UESPWiki talk:Style Guide/Archive 1

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past UESPWiki_talk:Style Guide discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.


As of late, it seems popular to add one's name on a page that one has contributed to. Something like "Contribution by Errabee". It seems to me that the Wiki concept has made this practice redundant, because the history of a page can always be checked.

I agree. In this situation of a wiki, signatures should probably only be used for Talks (like this one) and editor's notes, where the author is actually important. But page content should probably be anonymous, and if people are curious then they could just check the history. It would give a cleaner look, too. --Mdimitro 13:30, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

Most of the name stuff came from the old site where the one author wrote all the articles and took in the odd contribution. --Robmods 14:52, 16 May 2005 (EDT)

(Moved comments the above comments to here from their original location on the editing page in case there's any further discussion.) "No attributions." is now part of the style sheet. --Wrye 22:42, 12 Oct 2005 (EDT)

See Also

  • I'm not sure what's the best way to handle "see also" links.
    • Simplest would be to just inline it, e.g., "Morrowind:Morrowind is the third chapter..."
    • But it's probably better to stick with an explicit sentence, e.g., "See also Morrowind Section."

--Wrye23:40, 21 Feb 20 (EST)

Inlining it is the way that Wikis typically run... Wikipedia does this a lot, for one example. That way, for example, you could have "In the first Fighter's Guild mission, Eydis Fire-Eye tells you to go kill some rats in Whats-her-face's apartment", and Fighter's Guild, and the two names would link to pages on those topics, quite possibly providing locations and other relevant information (i.e. the page on Whats-her-face would tell that she's a Balmora commoner, and lives in such-and-such a house).

--dUc0N 01:26, 22 Feb 2005 (EST)

Inlining makes sense for something "flat" like a dictionary or encyclopedia, but UESP isn't quite that flat. For example the Tamriel dictionary entry for [[Lore:Dictionary_D#Daggerfall|Daggerfall]]. It has a couple of in game entries, but then it also has a "The third chapter in the Elder Scrolls RPG series." In fact, I did inline the "Daggerfall" section header, but in retrospect, I'm thinking that a See also the Daggerfall Section would have been a better choice.

In a flat dictionary you would expect there to be a single Daggerfall section and the inline link would take you there. But in UESP, there may be more than one legitimate destination, and hence it's not clear a priori where an inline link would take you. Hence the need for an explicit "see also" link.

I think that if you had a link taking you from one section of Tamriel namespace to another, than an inline link is probably the best solution. But if you jump out of the Tamriel namespace, or if, for another reason, it's not clear where you would jump, then an explicit link is called for.

--Wrye 01:40, 22 Feb 2005 (EST)

I dunno. In the context of a dictionary, a See Also section would definitely be in order, maybe even expected. But I think it could really all be handled with a single link. The Daggerfall:Daggerfall page should, in my mind, contain links to pretty much everything Daggerfall. This would include any background on the game, major hints, relevant lore, etc. We could even include a section at the bottom for links to other web resources that deal with Daggerfall, or have very good information pertaining to it. Inlining is great for something like an Encyclopedia, but the purpose of an Encyclopedia is to describe a world, and we're working on describing a game world. Technically, we are working with an encyclopedia... UESP outgrew 'massive FAQ' status quite awhile ago.

--dUc0N 02:03, 22 Feb 2005 (EST)

Crumb Trails

I originally created the Crumb Trails without a "Home" at the beginning. Daveh later went and added home in several trails. I disagree with this for several reasons:

  • Home (i.e., root level of the site) is always available anyway -- that's what the whole left bar is for. (Including the big tan box at the top!) So, adding "Home" to the cookie trail is redundant.
  • For most people coming to the site, "home" is the root of whatever game they're playing/working on. So, if I'm playing Morrowind, then I expect the root (far left link) of the bar to take me to the root of the Morrowind namespace.
  • Another way of putting it is: the left bar is about changing namespaces, while the page area is about staying in the current namespace. (Not true of site management pages, but almost entirely true of game namespace pages.)
  • Generally, shorter is better (if it makes sense).

Anyway, let's be consistent about it. I vote don't use "Home" in Crumb Trails. What do you all say? --Wrye 19:22, 29 March 2006 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree, when I first saw the "Home" on the left hand side I assumed it was just a change from "Oblivion" and would take me there (for the fraction of a second before I saw the "Oblivion" of course). So given that the "Home" is fairly redundant (and can lead to even longer trails, e.g. Home > Oblivion > Quests > Chorrol, I vote no to "Home". Endareth 19:45, 29 March 2006 (EST)
Doesn't matter...I was just copying a trail I saw in Morrowind. I would like to make the trails smaller in size (remove some space to shorten the height) and maybe not so 'obvious'. They are a good idea at any rate. DaveH 22:14, 29 March 2006 (EST)

Resolved: No Home. I'll edit the existing trails to fit that format.

As for sizing... I think that the 90% sizing is too small and looks a little incongrous on the page compared to the rest of the text. And the vertical height taken up does not seem to be a problem to me. (When I formatted the first crumb trail, I experimented a lot with different font sizes, bolding, different border boxes, different top and bottom margins... What I ended up seemed like the best solution.) Since they're mixed right now, I'm standardizing on 100%. --Wrye 23:58, 29 March 2006 (EST)

Re naming scheme, copying from another talk page...

Just for conformity, I think we need to define a standard for naming/format of the bread trails. I like the "Home > Oblivion > Quests" style for formatting, but have no real preference either way for the naming of the trail. I guess if force to choose, I'd go for "Trail Oblivion-Quests". UESPWiki:Style_Guide#Bread_Crumb_Trails suggests "Oblivion Quests Trail". Thoughts? Endareth 18:08, 29 March 2006 (EST)
There's already quite a few trails and the naming standard is "Namespace Subject Trail" e.g. "Oblivion Quests Trail". I don't see an advantage in "Trail Oblivion Quests" -- and I think that there would have to be a large one to justify switching. --Wrye 23:58, 29 March 2006 (EST)
No major advantage to redoing them all, just asked as I saw a new Trail called "Oblivion-Race Trail" which made me wonder how standardised it was. Endareth 00:04, 30 March 2006 (EST)
Okay, so no debate then. I've moved it to standard name and updated pages that used it. (Just so that no one gets confused in the future.) :) --Wrye 00:33, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Okay, looks like everything's settled, and I've standardized all the templates. I'll update the style sheet to remove any ambiguity. --Wrye 00:33, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Oblivion Trails on Tamriel Pages

Pages such as Lore:Breton have an Oblivion trail. This means that anyone reaching the page from a non-Oblivion page won't be able to return to where they came from. Placing a Tamriel: trail on it means anyone coming from a game page will be lost, but putting all the trails at once would look stupid! Any ideas on how to resolve this? Garrett 16:53, 31 March 2006 (EST)

Okay, that's an error and should be corrected. Looks like I was the last to touch the page (when I was standardizing crumb trails), but failed to notice that the wrong crumb trail was being used on that page. Moreover, the page itself is wrong, since it includes Oblivion specific info on a Breton (bonuses, etc.). Since it looks like Erandor created the page specifically for Oblivion, the solution is to move the page to the Oblivion namespace Oblivion:Breton.
Hmmm... It looks like other Tamriel race pages have the same problem. Hopefully, someone will fix this. If the page was not created specifically for Oblivion, then the new (Oblivion specific) content should be copied to a new Oblivon race page, and the old page reverted to it's Tamriel state. Otherwise, the page should just be moved to Oblivion namespace. That'll fix this problem. --Wrye 22:18, 31 March 2006 (EST)
Here are some comments I posted some time ago on the Lore:Tamriel page:
Can we put a link to this page on the Menu? --DrPhoton 03:26, 24 March 2006 (EST)
On the Lore:Argonian page:
Shouldn't the trail point to a Tamriel page? Centainly this and all races are common to all instalments of the game and should be placed there. --DrPhoton 03:07, 24 March 2006 (EST)
Maybe but aren't the attributes of each race unique from game to game? These all look to have the oblivion attributes. --MItchy 08:18, 27 March 2006 (EST)
I don't know right now whether these are Oblivion attributes or not, but I guess that they are also very similar to those of Morrowind. In any case, what I suggest then is to put the general description and history of the races under the Tamriel namespace and the game-specific attribute bonuses under each of the games namespaces. Notice that this and similar pages are in the Tamriel namespace with trails to Oblivion, which is contradictory. --DrPhoton 02:43, 27 March 2006 (EST)
This is exactly what I've tried to do with cities and races. If you look at something like Oblivion:Bruma you'll see that it's showing Lore:Bruma as it's description of the town, followed by all specific Oblivion information. I'll be fixing up the Race pages in the same way. Endareth 20:01, 2 April 2006 (EDT)
Yes, it works well! Keep this trick in mind, though: when editing one of these transcluded pages, link to other multi-namepsace pages using [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Page Name|Page Name]]. MediaWiki then magically fills in whatever namespace you're currently browsing from, meaning both Oblivion and Tamriel readers can follow their own trails uninterrupted. Before I implemented this, Oblivion readers would end up in the Tamriel: namespace any time they clicked a town name. Similarly, when inserting a trail on a transcluded Tamriel: page do it like this: <noinclude>{{Tamriel Something Something Trail}}</noinclude>. That will make any page it's transcluded into skip the trail. Garrett 03:54, 3 April 2006 (EDT)
That's some of the most useful info I've seen in ages! Added it to my quick tips Wiki page :-) Is there a list somewhere of "magical" codes like NAMESPACE and PAGENAME? Endareth 21:20, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
And on the UESPWiki talk:Namespaces page:
I think there should be a link to the Tamriel namespace on the menu, so that this namespace is used by people. There has been very little use of it, although being the ideal place to put general info common to all instalments of the game, like e.g. races, history, geography, etc. Placing a link in the main menu would encourage people to use it and avoid duplicating the same info in various game pages. --DrPhoton 03:12, 30 March 2006 (EST)
--DrPhoton 04:49, 1 April 2006 (EST)

The main (left) menu used to have a link to Tamriel, and it should be put back. I'm guessing that it fell off one of the times that Dave was moving between wiki versions. Ask him to put it back in. (Adding it requires editing PHP, which only he can do.)

Other moved/copied comments repeat issue asked/answered above. Tamriel pages should not have Oblivion crumb trails. Tamriel race pages should not have game specific race info. Pages should be modified/moved/copied to correct problems. --Wrye 16:56, 1 April 2006 (EST)

The menu isn't PHP-level, it's at MediaWiki:Sidebar. Any sysop can edit MediaWiki: namespace pages. And you're a sysop. So get editing! ;) Garrett 20:53, 1 April 2006 (EST)
Also, while you're at it, the Planet Elder Scrolls link (and name) are outdated. And personally I'd nuke the search link as well (since the search box is displayed below). Garrett 20:59, 1 April 2006 (EST)
Hey wait a minute! I'm a sysop! I can make those changes myself on the MediaWiki:Sidebar page! (Heh. Oops. Done.) --Wrye 22:29, 1 April 2006 (EST)

Contents Box

Now that people are discussing how to standarise the Wiki, I'd like to suggest that the Contents Boxes be separated from the Crumb Trails (as in Bloodmoon:Rebellion at Frostmoth) rather than glued to them (as is Tes3Mod:Mods). If they are separated, it would be easier to read them and look better (to my taste at least). The body text could also benefit from a blank line when there is no Contents Box (as in Bloodmoon:Thirsk rather than Morrowind:Books). --DrPhoton 03:03, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Related issue: side boxes (e.g., Morrowind:Fighters_Guild. For both of these cases, my preference is that the crumb trail not be separated from the boxes under it. This is probably partially a matter of personal taste (I think that together looks slightly better), but there's also a factor of not wasting vertical space for those who are challenged in terms of monitor size and/or work area.
Same thing for body text after a crumb trail. I think that together is better than separate. Just to be sure, I double checked the first 10 or so links under Tes3Mod:Mods. All of those pages with crumb trails don't use separation and they all look fine.
So, my vote is for no separation. --Wrye 15:06, 30 March 2006 (EST)
I agree that this issue is partially a matter of taste (I don't like the Contents Boxes hanging from the Crumb Trails, which are different things). However, I think it is also a matter of readability, especially in short pages like Bloodmoon:Skaal Village where without the separation, the text would be squashed between the Crumb Trail and the Category Box. This makes it difficult to distinguish the body text from the structure of the page.
So, my vote goes for separation. --DrPhoton 02:40, 31 March 2006 (EST)
I think a slight gap does look better, however it's not a huge difference, and as I'm always short on monitor space (three 19" monitors just isn't enough, dammit!) I prefer to see less empty space generally.
So, my vote is for no seperation. --Endareth 02:42, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
Don't now if a newcommers opinion counts, but if my vote is for no seperation as the user has to scroll on longer content boxes before he can read some content, even the abstract of a page. Also we would end up with huge white areas, foregiving space for nothing. (What disturbs at least my aestetical feeling.) -- The Nerevarine 11:17, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

My vote is for separation. I could waste time writing up the same thing as DrPhoton, as thus do my views run, however, there would be no point. The facts are thus:

  • The spacing is esthetically more pleasing.
  • The spacing is so minor it does not interfere with small monitors. I assure you, that is so. I am currently viewing this site on fifteen and seventeen inch monitors (so let us have no complaints about "three 19 inch monitors" shall we?).
  • The spacing allows for a clear distinction between the header, any trails tags, and actual content.

I would ask that this conversation be resumed, as I - for one - do not consider this resolved. Thank you. -- Booyah boy 21:32, 25 September 2006 (EDT)

It looks like this session was established to debate whether we should use put a large space inbetween the TOC and Crumb Trails or none at all. I vote neither. I was talking with Nephele in IRC about putting a tiny margin-bottom space between the two so they aren't budding together, but not so much as to push them as far away as the other example given. This can be achieved with one simple line to the "breadcrumb" class in MediaWiki:Common.css. --Aristeo 23:28, 25 September 2006 (EDT)

This would work for me as long as there is a one-line separation between the crumb trail box and whatever comes below, not only the TOC (e.g. text). --DrPhoton 03:57, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
That's what I was wanting to do. --Aristeo 13:48, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Quest/Place Page Standardisation

I've been doing a bit of work on trying to standardise quest and place pages within the Oblivion Namespace, in the interests of having the site look and operate better, however some other users seem to have the same idea, with the result that we have some conflicting standards for some pages. Now while I prefer the standardisation I've been using, other people may disagree, and I'm quite happy to go along with the majority on something like this. The standards I've been trying for are:


{{Oblivion Quest Trail}}


One line description of quest


  1. First step of quest
  2. Second
  3. And so on


  • Extra notes about the quest.


{{Oblivion Places Trail}}

{{Tamriel Transclusion}}

Any extra info specific to Oblivion

==Quests Starting Here==

  • Quest One -- Desc of quest

==Related Quests==

  • Other Quest -- Quest starting elsewhere but involved with something here.

Obviously plenty of places can be fleshed out majorly, including maps, history, etc, but that's the idea as a base standard.

I know some of the quest pages include various extra section, such as "Starting the Quest", "Finishing the Quest", and further breakdowns within the quest steps, but I don't really feel those breakdowns are really needed. How does this seem to people? -- Endareth 02:37, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

Have a look at the Morrowind quest pages (e.g. Corprus Cure). The structure of these pages has always worked very well for me. Also, you may want to put these pages in categories. --DrPhoton 03:11, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
I have to admit that style of quest layout seems to give a bit too much information for me. --Endareth 03:23, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
Personally, I like Endareth's layout better -- that would be more useful to me. --Wrye 12:08, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
Well, let me be more explicit, the Overview sections on Morrowind's quests can probably be ommited (though I think is useful), but what I find especially usefull is the Quick Walkthrough and the Navigation sections. The first one lets you go through the quest in an instant, without having to read the whole page, and the latter lets you navigate to the next quest or the previous one in a linear way (I know that sometimes quests branch out, but not very often), so you don't have to return to the main page every time. Having said that, I also like the Description and Tips sections you're proposing here. Maybe a mix of both structures would be nice. Something like: Description, Quick Walkthrough, Detailed Walkthrough, Tips, Navigation. --DrPhoton 14:26, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
The Overview was indeed my main objection -- too much hint book eye candy.
As for the quick walkthrough, there's an upside/downside. The upside is that it lets you quickly scan the quest. The downside is that it's hard to not quickly scan the quest. I.e., without the quick overview, if I'm stuck on a quest, I can go to the quest page, and carefully read down the list over the stuff that I've done so far, w/o reading the stuff farther ahead. (If nothing else, I can slide a piece of paper down the screen gradually revealing what I know until I reach the thing I don't know.) As a result, the quest isn't "spoiled" anymore than is necessary. --Wrye 18:54, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
The Quick Walkthough of the Morrowind pages are just like the current stylesheet. If it would be hard for someone not to quickly scan the Quick Walkthrough, then the same would be for every quest page in Oblivion. --Aristeo 01:15, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

So, what does everyone think of Aristeo's job of changing Morrowind's quest pages (Morrowind:Report to Caius Cosades, for example)? I'd like to move towards one standard, and I really do like the way that page looks. So, which way are we moving: Towards the Morrowind look, or the Oblivion Look? Fushi 00:52, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

Morrowind Look - The major difference between the two styles is that the Morrowind section has what the Oblivion section has, and more. If we convert the Morrowind sections to the new Oblivion look, then we will loose a ton of content. Most of that was made solely by Daveh pre-Wiki, and have a huge amount of effort/time behind them. And I know that he wouldn't like for us to just throw away his hard work like that. --Aristeo 01:15, 7 May 2006 (EDT) (I crossed out "Morrowind Look" to keep it from being counted as any type of "official vote". --Aristeo)
Morrowind Look - For the reasons I mentioned previously. However, looking at the transformed pages, I would like to see the previous navigation section (or similar) with next, previous and up links. I know these links are all in the page (top, bottom and crumb trail), but having all of them in the same place as before will make it much easier to navigate through the quests. --DrPhoton 06:19, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
Oblivion Look - Of course I'm a tad biased :) I prefer to keep it simple -- I really don't think a lot of the extra info is really needed. Generally people looking at a quest are doing so because they are currently doing the quest and having some difficulties. That means the initial summary info is no particular use, and neither is the next quest link (also only the main quest line really needs it). Most of the info in the detailed walkthrough section could easily enough be either moved into the previous section, or the Tips section. Naturally I'll go with the majority vote on this however, but they're my comments on the issue. -- EndarethTalk 20:57, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
You have a good point. One of the perks about the Oblivion look is its simplicity. --Aristeo 01:25, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
Oblivion Look - I'm actually leaning a tad towards the Oblivion look now that I'm thinking about it. That form is easy for others to write articles, and it's straight to the point. It's also easy to keep the list format spoiler-minimum. The only complaint that I have is that it doesn't support pictures.... What ever style we deside to use, I have only a few demands:
  1. I want the walkthroughs to be as spoiler-free as possible. I realise that this is impossible to do because walkthroughs are meant to be spoilers, but there is a fine line between unnessicary extra information and importaint quest information.
  2. I want the user to be able to easily spot the section of the walkthrough that they need to use.
  3. I want the walkthroughs to be as helpful as possible. Detailed, yet to the point.
As long as the above three criteria are met, I really don't care which format we use. Or if we even use either of them. --Aristeo 22:12, 8 May 2006 (EDT) (I crossed out "Oblivion Look" to keep it from being counted as any type of "official vote". --Aristeo)
I'm impartial to whatever format we want to use, I'd just like to get it nailed down now, so we can get to work on the pages. Fushi 22:20, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
If we use the Oblivion format, we'll have to talk with Daveh. Like I said in my first comment about this issue, he put a lot of effort behind the Morrowind pages, and would probally like to have a say in this. --Aristeo 23:32, 8 May 2006 (EDT)
And before anyone does anything to the pages imported from the old site, please read Daveh's comments on the Morrowind_Talk:Main_Quest page. He just says what I stressed on my comments above. --Aristeo 10:10, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
No Preference -- Yah, I choose the 'easy' answer... Ultimately I don't care what format/style used for a particular page is as long as it meets a few basic criteras:
  • Choose content over style. If the style interferes with the content in any significant way then the style has to change.
  • Style must allow any needed information to be presented. Some pages may not need a map, some pages may need 3 maps, some screenshots, and a table. For example, Morrowind quest pages need a map most of the time as often there is no other way of finding a place. In Oblivion the map is not needed as much due to the compass (although we should remember people who choose to disable it as well).
  • Style must not make it difficult to edit the content (at least the important content). I'm sure someoone could come up with a great unified style using multiple templates and extended Wiki syntax which would completely confuse me and the other 99% of Wiki users. Ideally a new user should be able to quickly edit a page to add or edit information without too much fuss. They shouldn't have to read the entire Wiki documentation to just add a sentence to a walkthrough.
Also, re:I want the walkthroughs to be as spoiler-free as possible. Don't omit important quest information just because it is a potential spoiler. After all, the walkthrough itself is meant as a spoiler. Extra information not required for the quest can be omitted of course (if that's what you were referring to).
(Comment: Yes, that's what I meant. No unnessicary spoilers. :) --Aristeo)
Some more thoughts and notes:
  • Add a "Next Quest" at the top below "Prerequisite Quest". These can be omitted for quests that don't have any.
  • Similarily remove "Required Items" and other fields for any quests that don't have them.
  • Recommended level is useful for Morrowind but useless for Oblivion due to level scaling.
  • Omit a minimum level for Oblivion unless it is known and confirmed.
  • I like the quick walkthrough as it can help people that don't want a complete spoiler as well as letting you quickly go through the quest steps to see if you missed anything.
  • The section names in the detailed walkthrough in the Morrowind format help you quickly jump to the section you are interested in. In the Oblivion format you have to read all/most of each section in order to figure out the part you need.
  • While I do like the 'simpler' format of Oblivion I think it comes at a price of less content. Since my mantra for UESP has always been "content over style" I have to favor the Morrowind format.
These are just my opinions and they are not fixed in stone. I'm not too worried if we can't agree on an overall style right away. Discussion may well lead to a better format in the end...
-- DaveH 10:56, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
I agree 100% to what Daveh has said above. Content over style, especially. Thanks for the advice, Daveh, we greatly appreciate it. --Aristeo 15:21, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
My only concern with getting a format out ASAP is so that we don't start editing pages on a massive scale until we've come darned close to a final format. Less editing in the long run, if we get it right the first time. I'll go with whatever's easier, and let others make the decision here, as I am truly ambivalent on which way we go. Also, on the things that Daveh recommended that we omit in oblivion, I say we keep them in, and just put the required lvl/recommended lvl as N/A, or something like that. I'd really like to see everything be cookie cutter-esque. Fushi 15:46, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
Using "N/A" for every quest can get somewhat tedious. Of course, on the main quest the "Prerequisite Quest" on the "Escape the Prison" quest could be "N/A". But if every quest in the main quest doesn't use, let's say, the "Recommended Level", it would be pointless to keep it in there. We would still have the same general standardisation, even if some pages were slightly different.--Aristeo 16:25, 9 May 2006 (EDT)
Also, this procedure doesn't have to be rushed, because doing that would probally end up with us doing way too much editing than nessicary. We should get more input, a general agreement, and some general goals and guidelines before we start on a project as major as this. IRC is a great tool for us to use to speed up the discussion process, and I'll be on #uesp pretty much all day if anyone needs to talk to me. --Aristeo 16:25, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

New Quest Page Style

Ok, so far it sounds like we really need to merge the two styles somewhat. Most people seem to agree that they prefer it simpler, but don't want to lose any info that may be relevant. I'm going to try and merge the two styles somewhat, see what I can come up with. Might just ask for some feedback on one specific area though: Would you prefer a Simple Walkthrough, and a Detailed Walkthrough; or a Walkthrough, and a Tips section for any specific extra info? One extra thought, DaveH mentioned not wanting it to get to complex for a new user to come along and add a new page, however I've found almost universally when new users start adding new info it has no real format at all, and requires someone else to come along and reformat it. I don't really think there's any format we could implement which newish users would really stick to. -- EndarethTalk 20:06, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Ok, made a try at a new standard. Take a look at the new Spies]] page and see what you think. It uses Template:Quest Header and Template:Quest Footer to force some degree of standardisation, and allows for the Details (or Walkthrough) section for the relatively barebones How To, and a Tips (or Detailed Walkthrough) section for more specific info. If things such as "Recommended Level" are appropriate, they can be slotted in easily immediately after the Header. Maps/Screenshots could easily be put in on an as needs basis. Comments? -- EndarethTalk 02:44, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
I like the page, especially the header and footer (although it could be a bit less graphical). However, as I mentioned before, I would prefer a Quick Walkthrough and a Detailed Walkthrough. I would also add the locations the quest takes place in and the recommended level (where applicable) to the header. The first is useful to plan your journey, and the latter is useful to see wether it is recommended to wait a bit before you start the quest or you can just jump in. --DrPhoton 04:15, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
Ok, added location to the header. Not sure about the Recommended Level though, as Oblivion scales difficulty based on character level. -- EndarethTalk 20:00, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
I thought about this a lot, and meditated on what we should use as a style/format. I made a testing room under my user page at User:Aristeo/Testing to conduct my experiments. The "Quick Walkthrough" seemed to be more of a description than an actual walkthrough, so I decided to omit it. I replaced "Min/Req Level" with "Difficulty", since this was an Oblivion quest that I used. Looking at the overview from the POV of a reader, I thought they would need to know the following:
  • What is this quest all about? (Description)
  • Who can I accept this quest from? (Quest Giver)
  • Where will this quest take me? (Location(s))
  • Do I have to complete another quest before this one? (Prequisite Quest)
  • Does this quest lead to another quest? (Next Quest)
  • Morrowind Only: What level do I have to be? (Required Level)
  • Morrowind Only: What level should I be? (Recommended Level)
  • Is this quest hard, and why? (Difficulty: Very Low/Low/Medium/High/Very High, then *breif* description [EX: High (Undead akaviri warriors w/ difficult final boss)])
  • What do I get for doing this quest? (Reward: This is a grouping noun, so no "(s)" is required at the end)
These are 6 to 9 commonly asked questions that the reader will be able to look at quickly and without ruining any parts of the quest (spoilers). If the reader needs to know how to beat a certain part of the quest, s/he will look to the left at the table of contents, and select the heading of the section they are on (headings must contain few spoilers as possible), read that section or the beginning of that section to become "unstuck", and will thereby be able to continue their gaming experience. If the reader would like some suggestions in how to beat the quest, they will look at the "Tips" section. Any pictures should be thumbed, and http://tinypic.com is a good place to do it. The picture to the right of the overview, and should be used to enhance the description. The reader should be happy at this point, thus we will have done our jobs. If the reader is unhappy, they will later join, revise the article, and thus we will have a new member and will have done our jobs. ;) --Aristeo 02:23, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
I really don't feel that Difficulty needs to be there. Every single time I see a difficulty rating for any area in any game, it's wrong. Not just for me, but every comment relating seems to be saying "Too easy" or "Too hard" or anything. It's incredibly subjective, especially in Oblivion, where you'll get some players who's character just keeps leveling up their primary skills without the secondaries, resulting in a high level, but weak character, compared to someone who's primary skills go up slowly, but secondaries shoot up, making them much more powerful than their level would suggest. As for Prequisite/Next Quest, I prefer that (as a navigation type thing) to be at the bottom, but that's probably a more personal thing. Pictures are easy either way I guess, I feel they can be slotted in when and where appropriate. -- EndarethTalk 02:34, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
I agree with you about the difficulty, and I've taken it off my test page. However, a table navigation system just seems too bulky to me when breadcrumbs and prereq/next will achieve the same thing without weighing down the page. --Aristeo 03:53, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
Ok I can understand that, any thoughts as to the prev/next being at the top or bottom of the page? My preference logically is for the navigation links to be at the bottom, for use after the article has finished being read. On the other hand, having those links at the top with all the other summary info makes sense... I've now updated my Template:Quest Header page to include Prev/Next quest links, and removed the footer. See what you Spies|think]]. — EndarethTalk 20:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
I like Aristeo's page more than Endareth's (nothing personal). The Morrowind quest pages can be translated to Aristeo's format quite easily. I have a couple of comments though:
1. The thumbnail picture on the right links to itself instead of the full size picture.
The thumbnail itself was just a placeholder to illustrate the style. --Aristeo 17:49, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
2. There's no Quick Walkthrough. I don't want to be stubborn, but this is a section I have found very usefull when going through the Morrowind quests. The reason I say this is because this section allows you to see what are the necessary steps of a quest without all the details/spoiling. Thinking a bit what to do with it and how to incorporate it to Aristeo's template, I though a good way of doing that would be using the TOC. In other words, if the Walkthrough title were more descriptive (like "Meet the Emperor in the Prison" instead of "In The Prison", or "Reunite with the Emperor and Follow Him" instead of "Reuniting with the Emperor"), there would be no need for a Quick Walkthrough section, as the TOC would work as one.
I added a "Quick Walkthrough". The way I set it up was I took the titles of the sub section (ex. In The Prison) and made an instruction out of it (ex. Walk up to the cell door and speak with the other prisoner.). --Aristeo 17:49, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
3. Regarding where to put the next/prev links, the logical position for a prerequisite quest would be at the top with the other parameters of the quest, while navigation is usually found at the bottom. However, since in most cases (if not all of them), the previous quest is a requisite, I would place them at the top, and optionally also at the bottom (especially with long pages).
--DrPhoton 15:12, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
In my opinion, the quest navigation is bulky and excessive. All we really need is a "Top" link (supplied by breadcrumbs) and if nessicary, Prerequisite/Next links in the overview. --Aristeo 17:49, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
I agree, though it may be useful to have some links at the bottom as well for long pages. Let me try something out in your page, and if you don't like it, just revert it, OK? --DrPhoton 10:55, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
I was opposed to the whole "links at the bottom" idea, but I like those. We can put those on the series quests to give the readers a better sense of navigation. --Aristeo 19:47, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
I made a couple changes due to the comments above. I've also removed the {{Quest Description}}, because of Daveh's comments and I thought putting the description on a seperate page was somewhat excessive, but that's just my humble opinion. I think we're getting close to a good template; good work everyone! --Aristeo 17:49, 12 May 2006 (EDT)
Yes, this is a very good template! I'm happy to go with it as it stands now. --DrPhoton 10:55, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
So am I. =D --Aristeo 19:47, 13 May 2006 (EDT)

DrPhoton and I are happy with the template, and I would gladly apply it to the quests at this point. Endareth? Daveh? Fushi? What do you three think? Hate it? Like it? Love it? Is there anything at all you would like to see on the page? --Aristeo 18:39, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

Looks reasonable to me, just let me try a couple of things out so I can get the templates working well with it. Gah, I need more sleep... I hate Monday mornings... — EndarethTalk 20:01, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
Ok, redid the Template:Quest Header and Template:Quest Footer, take a look at Spies]] to see how it compares with Aristeo's hand coded page. I haven't put any details in the Detailed Walkthrough, so ignore that.
I'm trying to decide whether any of the other sections in the quest should be templated. There are arguments both ways, though the main argument against is that of embedded links being a major pain in the rear... I'm inclined to leave it with just the Header and Footer templates. Hows that sound? — EndarethTalk 20:33, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I like how you just did it, Endarth. Header, footer, and description should be suffice. --Aristeo 22:33, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
I copied what I had on my testing page to the Escape_From_Prison|Escape from Prison]] page, and I've encountered a couple errors with the template. Since the quest I was working on was the first quest, I left the Prerequisite Quest columns blank. None the less, the template still wraps the void with this: |]]. Is there a way to keep that from showing up if I leave a field blank? --Aristeo 00:59, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
Nevermind. I just removed the links from the template. Problem resolved. --Aristeo 12:24, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

So. Are we ready to do this? If so, I think it would be easier to apply the template to the Morrowind:Main Quest pages first. Then the rest of the Morrowind quests section, then Tribunal and Bloodmoon quests, and the rest of the quest pages in paragraph format. I can begin if we're ready. --Aristeo 12:24, 19 May 2006 (EDT)

I'll take the six day long silence as a thumbs up, and I will begin work later today. Speak now, or forever hold your peace. --Aristeo 10:03, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
Just noticed that the Quest Header and Footer were changed so that the links had to be put in as parameters rather than just putting in the names. Not a big fan of this as it makes more to enter for new quests, however I understand the rationale for cases where there is no prev/next quest. Unfortunately the only way I can see to get around this is having a dummy page simple called "None" so that it looks ok. Any opinions on whether this is worth doing? — EndarethTalk 23:38, 21 May 2006 (EDT)
There's a better way of doing this: use parser functions. However, I must say that having to put in some parameters in link form (like the locations) and others in plain text (like you're suggesting for the prev/next quests) to render links is a bit confusing, and I would leave the templates as they are now (links as parameters). Not a big deal, so I may go with the flow. Definitely no dummy page, that leads nowhere for the sake of typing just one more link (or at least this is my opinion). --DrPhoton 03:56, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
I tried using parser function—didn't work. I think it requires installation, so Daveh would have to do some stuff to help us out. I'm not a big fan of having to enter in links either, but I see it as the only option because of quests like Escape From Prison]]. --Aristeo 07:54, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
Looks great, nice work! If you need any extensions added you'll have to convince me (I haven't been following what you've been doing in great detail). I don't mind adding things if its needed. The more things I add the more work is needed to upgrade and the potential for problems (a pessimistic view, I know, but if its not installed I don't have to worry about it). -- DaveH 22:52, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
Hehe, Daveh, I know what you mean completely. Adding this MediaWiki extension is very easy, and simply requires the download/placement of two files and the placement of require_once( "$IP/extensions/ParserFunctions/ParserFunctions.php" ); in LocalSettings.php. Doing this will let people create wiki-safe logic on pages which enable a lot of cool things on the templates. It has install instructions on the page if you want to check it out. But of course, it's all up to you. --Aristeo 16:39, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

Alright. I believe anything that needs to be said has been said. Votes have been counted, and it seems that we've all reached an agreement! I'll begin the work immediately. --Aristeo 10:59, 5 June 2006 (EDT)

Image out of place

I noticed that the new quest pages being done with Template:Quest Header appear with the header image out of place. Is it only me or does anybody else see the same thing? It looks like the Header Template doesn't wrap around the image, which is placed in the page and not the template. Wouldn't it be better to place the image in the header table, in the template? --DrPhoton 03:26, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

I've never noticed it before, but it did look very out of place. I fixed it by altering the template to accept an "Image" parameter. Feel free to examine it for yourself. And thanks for pointing that out. --Aristeo 20:33, 16 June 2006 (EDT)


Just a thought, anyone know if there's a way to easily code a hide/show sections click? Similar to being able to hide/show the TOC. This would allow for having the Details section going something like:

1. Go to dungeon and kill boss at bottom. [show details]

(This section intially hidden) The dungeon can be found SE of this town. There are lots of goblins of various types. The boss is found near the Southern corner. He has three large goblins guarding him.

2. Etc...

This would allow for a default quest page being fairly simple, and having expandable sections for people needing more details. I've had a look at how the TOC code works, but can't replicate it as it's using <script> tags, which wiki escapes.

That's easy! See wikipedia:Template:Dynamic navigation box for a similar one in action. I've posted the required CSS changes at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css, so once the CSS is added using it will be as easy as {{showhide|SNAPE KILLS _____!!!}} (or similar). Garrett 20:08, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Sounds good, hope we can get this running asap! --Endareth 20:28, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
I've added the css supplied by Garrett to Monobook.css. --Wrye 22:30, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Yeah, I thought it was too easy! It doesn't work (see Template:Showhide). It must be calling on some non-standard stuff in Common.css or something. I'll have to look into that. Garrett 23:19, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Cologneblue.js for some comments that may relate. I'm still digging around to see how other wikis are doing it. Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Footer_World_Champions_Slalom_Men&action=edit for an example of this is being used. I think that what we have missing may be code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js. --Endareth 23:46, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
Oh, I forgot it's JS-powered. OK once Wyre adds this JS it should be functional. I miss having admin powers. :( Garrett 00:03, 20 April 2006 (EDT)
Nope, still doesn't want to work in my testing... Any ideas anyone? --Endareth 00:36, 20 April 2006 (EDT)
Did you force reload? (Control-click on refresh button)? --Wrye 00:39, 20 April 2006 (EDT)
Yep, my test page now has the pretty grey box around it, but still no sign of a hide/show button. Try changing NavigationBarShowDefault to 1 or higher. --Endareth 00:48, 20 April 2006 (EDT)
Wheee, more faulty PHP adventures! :) The ?title= part of <script type="text/javascript" src="/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&smaxage=0&gen=js"> is supposed to be importing "MediaWiki:common.js" not "-". And PHP changes require Dave. :( Garrett 00:51, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

Did we ever get any follow on from this? I still think we could do some really cool tricks with this if we could get it working... -- EndarethTalk 20:06, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Dave needs to fix the imports first. GarrettTalk 05:04, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Greylapse Tables

I've added a new css table class to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. You can see this table in use on Tes4Mod:Save File Format. What the class does:

  • defines a collapsed table with grey headers and light grey borders.
  • tweaks the p, li, etc. tags to remove top and bottom margin space for those elements within the table.

Note: In order to see this new style you may need to force your browser to refresh everything. Try control-clicking on the refresh button (works for IE and Opera).

This style is fairly similar to table styles already in use (e.g., on Morrowind:Birthsigns), but a little evolved and improved, I think. If it looks good, then we might want to use it more generally on the site, since it saves some effort in entering wiki text. If you do use this for a table, I would suggest using class="greylapse" border="1" in the table parameter header. (The border=1 will at least show the borders in case of browser and/or skin problems.) With that done, all you need to define is the table and column widths (if desired). Again, see Tes4Mod:Save File Format for examples.


  • I've tested this style in both IE and Opera. Is it okay for other browsers too?
  • Should this be promoted to Mediawiki:Common.css? Should variants be defined for other skins?

--Wrye 18:52, 19 April 2006 (EST)

It looks great in Firefox too. A definite improvement over the dated wikitable. The only tweak I'd suggest is to make the border a little darker, closer to the TOC/trail colour (although not quite as dark). Making it part of Common.css is a good idea as it ensures the invisible border is no longer an issue. I wouldn't bother customising it for other skins though, as typically few use them. I'm pretty sure Dave can view skin usage statistics to get a better idea of the value of such a fix. However putting it in MediaWiki:Common.css won't work at the moment, Dave seems to have broken it! Check out the HTML source to see what I mean:
@import "/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&smaxage=18000";
@import "/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&gen=css&maxage=18000";
The second one's ?title= should read "Common.css" instead of "-". MediaWiki ignores all stylesheets that aren't in this import list, so until this is fixed in the PHP the universal stylesheet won't work. Garrett 18:41, 19 April 2006 (EDT)
I did nothing, honest! No idea why its like this...was missing a line in SkinTemplate.php. Should be included now anyways. -- DaveH 22:49, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Subpages (And why we need them)

Fushi has been looking into templates/subpages. They can do some pretty nifty things regarding uniformity of page look and ease of change over large groups of pages. They do have some limits though (namely they need uniformity in naming schemes). Fushi would like to see all of the quests moved to Oblivion:Quests/Questname. He argues that it will help with disambiguation, bogus namespace issues, and make using templates easier. He also acknowledges that it will make the pagenames slightly longer (7 characters longer, to be exact).

Endareth is wary of the subpage idea, because it leaves much to be desired with the way the subpage trails are formatted. Also, switching everything to subpages of Oblivion:Quests might be construed as overkill, as only a few of the quest names conflict with place names.

Garrett wasn't quite sure why the Quests\Questname\Description subpage needed to exist, and didn't "see using subpages for organising data as any different from {{templatename|meaningoflife=42|animal=llama}} etc", as they both have disadvantages. Suggested moving the conflicting quest names to Oblivion:Questname\Quest, so that we could use relative links within the wiki. After the description subpage idea was explained (so that the description for given quest need only be changed in that one place, and having all embeds of that page change with it), he seemed supportive of at least that.

Aristeo said that he supported the idea, but he wanted to remind everyone not to take it too far. --Aristeo 15:12, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Fushi then asked for informal voting on the matter:

So, from the muckity mucks, we seem to have 1 yea, 2 nea. I would like to know the official answer of what we're doing here, so I can either undo the changes I made, or continue with them. I'd like to point out as well, I'll make sure that all the links throughout the wiki are redone to the correct pages, so if it's a maintenance issue that you're worrying about, don't. Fushi 17:28, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

I'm in favour of the /Desc side of things, really like the idea actually. It was really only the moveing to /Quest that I'm unsure on, and the two are not (as far as I know) dependent, and I'd like to see the /Desc style continue. I only have a query about the /Quest because we have had various discussions previously about long page names vs. short page names. This is slightly different as by having them longer (with the /Quest) it does provide other benefits. I'm happy to go with the majority, think we need another couple of votes here! -- EndarethTalk 20:30, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
I'm obviously in favor of it =-). The long page name issue is almost moot, because the only reason to have short names, as I see it, is for easy linking. Template the linking, problem solved. I'd like to hear some more counterarguments now, that way the issues can be solved before (if) we change over. Fushi 20:45, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
Apparently the preference for shorter page names was for people typing in the name in the browser I believe. As I pretty much never do this myself I'm somewhat ambivalent about the need for it. -- EndarethTalk 20:52, 30 April 2006 (EDT)
Who does that? That's what the search is for. I suppose nesting the pages within /quest would also make the search function more reliable: "fingers of the mountain quest" would probably bring up more reliable searches than just "fingers of the mountain" Fushi 21:16, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

I had a look at some of the pages that you changed into subpages and I have a couple of comments:

  • There is now the problem of duplicate crumb trails in these pages.
  • You may want to consider distinguishing between the Main Quest and the Mages Guild Quests, e.g. Oblivion:Main_Quest/Find_the_Heir or Oblivion:Mages_Quests/Ulterior_Motives.

As for the rest of what has been discussed already, I agree with the changes, especially the template linking/description trick. --DrPhoton 06:20, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

There isn't a duplication of crumb trails. One is a crumb trail, one is a subpage trail (similar, but not the same). Also, the only reason to move everything into Quests/ is for a uniform naming scheme. Breaking everything down into Main-Quests/ etc would not provide a uniform naming scheme. Unfortunately, you can't remove the subpage trail. Fushi 07:33, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
Maybe the subpage trail can be reformated to substitute the current crumb trail. Is that possible? Furthermore, I don't see your point about uniformity, can you be more explicit? In my view, it could hapen (or not) that two different quests, one from the Main Quest and one from the Mages Guild for example, have the same name. Then, following your suggestion for disambiguation, we could use the names I mentioned. I don't know if this actually happens, so it's just a thought. --DrPhoton 09:59, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure that quests don't have conflicting names (As they aren't referred to in game as Main Quest: Escape from Prison). The only case I know of (in oblivion, at least) is Fingers of the Mountain, which is split up (in game) into Part I and Part II. Also, no the subpage trail cannot be reformatted, at least not at the editing level. Probably can be at the php level, but that would require more access than I currently have, and I'm not entirely sure if anyone who has that access has the knowledge (or will to learn) to do so. What I mean by uniformity is this: My current plan is to have ALL quests (every single last one of them) placed as such: gamename:Quests/Questname. This allows a template to ask for just the game and questname, and from there, it can pull information about that specific quest. (Ex: Template:Quest Link). Adding another layer (in this case Main Quest, or Mages Guild) would mean that an editor would need to add that information to the template call. This makes using the template more difficult, as well as makes designing further templates more difficult (and they become more obfuscated). Also,for things like the mages guild, figuring out what quests belong is easy. However, each recommendation quest also belongs in the respective city, and thus, could be categorized that way. All of this added with the fact that some people aren't comfortable with adding 7 characters to a page name, I'm sure that they would be even less comfortable with adding more characters. Fushi 16:19, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
Quick question, how does having the quest in a Quests/ section make it easier to pull the questname? I can see how the Desc/ section works, but not the Quests/ one. Oh, and I agree with you Fushi that it's not worth trying to break it down further into Mage/Main quest sections. -- EndarethTalk 00:58, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you're asking here, Endareth. Putting a quest in Quests/ doesn't necessarily easier to pull, it just guaruntees differentiation from any places or people. I suppose it does make it easier becuase you don't have to know if a quest has been put in Quests/ for differentiation or if it still lies directly in the game namespace. Putting everything in Quests/ means you KNOW everything is there. Fushi 04:21, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
Ah I understand what you mean now, if a page is in Quests/ then we can safely assume that specific Quest related templates can be used without having to manually go and check each page. In theory anyway. I can agree with that as being useful. -- EndarethTalk 08:18, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
I see what you mean by unifromity now. Then differentiation between quests could be done by categories (Main Quest, Mages Guild, etc..). So my only remaining worry is the double trail. There must be some intelligent way around it. Any ideas? --DrPhoton 07:55, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
As I understand it, the secondary trail (from the /) is very small, and only links directly back to the immediate parent page. It also can only be changed by editing the PHP. While it's obviously preferable to not have it, as this change can only be done by Daveh I think we should be able to put up with it until Daveh can get time to fix it up. -- EndarethTalk 08:18, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
Actually, the subpage trail links back all the way up the subpage tree. In this case, however, the subpage tree is only two levels deep. Think of it like directories in a filesystem. Fushi 15:58, 2 May 2006 (EDT)

Are we going to hear anything definitive from any of the sysops (other than User:Endareth, who is happy to go with the majority)? I'd like to get to work either flipping everything over, or changing everything back. Fushi 00:27, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

I'm all for uniformity and non-conflicting quest/location names. However, my main concern with :{{/Description}} is that when you try to edit a quest description (to fix wrong info, incorrect link, poor grammar, spelling, etc) all you see in the edit box is:
and no other text. This obviously makes it difficult to edit the content, since no content is visible. From an editing point of view I find this very difficult to work with (well, that's my point, there's nothing to work with). Is there any way around it so that when using :{{/Description}} the contents of a quest description shows up in the edit section? If that could be fixed I'm all for it. Jondrasar 05:46, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
There's no way around that (other than perhaps altering the "Templates used on this page:" filter to also display transcluded pages). This has also been used for the Oblivion places without many problems. A possible solution would be including an "edit this section" sort of link as part of the transclusion. This would be easily achieved by using a template for transclusion (e.g. changing {{namespace:pagename}} to {{transclusion|namespace:pagename}} or similar). GarrettTalk 06:35, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Yeah, it all looks good to me. As for the subpage it's actually possible to disable it at the CSS level. I'll look into that. Bah, scratch that, I'd have to disable the "(Redirected from wherever)" style too, and that's too useful to lose. It's up to Dave now. GarrettTalk 06:46, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
I'm looking into it now, but assuming that there are no feasible workarounds (which appears not to be the case, I'm just saying worse case scenario), I think it should be noted on the editors page that "If you don't know what you're doing, ask someone to help explain". That's pretty much the case with tables as is (because any text based interpretation of tables is messy at best, and wiki does an ok job of it, not a great one). Fushi 16:18, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Endareth proposed {{/Description}}<sup>[[/Description|edit]]</sup>, which is what I'm going with now, templated. Just stick {{Quest Description}} into any quest that's been converted over, and it will automatically display the description, with an edit link. Doing it this way also means if we ever want to change it again, we need only change the template, not the pages. Fushi 16:26, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Ah, much better. :) GarrettTalk 16:47, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
All of this makes me wonder if we shouldn't put all content in subpages for a quest, then transclude it to the quests page, and lock the quests page. This would ensure stylechanges happened in the templates, yet still allow people to edit content. I myself am a bit wary of the idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Also, all of the quests that were changed over to use subpages have now had the description changed to include an edit link. Fushi 16:53, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Yes, much better. I had noticed this in the template: "It should be noted that in order for this to work, the page "Namespace:Quests/Questname/Description" must exist, and contain the description for the quest. To simplify editing, {{/Description}} may be used on the quest page in place of the description, and it will automatically insert the text from Questname/Description." and was going to suggest trying to link directly to the description page. Nice work, looks like you nailed it, heh. Although, it does remove the links on the right to edit the various sections and one must now edit the whole page to edit Details, which really isn't a problem... I kinda like it, cleans up the look with fewer edit buttons and is still fully editable :) Jondrasar 18:13, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Oppose ":Quest/" - It's ugly and there's no reason to. At least on the ":Quests/" side of things. I'm alright with ":Desc/" and ":Description/", but we really need to pick one and stick with it. I've conducted a vote on UESPWiki_talk:Editing on whether or not we should have quests under ":Quests/". --Aristeo 18:44, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Console Code

I have noticed some disagreement in the way console code is shown on the pages. On the Style Guide page it is stated that console code should be entered like this:

console code

However, in many other pages, like the walkthroughs from the old site, it is shown like this:

console code

Which one should we use? --DrPhoton 08:52, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

I don't like using <tt> tags because some readers don't like to see console code. <code> tags work pretty well for one/two lines of console code, and...
Whatever this is called
...is pretty good for big blocks of scripting.--Aristeo 14:48, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Code in general

Can the wiki engine please stop killing the <q>…</q> and <kbd>…</kbd> tags? Overloading the <tt>…</tt> and <code>…</code> tags (and forcing the " character) just makes things harder for us to read, since the default CSS could display keyboard-input, terminal-output, quotations, and source-code differently if wiki stopped stomping them. This is particular important for quotations, since many cultures use «, », ‘, ’, “, ”, ‚, „, ‹, and › instead of our single ". I'm sure I'd be happy with whatever CSS is used, just so long as I could use the different tags for their intended purpose. Uniblab 23:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Tamriel Place Pages

Conversation has been moved to UESPWiki talk:Style Guide/Place Layout.

Style Guide Remix

I redid the style guide, as the previous one was too hard to read in my opinion. The new one is much more comprehendable. --Aristeo 01:23, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

New Places Template

I've set up a new template Template:Oblivion Places Summary that I'm proposing be used on the various Oblivion Place pages instead of the existing Summary templates. Template Talk:Oblivion Places Summary explains my rationale for introducing this new template. I've also changed a few places pages over to use this template, in case any one wants to see it in action: Belda, Sancre Tor, and Rockmilk Cave. I would like to start gradually transitioning pages over to this new template. Also, if everyone approves of this new template, it should be possible to change the existing templates to just be front-ends for the new template, so that all the pages can have a uniform format right away. --Nephele 18:55, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

Looks good to me. --Aristeo 07:27, 4 August 2006 (EDT)


"Races and animal names do not need to be capitalized."

I disagree. Race names such as "Altmer" and "Khajiit" are always capitalized in game, so I think this rule should be changed.

Also, specific animal names like "Painted Troll" look better with capitalization IMHO. Referring to trolls, goblins or spriggans in general does not require capitalization though.

Agree? Disagree? --Actreal 19:49, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

Done. Thanks for the input :) --Aristeo 22:25, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

US vs. UK spelling

One statement you made in your new section was that we use American English as the standard on this site. This I agree with, and it's understandable, since the game is made by an American company, and uses American English in-game. But it may be tough to convince many of the editors on this rule. The biggest difference I've seen is the spelling of the word "armor" as "armour". I've tried to keep myself from changing this except where absolutely necessary (e.g. links to skill names, like Oblivion:Light Armor, or page titles for pages describing armor stats, etc.), but it seems that we are constantly having the UK spelling cropping up, and even some people "correcting" pages with US spelling to use the UK spelling. Not wanting to get into intercontinental edit-wars, I've left these alone, unless there's other things wrong on the page which I'm correcting, in which case I'll switch over to US spelling in the same edit wherever I see it. It's nice to see this mentioned now in official policy, but as I said, I think we'll have a difficult time enforcing it. I thought of doing a mass site-wide correction of this, but a quick search for the "armour" spelling turns up 145 pages, more than I feel like doing, especially if it's not actually wrong, as it might just inflame our European colleagues. Any thoughts on what (if anything) to do about this issue? --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:53, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I tried to provide a bit more of the rationale behind this guideline on my new UESPWiki:Spelling page. I did re-read Brightone's comments on the subject while I was putting the spelling page together, which helped to remind me of the British perspective. But basically, read over the Spelling page and see whether you think that covers your concerns or whether you think more needs to be done. And while you're at it, you might want to glance at the examples on that page... I'd be surprised if you can't come up with a bunch that I missed :) --Nephele 01:58, 15 February 2007 (EST)
It should be one or the other, not a haphazard mishmash of spelling styles -- and for the reasons given above, American English seems the best choice. Personally, I'm not jumping at the chance to edit spelling on that many pages, but with the rule defined, it makes sense that if you see non-American spellings, they should be corrected. And in case an editor "corrects" pages to UK spellings, they can simply be pointed to the style guide, which should immediately resolve the issue. --Wrye 02:04, 15 February 2007 (EST)
Yep, that was almost exactly what I was thinking. As for why I felt this information needed to be added to the Style Guide, there have been two discussions that both concluded that US spelling should be the standard, so there seems to be a clear consensus. If that is the wiki's decision, then it should be made easily available to all of the editors on the site. I'm not publicizing it in an attempt to get all the spelling transformed overnight (or to suddenly start enforcing it), but rather to just make the information available to anyone who is wondering. --Nephele 02:38, 15 February 2007 (EST)
One thing I will say is that I think redirects should be set up for English spellings (if this hasn't been don already)--Ratwar 09:49, 15 February 2007 (EST)
It's actually "International English" not "UK English" ;o) — Unsigned comment by Jadrax (talkcontribs)
Thanks for the "International" tip; I've updated Spelling appropriately :) And probably more redirects using UK spellings are needed; for example Brightone pointed out that a search on "Light Armour" failed to find anything. There's an Oblivion:Armour redirect, but we should have Oblivion:Light_Armour and Oblivion:Heavy_Armour. It would be great if someone was willing to go through the site and create redirects for any pages whose names are spelled differently in the UK version of the game... it's just a lot of page names to go through and stare at. And even though my "native" spelling is British, it would probably be best for someone who actually has the UK edition of the game to do it. --Nephele 12:15, 15 February 2007 (EST)
And as I type it, Lurlock is already doing it :) --Nephele 12:16, 15 February 2007 (EST)
Prev: None Up: UESPWiki talk:Style Guide Next: None