User talk:Forfeit/Archive 3

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

ChatEdit

Hey, have you ever considered using the wiki's chat? If you did, I could have let you know I am currently in-game in Oblivion so I can capture an image of the interior of the Blacksmith's house, and then give it a proper write-up. It's not required that you use it, but it helps avoid any confusion. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 05:51, 2 January 2015 (GMT)

Hey, sorry about that, I thought you might have overlooked the content or doubted its validity due to the nonsense that came with it. I probably should have looked into the chat a while ago given my activity on the site, but I've never really given it much of a thought. I'll look into joining the chat sometime soon to avoid further mix ups, among other reasons. Thanks for the invitation! :P --Forfeit (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2015 (GMT)

Residents' schedules on house articlesEdit

Regarding this edit: http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AAlgot%27s_House&diff=1415138&oldid=1415043

On the project page for the Oblivion Houses Redesign Project, it says, "...and also the schedule of NPCs that reside here." Is this not what's being done anymore? --GK^talk2me 06:21, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

I hadn't noticed that before, and I haven't seen anyone do that either. To be honest though, the project seems currently dead, there's very few activity on it. This is somewhat caused by the project being started by a user who retired soon after it was properly set up, and the current project leader being blocked. If you ask me though, adding schedules specific to the house is an interesting approach, and would fill up the empty pages a bit, but I suspect it would be (near) duplication for a sole resident. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea.

Now that I have your attention though, could I ask you not to use abbreviations in links on written out articles? It was "sort of" decided to keep it consistent like that. Off the record, those abbreviations make me cringe :( ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

It's been a while, but I seem to remember Nephele setting up something so that they automatically changed when the page was saved. No matter, though; won't happen again. --GK^talk2me 18:19, 21 January 2015 (GMT)

Huh. I never noticed that detail on the project page either. Then I suppose that the schedule information would be appropriate to put on the page based on the project guidelines. Honestly though, I personally don't think it's a good idea to put this information on the house page. It seems to contradict the very purpose for why the project was created, namely what is mentioned here. While house details are indeed relevant information about an NPC, sometimes even the most interesting as in the case of Ra'Jhan, it was decided that these details should be on separate pages as they cluttered a page that should be about a character with details about a place. I believe that by adding schedule details to the house pages, the very same problem this project sought to fix could be created again. Specifically, a page that should be describing a place instead has information on the schedule(s) of its residents which may cause the details about the location to become separated or broken up. I personally think listing when the home is locked and unlocked in the notes is all the information that is needed from NPC schedules on house pages. Forfeit (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (GMT)

I was thinking about jumping over to Oblivion house project once I finish the last few stubs and houses on Skyrim, however just to muddy the water slightly, having the residents schedules on the house pages makes sense to me, as most people when they are about to enter a house/break into a house would pull up the house page and would want this info on the page, otherwise they would also have to pull up each residents individually in addition. Biffa (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2015 (GMT)

I've never seen a schedule added to a house page, and I think it should probably stay that way. I've started a discussion here to remove that point on the project page. —Legoless (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2015 (GMT)

Cookie!Edit

You have been given a cookie! Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say: Hey Forfeit! This one is for persistently hacking at the OBNPCRP and MWOP heaps of work for quite some time lately!  ~Shuryard (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yum!! Thanks Shuryard! I always enjoy editing NPC pages, so I'll gladly keep working on these projects until they're both finished! :) --Forfeit (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Thanks for adding the protection templates to the two pages I missed. Failing an upgrade to my memory systems (which seems unlikely), I really have to create a bot job to search for things like that at some point. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome! I was just looking through my contributions and happened to notice it. I can imagine that would be easy to forget to do after protecting the page! Forfeit (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 06:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

MWOP DialogueEdit

I don't think we're using the paragraph layout for Morrowind dialogue due to how that game handles dialogue trees. It would be good to keep a consistent style across the namespace, even for NPCs with very few unique lines. —Legoless (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The NPC's importance and how much dialogue they have definitely appears to be running the risk of producing a load of inconsistencies. Should we keep the dialogue in alphabetical order, so it follows the game's layout more than other presentation? To be honest, having dialogue in the order it will be encountered on Draugr Lord Aesliip and Hasphat Antabolis' articles isn't something I have been thrilled about. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 13:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think if there's only one line of dialogue, a dialogue section isn't really necessary. It looks strange to have a whole section of a page that simply lists one line of dialogue. When there's two or more lines of dialogue, a dialogue section can become useful if it would get confusing to describe all the different conditions for when each line can be heard. However, if it's simply one greeting and one unique piece of information for a certain topic, I still think the paragraph method is superior as it can easily present the conditions without needing a whole section of dialogue. The paragraph format also allows the article to have more of a narrative feel to it as our NPC pages in Oblivion and Skyrim do.

This is sort of where my reasoning comes into play as to whether or not I use a dialogue section. For an NPC like Cun who may have 3 lines of dialogue, I still chose to use the paragraph layout as I could easily describe the conditions for the dialogue without being overly technical or wordy. However, with Adaves Therayn, I used a dialogue section as explaining all those different disposition requirements and when the lines are available in paragraph format would get rather lengthy.

I made these considerations each time because I think the paragraph format sometimes looks superior to the dialogue sections as I believe it's more interesting to read a narrative paragraph than a list of topics, responses, and conditions. After all, we could document Oblivion dialogue with dialogue sections like we are doing for Morrowind pages, but I don't think this would be preferred. I use dialogue sections when I believe the paragraph format would look inferior as it would not have much of a narrative feel to it by time you describe all the different conditions for when each line occurs. So I'm not sure if consistency across every article is the best approach here, rather, we should consider which style creates a more interesting article for the reader while still presenting the conditions for the article as cleanly and clearly as possible.

To touch on Dragon Guard's point about whether or not to use alphabetical order, I'm not really sure to be honest. On one hand, I like using alphabetical order because some people may go through quests or dialogue options in different orders than others. This is especially true if a player already has certain topics available that other players wouldn't because they have completed a previous quest that used these topics. On the other hand, I'm not really sure I'm in love with how an article like Lorbumol gro-Aglakh turned out. It's kind of hard to follow any sort of a narrative when reading that dialogue section as everything is just listed in alphabetical order with all the greetings at the top of the page. A format along the lines of Baren Alen looks like something that may want to be considered going forward. It could be used to divide up the greetings and topics by quest to give it a chronological presentation while still preserving the alphabetical listing of topics due to the somewhat subjective order of topic selection by the player. Forfeit (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with taking such an approach is that it comes down to personal judgement calls. For example, I think Cun really ought to have an individual section. The reason Morrowind dialogue is documented differently to Oblivion's is because of the importance of topics in Morrowind and the ability to look them up in the in-game journal, the style of which the wiki currently duplicates. Going back to Cun, when I read the narrative style ("[...] he will provide you with a brief explanation of the situation when asked for this advice") I have no idea where that line comes from. Is it an 'advice' topic? As it stands currently, the separate dialogue section is the de facto standard in the namespace, and deviating away from that is counterproductive, especially on pages which already use that layout. If you feel strongly about the narrative layout, I'd suggest starting a discussion first. —Legoless (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, a lot of pages don't use dialogue sections as well. For NPC's who only have one unique dialogue line about latest rumors, this has almost exclusively been documented in paragraph format such as on Heddvild, Raflod the Braggart, and multiple others. Perhaps it would be best in these situations to always include the exact name of the topic it comes from like in these examples. This would change the example about Cun to "he will provide you with a brief explanation of the situation when asked for a little advice:". I do see your point though that the topics need to be as clear as possible. Personally, it doesn't matter too much to me right now as I don't have much time to edit or keep up with site discussions these days. I just want to see these dialogue issues resolved so that editors can just focus on documenting dialogue without worrying about constantly changing styles of presenting the dialogue as has been the case thus far in the history of the MWOP. Just using dialogue sections everywhere may be a good start to solving these inconsistency issues. Forfeit (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to the Community Portal because it is really best suited on there, seeing as how we should establish a consensus for the dialogue layout? As Master of MWOP, Jeancey should share his thoughts before we make the change to NPC articles. Regarding the dialogue layout, we should really maintain consistency among NPC articles. Or at least a similar consistency. We should really update the project page with a style guide for dialogue. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 19:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's Save The MWOPEdit

With Jeancey gone since the 27th of September, and with the MWOP receiving less attention right now (which is one of the reasons I contributed a lot to it this year), I am going to save the MEOP, one small step at a time. Firstly, would you be able to review my edits to articles if I add the links to them on here? DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The MWOP does not need "saved". In fact, it is actually doing better than any of the other projects on this site are, aside from LPP maybe. Projects like the Skyrim quests project or the Skyrim and Oblivion house projects have received very little attention in recent months while the MWOP has had a number of contributions recently. Even if it wasn't receiving this attention, it really isn't an issue. Documenting ESO should be seen as the greatest priority for the site right now as it is the newest game and information about this game is what the majority of visitors are here to see. It is not surprising that a project about expanding coverage about a 13 year old game is not receiving as much attention as documenting the newest game in the series. If you think about it, it's a pleasant surprise that it is receiving any attention at all. Editors come and go, and project activity tends to follow suite. It does not mean the project is doomed or needs to be saved, activity will pick up sooner or later as new editors come to the site and are interested in working in the associated namespace of a project.

You're always welcome to ask other editors to look at an edit you may not be sure of for whatever reason. I'm not exactly fully active right now, but I should be able to answer any questions you might have about any edits you make for the MWOP within a reasonable amount of time. This being said, you are probably better off putting any notable concerns on the talk page of the article you edited or asking your question on the project page as it is more visible to other contributors who may be able to answer your question or provide feedback there. From what I've seen from your MWOP contributions recently, you're doing good work so I'd encourage you to trust your own judgment for the most part unless you really feel uncomfortable about the edit. Forfeit (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep discussion related to the MWOP here. Regarding Tarhiel, I get what you mean—if he is alive at a point of gameplay we say "is". If he was dead throughout the game, we would say "was". We should really use the former on the article. The plot says that Tarhiel dies, thus writing in past tense is more appropriate. If he was alive, it would change history. "Tarhiel is a Bosmer enchanter" is not strictly true if we go by what has happened—his death. It may lead to people walking away knowing Tarhiel is alive in normal gameplay, when in fact, he isn't. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 17:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But he is alive in normal gameplay. It just so happens that he dies as soon as you meet him. Applying your logic, we should use the past tense on Roggvir's page since he dies as soon as you meet him and this death is dictated and controlled by the plot. After all, it is not "strictly true" that Roggvir is alive in normal gameplay. I think this would be a silly thing to do on Roggvir's page though, as you can clearly see him when he's alive in normal gameplay, even if this isn't for very long. Admittedly, Tarhiel's a much more extreme case but the fact is is that he does not start out the game dead and writing the page in the past tense would imply this. Using was implies he's dead from the start of the game like Ralen Hlaalo which is not true and is why Ralen is in Category:Morrowind-Dead NPCs and Tarhiel isn't. Forfeit (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)