is an entire article crummy, but rather just one or two pieces of it. Therefore, I would humbly submit that when performing major edits and/or revisions, one should try to perform a series of edits rather than one major change. This not only facilitates rollbacks (Ex: section Foo should be reverted, but sections Bar, Baz, and Quux are just fine), but also permits concurrent editing (something Wiki encourages by design) and helps one organize their thoughts. Just my 0x19 ¢. --98.237.103.197 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was mine. I accidentally posted before logging in. --Uniblab 17:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
So you would prefer for there to be even more edits when we're having trouble patrolling them as it is? I don't see what problem you're bringing up. Is it that people are reverting large edits due to one or two bad parts? That shouldn't be happening under current policy anyway. The entire idea behind having patrollers is to have editors who have proven to be competent to correct the mistakes of other editors. I don't see what problem you're trying to bring up, nor do I understand exactly what solution you're offering. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Uniblab meant that articles could be more coherent if done that. Besides, editors are there to fix mistakes, but if your wife cleans the kitchen, do you throw tomato sauce around and set things on fire? No, you try to make things as easy as possible.--Grim765 09:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)