Template talk:NPC Summary/Archive 2

This is an archive of past Template talk:NPC Summary discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

A few concerns

I noticed that the RefID is listed on the table twice; I think one needs to be removed. Although the one in the header is most likely there for convenience, there is no need to have two. I am not sure even if the BaseID is necessary, but I don't play on the PC so I really wouldn't know. Also, GK was wanting to add editor IDs, but I am not sure that is necessary either. This is a good (and large) template; it just needs some cleaning up. Thoughts/concerns? –Elliot ^talk 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason I'd like to add Editor IDs is that the Editor IDs are used to list the NPCs in the construction set, so if an editor wanted to find a particular NPC in the construction set, the easiest way is to search by the Editor ID. --GK^Talk2me 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. But what about the refID being on there twice? –Elliot ^talk 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with GK about the EdIDs, especially since some of them aren't spelled the same way as the NPCs' names. It may not be useful in-game, but it can be very helpful in-CS. Also, I don't see any point with listing the RefID twice. I'd rather just take it out of the header, personally. –Eshe^talk 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps we should put the EdID in place of the refID in the header? Unless you want to put it in the actual box (most likely under the refID and baseID row). –Elliot ^talk 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

BaseID is necessary for commands like placeatme and setessential, so that one should stay. I'm not fully convinced EditorID should be added. I agree it makes searching for particular NPCs in the Construction Set easier, but you can also simply sort the list by Name to find an NPC quickly. EditorID doesn't appear outside the CS (unlike the FormIDs), and I don't think we should use the NPC summaries as a way to cover CS info.

I don't mind the RefID appearing twice, it's the same with the name of the NPC. The RefID appears beside the name because that is consistent with many other items on the wiki where the ID appears next to the name. The reason the RefID also appears next to the BaseID is to make the reader aware of the two notable IDs for an NPC (unlike many items, which only have one), which I think is such an important distinction it warrants the double RefID. --Timenn-<talk> 12:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I was just looking up how to add the EditorID, since I noticed the (red-linked) category on an NPC page I'm looking at. I agree that we should include it in the NPC Summary. While it's not used outside the construction set, a similar argument could be made for not including the RefID/BaseID, since they're not used outside the console, which is not part of the main game. For those of us who do use the CS, it's certainly a useful piece of info. I would also agree with removing the RefID from the title and replacing it with the EditorID.

The one thing I would suggest, though, would be to simply use the existing id variable instead of introducing an edid variable like we've done. This would have the benefit of making the template look a tiny bit more similar between Morrowind and Oblivion. The drawbacks, of course, would be that we'd have to change all existing pages that use edid (which would be more of a challenge with RoBoT no longer an option and Nephele having mysteriously disappeared, but still doable by creating a category in the template for those with an edid variable specified, then editing them one-by-one), and there might be programming issues since the variable is already used for Morrowind NPCs...not sure. Given the drawbacks, I can certainly see the arguments against using just id now that we've already started with edid, but I'd be willing to do the mass-edits if we decide to go that route. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

\=> Especially now the bots are missing in action I feel we shouldn't spend time on adding all these EditorIDs. As I said before the EditorID is only seen in the Construction Set, and you can easily find the NPC you are looking for by sorting the list by Name (instead of EditorID). If we start adding EditorIDs for NPCs, we might as easily ask ourselves why we don't add them for all items too.

I disagree that the console is not part of the main game. Especially with the number of bugs popping up, I think it's a nice way to solve them properly when you encounter them. I think there is a great deal more of PC players that only use the console than those that understand how to use the CS as well. Providing the correct FormIDs to use, here on the site, makes the console a lot easier to use for player not used to things like consoles and editors. This rings true especially in this case, where it's important to keep track of the difference between Reference IDs and Base Object IDs. The only argument for the EditorID I have seen is convenience for CS users, and I think those user are able to enough to find the right NPC without the EditorID not to warrant the inclusion. --Timenn-<talk> 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the console as not being part of the main game since XBox/PS3 users don't have access to it at all and only a fraction of PC users would be comfortable in using it. But I can't disagree with the reasoning in your last sentence, so unless there's a compelling need to add the EditorIDs, we should probably leave them out. This, of course, brings up the question of whether we should remove the existing ones (and possibly the code in the template to handle them...though I see no pressing reason to remove that). —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on

This discussion originally took place on Template talk:NPC Editor ID. It was moved because the template was marked for deletion and the discussion was too important to lose Before this is further pursued, may I first please recall this discussion. Where the implied discussion appeared to have been that the EditorID would be dropped instead?

Furthermore, there are some significant technical issues with this template. Mostly that a 87kb template is way too big. Remember that all that data is transcluded every time the template is called (i.e. for each NPC, across multiple namespaces). This will cause a massive hit on the site performance. Furthermore, using a switch statement is generally not a good idea to use for longer (and sortable) lists, as this will also drain unnecesary computing resources. --Timenn-<talk> 10:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Having you only refute it does not drive the discussion towards one end or another. Sorry, you were out-"voted". Also, I threw it in a template so that we won't have to make a thousand unnecessary edits. So yes, there will be some server strain, but by no means it is unnecessary server strain (why the heck is there for then if we can't use it?). Also, it has worked almost perfectly so far, so I don't see the problem. –Elliot ^talk 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Right... I suggest you read Consensus very carefully, especially the parts where you are recommended to avoid voting. Then I would ask where exactly votes were ever cast (a simple discussion is no vote). Not to mention that you are bluntly ignoring the majority of the arguments (and not just by me) provided in the discussion, and instead opt to do as you will. In the meanwhile I will read your reply again tomorrow, as I find it a bit difficult to believe at the moment. Particularly the part where you insist on cluttering the server CPU as if it is no big deal. --Timenn-<talk> 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GK and Eshe agreed, and RH helped me set it up. And notice I put voted in parentheses. You were outnumbered. Consensus was reached (that it should be put in). Just because you don't like it doesn't matter. And saying I am intentionally cluttering the server for the sole purpose of doing so is foolish. We can't base out entire decisions on whether or not the server has to do something. We avoid it when necessary, but we cannot do it all of the time. And again, consensus was reached. –Elliot ^talk 01:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is only consensus as long as there isn't significant disagreement. Since Timenn has raised valid concerns about the template and its use, his opinion is as valid as anyone else's. –Eshe^talk 02:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

While I initially agreed to add editor IDs, I later recanted in light of Timenn's points (last post in Template_talk:NPC_Summary#A_few_concerns). When I helped you the first time, Elliot, I didn't entirely understand what you were doing. After I saw, I was a bit concerned that the size of the template might be an issue, but I'm still a beginner with templates and wasn't sure how much of a problem it would be. Since nobody seemed too concerned about it after you made the changes initially, I figured it wasn't a big deal and had no problems providing you with the updated info when you asked for it. I took it as a sort of "implied consent", so to speak. Now that there's explicit dissent, I see no reason not to discuss the issue and, if it's decided to be necessary, revert to a previous version.

Ultimately, though, there seem to be two different issues here, and I think we need to make decisions on both separately. First, do we want EditorIDs? Second, if we do, is the template as it stands now the best way to go about it? Obviously, if we decide not to use EditorIDs at all, the second question will be answered automatically, but if we do use them, then the distinction becomes important. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care. But rpeh his scripting RoBoT to add them to the pages so we don't have to worry about the template. –Elliot ^talk 06:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but we don't have a consensus as yet as to whether EditorIDs should be added or not. Timenn has raised a valid point that only people who use the Construction Set would ever have use for them, and those who do use the Construction Set can usually find the IDs quite easily through other means. While I'm somewhat neutral on this, he has a point. I think we should discuss this before we go making bulk changes of any kind. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 06:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If it can help readers of the wiki, why are we even discussing the possibility of not adding it? Seems like a bad philosophy to have. –Elliot ^talk 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Because most readers of the wiki have no use for it. It's the same reason we don't give the schedules item-by-item...that level of detail is too much for most readers and for those to whom it is useful, they already know where to find it. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 06:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't really decide what people know. And this isn't some major walkthrough, it is a little facet of information found on the NPC Summary. For instance, why does it matter what faction they are in? I mean, we just give the info, and let the readers take what they need from it. And plus, not everyone knows how to use the CS. If they are going to learn, it would be nice to have certain info for the new users. –Elliot ^talk 07:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

\=> Elliot, as I understand it you don't have access to the Construction Set. Please believe me when I say it's very easy to compare the EditorID and the Name (as it appears in-game) of the same object. If you can find the list of NPCs, you can find that. You can sort to the list on Names (or BaseIDs for that matter), if you want to find an NPC quickly. Now another given reason for including the IDs was that EditorIDs could give insight on the developer's intentions for that NPC. But as you have seen, they are the same for most NPCs (other than DLC related NPCs usually have a prefix, e.g. "SE"). For the few NPCs that it matter, we can add them in the Notes section, which an explanation next to it.

You don't want to include all facts about the game on the wiki. If we do that, we might as well include the amount of vowels in each NPCs name. We could count the amount of oranges in someone's house, as a reference to The Godfather trilogy. What makes the information worthy is its relevance and how important it is to the reader. Cluttering it with unnecessary information will only make the notable facts harder to find.

The discussion I referred to started with you agreeing with GK and Eshe that including the ID might be a good idea. Now both GK and Eshe hadn't responded after I made my first reply. Their position is not clear. Do they think that my concerns don't weigh up to the benefits, do they feel my concerns aren't shared with any others? Or could I have changed their minds a bit about the subject? I can only see Robin Hood who admitted his view has changed somewhat. Despite what you claim, it may even appear that the implied consensus is the actual opposite. As for why I feel no consensus was reached:

Make an effort to provide the reasons for your position. By giving reasons, it becomes easier to reach a compromise, if necessary. Just stating that you prefer A over B does not help to convince others to share your opinion.

I've raised a few questions which were not answered or dismissed. In that light, you have taken no steps into reaching a compromise, you ignored them instead.

If there is a disagreement, try to focus on finding a compromise, preferably one that allows everybody's top priorities to be satisfied.

Similar to above; no compromise was formed at all, the initial suggestion was carried out without adhering to other people's priorities at any point.

If a compromise can not be reached, try asking other editors to contribute to the discussion. If you would like an administrator to provide input, a request can be made on the Administrator Noticeboard. Or you can try contacting other editors who have contributed to the page in question, for example, by leaving a message on their user talk page.

Robin Hood was the only editor jumping in later than me, and may I assume you didn't invite him into the discussion?

You assume correctly. I believe he invited me to the initial discussion, but after that, the page would've been added to my watchlist and my reply would've come because of that. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 20:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Avoid turning a discussion into a vote: it is far better to find a solution that everyone likes than to simply impose a majority opinion. However, some decisions based purely on stylistic preference may not be amenable to a compromise solution.

I don't think the change is purely stylistical (since it introduces content). As for avoiding the vote, you turned the matter into a vote from day 2. That's the last time one of the "voters" replied, and you counted that as a vote. Putting it between parentheses doesn't make it a less official vote, as you based a significant decision upon it. An official vote requires at least the editors being aware of it, and I don't think it was the intention of either GK and Eshe (nor me or Robin Hood) to vote on their first reply. --Timenn-<talk> 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to go back to the original question: should editorid be shown. I think it should. I'm not so sure it should be in the summary title, but that's another matter.

There are a few places (Oblivion:Clancy and Oblivion:Magub gro-Orum for instance) where the editorid reveals interesting information about a character. Including the editor id on all NPCs would let the template link to an explanation about what an editorid is, and it might help people wondering what the hell an editorid is.

As Elliot mentions above, I have a RoBoT module ready to roll. It won't make a difference even if run until a change is made to the template. It will add the editorid to all Oblivion NPCs and that's it.

One thing I will say is that Timenn is right about this template - it's way too big. For reference, this one is over 83K: the next largest is the Chart template - and that's only 10.1K. With no bots around, the template idea made some sense, but it's not the right way to do it. Now RoBoT is available again, it's the best resource to make changes like this. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 21:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Timenn, I didn't read your post because I glanced at you trying to inform me about policies. Thanks, but no thanks.

Now that we have a bot, it is best to go ahead and use it to add it to the page. –Elliot ^talk 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody take a breath.

I'm not going to run RoBoT until there's a clear view as to whether people want this information or not. The code is there - it didn't take long to write so I'm not going to be devastated if it doesn't run. Let's get some more opinions. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this makes a lot of sense or it's the dumbest idea ever :) but what if we had RoBoT add all the EditorIDs to the NPCs, then we can readily add, remove, reposition, etc., until we're happy. If we don't use it, it can sit there pending a possible change of heart later on; if we do use it, then all the hard work will have already been done and it's a simple matter of changing the template. We can perhaps even revert to the pre-EditorID version of the template while we're still deciding, thus getting rid of the unwieldy 83k one until a decision has been made. So...a lot of sense or really dumb? —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Elliot, ignoring comments because you don't like how they speak against you is no way to reach consensus either.

I did a quick check, and from the 470 NPCs you can find starting with either "A" or "B", only around 18 of them have an EditorID that might warrant some comment on it. Basically I took the entire list and eliminated all entries where: 1) the ID and the name were practically the same (dashes, spaces etc. removed) 2) The ID only had a certain prefix (e.g. "SE", or "MQ10") 3) The NPC is no named NPC, but a generic one instead (e.g. Bandit).

Do we want to include EditorIDs in the NPC summary for this small minority of NPCs who might have an interesting EditorID to comment upon. And why do not we simply do that in the Notes section of that NPC's article? --Timenn-<talk> 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest RobinHood's solution myself but wondered the same thing he did!

The EditorId isn't the most informative bit of data about an NPC but then as already mentioned, the overwhelming number of Factions aren't particularly helpful either. I think the current template should definitely come off no matter what else we decide. I wouldn't put the editorid in the title, but I think it's worth including. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

/=> My main problem, Timenn, is that you are deciding what qualifies as important to the reader. If any tidbit of information as the possibility of being helpful to a small group of readers, then why would we choose to not go along that road? And we list any or all. If we list some, and then the reader goes to a page without one, they might be confused and wonder what it is. Just because you know how to use it doesn't mean everyone else does. As for where it should go... I think it should go in the title, because some of them are rather long (such as the beggars). The refid is listed twice, so that may be the direction we want to head. –Elliot ^talk 23:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's ~~dumb~~ redundant to list the RefID twice, but that's a whole other debate. :) I don't see deciding what qualifies as important as being a major point here...after all, we do that every time we contribute or patrol an edit, and quite often we revert things that we deem unimportant, even if (read: "because only") a very small minority of people would find it useful. While I was initially for the addition, the longer I think about it, the more I think that it's just not useful and will only add clutter. Only a small minority of people would find it useful and while it can sometimes be distracting to sort and re-sort a list based on name and then back to ID, it's no more distracting than having to open a web page to look it up. As for any particular person knowing how to sort names, I think anybody who can download the CS and make sense of what they see there is long past the point of knowing about clicking column titles to sort lists. For those where the ID or other evidence suggests some other intended direction for the character, though, then I agree that it's worth noting that in the Notes section. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to speak up for Nephele here, since she's not around. The reason refid is listed twice is becuase there used to be just the baseid, and it was in the title bar. In 99% of cases, baseid is useless and Nephele wrote some code for NepheleBot to add refid too. She made refid the primary id so that got added to the title bar to keep things consistent. Calling her dumb - even if it's crossed out - is bang out of line. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't intended as a personal insult. I actually assumed it was just an oversight due to various revisions of the template and that it would be seen as a non-controversial statement, even with the language I used. The scratched-out "dumb" was intended as more as humour, though obviously that failed. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I overreacted but since a lot of longstanding users are no longer around I feel a need to point out that what might look like mistakes are historical compromises or something similar.

Here's a suggestion: leave refid in the title bar, and replace the in-template one with edid? –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of doing it the other way around. Keeping the RefID and BaseID near each other because they are similer, and the EdID and name together because they are similar. –Elliot ^talk 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to put it in, I'd go with Elliot's idea. I haven't looked, but I think that'd be more like Morrowind, plus it has the advantage of keeping the "name-like-things" together in one place and the IDs together in another. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

\=> Elliot, as I stated the before, the problem is not whether this idea is passed or rejected. That's the point of this entire discussion, and the previous. The problem is that it appeared you bluntly ignored the previous discussion, as the final comments clearly implied the opposite of what you claimed. I wouldn't have noticed the changes if I wouldn't have noticed the huge amount of bytes added to a certain article in the Recent Changes. You didn't even had the courtesy to notify the people involved in the discussion. Even if you pass someone's opinion, it's not uncommon to give them the opportunity to give in themselves. If everyone else turn out to be in favour of this idea, I won't have object if my opinion was skipped, and would have simply stated that to reinforce the consensus.

Instead we find that consensus is far to be found, as we're still discussing the implementation of this idea, and how far it will be implemented.

As for my counter-proposal, I believe it should cover the reasons people feel the EditorID needs to be included. Is the EditorID truly needed if it is the same as the name of the NPC (minus dashes, apostrophes and whitespace), or when the only extra is a prefix to indicate a relation to a certain quest?

The factions may not be the most important information around here, but at least it can be argued they actually have an effect on the game. They are not as easy to figure out in the CS as well. You need to lookup the factions for an NPC, then open up the faction window, find the faction in question and use the Use Info option to see which NPCs are in that faction as well. And even that doesn't give the easy list with links as we have on the wiki. Compare that with the actions Robin Hood described for looking up an EditorID. I don't decide what is easy to read and what not, but I count the number of actions a person has to perform, and the readability of the results. Important information for a reader is that which is not immediately obvious. On formulea on the wiki we don't add the result of a simple addition in parenthesis(see the history of such pages for reverts related to that). Anyone who can understand the formula can do the addition easily. It's similar with the CS, anyone who can open up the list with NPCs can see the column with EditorIDs.

Now for the EditorIDs that are relevant not to only modders, the IDs that give more clues about the origin or purpose of an NPC; I think adding that the Notes section with an explanation next to it will be more useful. It would leave out the EditorID out of the NPC Summary, so readers don't have to wonder why certain NPCs have an EditorID listed, and others not. --Timenn-<talk> 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to have the Editor IDs on the page, and it seems to me that the summary infobox is an intuitive place to put them. As far as the subject of running RoBoT: why not? It won't be visible on the page until we decide here what to do, and it will save time when we do make a decision. Either way, I also feel this template should come off the summary. --GK^Talk2me 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I fail to see a reason not to add the Editor IDs. You can gawk on about importance, availability, and need. But it should be added because it has the ability to help the reader. And yes, all of them should be added the NPC summary. There is not reason to include some and not the others.

And Timenn, I see a note by you in the last conversation and one by RH that states a disagreement. But GK and Eshe both said they should be added (so yeah, I know how to read). And I said it, and GK is still saying it, and rpeh is saying it. If I started using the Construction Set, I would want the editor IDs myself. –Elliot ^talk 02:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, mine's more of a weak disagree, to use wiki terminology. I understand and agree with Timenn's reasoning, but I'm not violently opposed to having the IDs or anything. —Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 08:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, at the very least you should have added a comment to that discussion, so the participants would be aware you'd be going through with it.

So if we are adding the EditorID, why not add everything else? We can add the Combat AI, useful for players who want to know how a NPC fights. As well as add the names for all the AI packages, so they can easily be found in the long list of AI packages, instead of going through the hassle of first opening the NPC window and looking them up. Sometimes the reference for a given NPC is named differently than simply "<name>Ref", so why not add all those too? There are scripts that can be applied to an NPC... Really, there are numerous other pieces of info that can be added if we apply the reasoning that anything should be added that could help a reader.

In that light we should add an additional NPC summary box, and reserve the first for only imminent information regarding the NPC (helpful for all players), and use the second summary for all technical details. This isn't solely intended as reductio ad absurdum, I'm serious here. If we intend to add these extra details, I feel they need to be placed in a better context. --Timenn-<talk> 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

<= Let's split this issue into two. First is the question of whether or not editorids should be listed. There's no consensus here at the moment. The last time I talked to Timenn about it, he almost convinced me that they aren't necessary while I almost convinced him that they are :-) Let's leave that for now. Second is the question of this template. I don't think there's any disagreement that it is Not Good. Would anybody object if I removed this template from the NPC Summary template? If point 1 resolves in favour of including edids, RoBoT can go through and add them all in - which is the correct way of doing it. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No objections here, this template should definitely go. --GK^Talk2me 03:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I agreed earlier on IRC with rpeh that while the discussion is still on-going this template should be removed in any case. We probably need to move this talk page somewhere else as well. --Timenn-<talk> 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A little tweak?

The Health and Magicka boxes always seemed squished to me, so I think we should change it to where they are on one line: See the following example:

Obviously, it doesn't look great when NPCs have set Health/Magicka values. So I was thinking we could use the #explode function to determine whether or not it goes to two lines. This is just a general concept to make things more appealing, nothing more. Elliot (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, but it'll make the template more complex after a lot of work went into simplifying it. I'll take a proper look later. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done and it's a definite improvement so thanks for the suggestion. I've hidden the two template examples above because they're causing too many wanted categories, etc. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to make it more readable. Elliot (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice Actor parameter for Skyrim NPCs.

I'm bringing as subject that has been brought up back in 2008, but I think that the infobox could use a "voice actor" parameter in Skyrim due to the much larger number of voice actor (and to lighten the load of the "Notes" section). Kind of like "The Vault" wiki (The Fallout Wiki). Most of those are unknown, but they would be eventually found out.

It's a suggestion, but I find it relevant for Skyrim. POLE7645 23:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For all the reasons discussed here, I don't think it's necessary. While Skyrim has dramatically increased the number of actors, it's still not something that affects actual gameplay. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. It was just a suggestion. I thought it would look better (like it does at "The Vault") than having a line in the notes in every page. Then again, when more NPCs will get their voice actors identified, who knows. POLE7645 16:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Essential=Never

The documentation advertises the option "Never", which currently puts the NPC into the essential category anyway. Currently it looks like it is used that way only in a few Skyrim cases. So do we want to adapt the documentation or the template? A working template adaption can be found here. --Alfwyn 14:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like existing pre-Skyrim practice is to leave the essential field either empty or undefined for non-essential NPCs. So probably the best way is just to change the documentation accordingly. --Alfwyn 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That flag should only be used for when they are essential at least once. It shouldn't be used to document if they are never essential. I'll update the doc. elliot (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NPC summary in User namespace

I've seen several users make use of the NPC summary template on their personal page. While that is fine and all, it also automatically adds the banner 'This article could benefit from an image.' Probably the template should be tweaked to avoid such banners in the User namespace, but I have no idea how to do that. I know the parameter image=none can be used on individual pages, but that doesn't really solve the problem for the future.
I realise that no one has ever said anything about it, so it might not be an actual problem, but it could potentially confuse new users. Wolok gro-Barok 14:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. elliot (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Elliot. Thanks. Wolok gro-Barok 19:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: Template talk:NPC Summary

Next: None

UESPWiki β