UESPWiki talk:Oblivion NPC Redesign Project/Archive 2

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

Spells

Moved from Oblivion talk:Arterion

It's not too late to go through and add "spells" and "spellsChecked" params to the template. Worth doing? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:09, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I think it's a good idea. It's useful information and there's loads of NPCs that uses some kind of magic when you fight them. Only potential problem could be, that it's hard to identify exactly what kind of magic they use in-game (see this), making it pretty difficult to check.On the other hand, as soon as the pages hits the "needs preview"-page, it's going to be double-checked with the CS once again, so I think it's worth the extra effort. Krusty 04:30, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Done. It'll take a while for it to be reflected onto every NPC's page though. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:50, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Nice work. We better get that Adanrel page done in a hurry, though! I can see her tag is already updated. And it should be mentioned and explained here as well. Krusty 05:28, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm also in favour for this, and I've been doing it for all of my Mages Guild NPCs. Only problem is that most have a set of leveled spells for their class, so writing all of the possible spells is just not going to be useful. I'm going to update the tags for the ones I've done so far. --SerCenKing ^Talk 05:41, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

More thoughts; As those Mages Guild members will be impossible to check in-game, I suggest that the in-gamer tries to engage in combat with each and every one of them, just to see, if there's a spell he/she uses more than others, and make the nessecary corrections, or a note on the talk page. In all cases, it should be double-checked in the CS.Krusty 06:06, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

There's not much point in that to be honest. The leveled lists are random, so if one spell gets used more than another it's just chance that is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.

I also disagree that we can't list the spells that may be used. The phrase that has been used on most pages is too vague to be of very much help at all. I'd suggest a page called Oblivion:Leveled_Spell_Lists to expand the leveled lists for spells, then the phrase can be linked to provide at least some information.

I know that expanding leveled lists has been dismissed before, but I think it should be possible with spells as the number of lists is smaller than with items, and we already do it (briefly) on Oblivion:Bandit#Bandit Hedge Wizard Spells. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 02:43, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

I like the idea as well, I have been doing it in some pages (see here and here) and I think it would be worth it. If we do create a page would we link the spells by class? e.g. a set of leveled 'Alchemist/Mage' spells, which would then be linked on the page? --SerCenKing ^Talk 11:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Houses Checked List

Hi i'm working on checking the various NPC's houses at the moment and i'm finding alot of NPC's that don't own houses. Would it be ok for me to count these as checked so they don't clutter the list of unchecked houses? Processed 07:49, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Hi there. If the NPCs doesn't own houses, we typically just name the author as "N/A (doesn't own one). If the NPC lives in another persons house, we list it as "N/A (lives in [name]s house)" Examples: Here and Here. Btw, I seem to remember you're doing the checking in-game. Remember that if a house content was written in-game, the info can only be checked by a CS writer to make sure, there's not anything missing. And may I suggest a trip to Gogans house? His house content is still missing and it would be great to include it. Krusty 08:11, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Removing the Tag

I'm going to suggest that, for now, no cleanup-obnpcrp tags are removed - even when the page is widely-regarded as "finished". The reason is that we may yet add more parameters and so need to keep track of what has already been done. The obvious example is the "spells" params that got added recently - after Adanrel's page had been nominated as FA.

I understand the desire to "finish" a page, but since there are still hundreds to do, there's no need to rush any now. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 14:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

Umm, that's a good point. Ok then, but it would have been nice to finish at least one.... ;) --SerCenKing ^Talk 03:46, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Markers

Okay, so when we're writing the dialogue on the NPC pages, how do we put the markers? Is it like "this" - or like "this" ? Recently, quite a few edits have been made to change back and forth on the markers being italic or not, and I thought it would be practical to reach an agreement here. My vote goes to "this". Krusty 16:51, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Krusty. --SerCenKing ^Talk 08:29, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

I actually disagree. I find "this" better readable. But I'm willing to conform, should the need arise. Wolok gro-Barok 09:04, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

I don't see a need for strict policy on that. There is no visual difference (there is no italic visual for a marker) and most likely half of the articles use one way and the other half the other. The only thing worth achieving is that it remains consistent per individual article. A new editor might get confused if it used with both method on a single article. --Timenn < talk > 09:09, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, one of those was mine. I included the quotes within the italicizing tags. My view was that it kept the quote together, which allows for easier editing. --Mr. Oblivion^(T-C) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

I all honesty, I really don't care how it's done. Its just that I used one method, and then Wolok corrected it - then I used the other method and then SerC corrected it. I think Timenn have a point; Lets just do them as we see fit, as long as we use the same method all over the page - so no more Markers corrections, as they fill up the Edit History on the pages, a feature I use more and more as we go along. Krusty 13:37, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Again, I agree with Krusty; and Timmenn. --SerCenKing ^Talk 15:43, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Racial Spells

Are NPCs able to use their racial spells? I came across a Nord marauder once who used a frost spell on me! It scared me at first. I thought Nords weren't capable of doing that. After a while I figured it must be their lesser Nord Power, a racial spell. If they use it, it stands to reason non-hostile NPCs use them too. Or am I just wrong and they don't even have them? Not sure to mention it here, but if it's true it might need a mention on the ONPCRP. Wolok gro-Barok 15:17, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Yep. NPCs have all the racial abilities a player would acquire if choosing that specific race. So they have the natural resistances etc. and the lesser and greater powers. What practically all NPCs miss, however, is a birthsign (Mankar Camoran is one exception). --Timenn < talk > 17:48, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Inventory Checking

Guess who needs a project? Me! I'd like to start double-checking some of these pages, starting with inventories. Anything I should know before I dive in? –Eshe^talk 17:36, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Very glad to hear, that you want to help out (well, after looking at your user page, I kindda knew you would), as we can definately use all the help we can get. A useful thing to know (and this is not listed anywhere) is that, among the most "active" contributors to the project (as of now), me and Wolok gro-Barok writes from the game, and our contributions should be checked using the CS. Rpeh and SerCenKing writes from the CS and should be checked in-game (even though Rpeh mixes in some in-game facts when he writes). Some other project members chime in from time to time, such as GuildKnight, who specializes in house contents (using the CS) and Azeg-Rael who writes from the game. (Apologies to anyone I missed). So; Are you in-game - or do you have the CS? Krusty 17:53, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Heh, I've been a bit of a project addict since my first day here ;). I'll definitely be using the Construction Set. I can verify from in-game, but I feel much more comfortable working with the actual data. I did notice on a few of the tags that you've been marking whether the information comes from in-game or the CS, so I'll pay attention to that as I go along. –Eshe^talk 17:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

That's great! There should be hours upon hours of work to be found on the "Inventory Unchecked"-page - looking forward to see your results! Krusty 18:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Btw, I just thought of some more important information about the project. As I can see, you're already getting busy on the inventories - and I figured, you should know about some other things we reached consensus on, when it comes to checking. The three tag-categories "Faction", "Rumors" and "Spells" can only be written from the CS - and can ONLY be checked by another CS checker. They really can't be done in-game at all (as Factions is purely CS and the other two are random in the game) - so if you check somebody and it isn't a problem looking up their faction or one of the other categories, it would be really helpful if you could do that. Anyway, I have no idea how complicated the CS is, so it was just at thought. Keep up the great work! Krusty 17:11, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. I'll try to check those as I go through the next round and the pick up the ones I missed later. Makes a lot more sense than going through each category one at a time! One problem though: I haven't the foggiest idea how to check for Rumors in the CS, so if someone could point me in the right direction then I'll get to work on those too. There's little I enjoy more than cleaning out categories :D. Thanks! –Eshe^talk 17:53, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I know, Rpeh has developed some kindda technique on how to do rumors - hopefully, he will notice this conversation and spill his tips and tricks, as that category is definately something that lacks on nearly all the pages. Krusty 19:11, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Oof. I'm sure he'll chime in sometime. Here's hoping I can learn new tricks! –Eshe^talk 19:58, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, just notice this. Timenn already added one tip to the main page and I added another. Those should help. I also find that rather than use the in-CS Find Text feature, it can be easier to export all the dialogue to a text file and use that to find any occurrences of the NPC's name. Doesn't always work though, as not all the rumors include the name. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:20, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay, thanks guys! I'll see what I can do. In fact I might actually do a separate round for those. I'm afraid if I keep checking a bunch of things for each NPC all at once I might accidentally miss something. I'll let you know if I hit any more walls! –Eshe^talk 11:29, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

It's worth mentioning here that even after all the items in the template are marked as complete, there's still going to be a final stage of confirmation. I always thought this was going to be a very tricky project and it has already been far trickier than I had ever feared (for a worst case, see Oghash gra-Magul and the talk page). Obviously, this feature of the template shouldn't be used as an excuse for lazy editing (not that you'd ever do such a thing!) but it does mean that there's a final chance to catch any remaining errors. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:44, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Capitalization

I might have missed a discussion or two, but I noticed alot of words being decapitalized (Wolok gro-Barok is currently on a streak), and I was wondering if we have some guideline about it. I understand it is wise to decapitalize a couple words, they improve the flow of the text, but what words should be remain with a capital?

I suggest we keep names, at all times, capitalized. This includes names like Daedra and Dremora. Clothing, class and skills are all quite common words, so I suggest they remain to be decapitalized. Any thoughts/suggestions? --Timenn < talk > 16:55, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

As far as I can tell, what you've suggested there is pretty much the standard right now. I suppose you could throw in "items in general" as well. The only case I've seen that I'm not sure I agree with is the "akaviri katana," which I think should be "Akaviri katana," like "Blades armor."

While we're at it, I was also wondering about the standard for possessives and links. I could swear I once saw a discussion about whether we prefer Eshe's or Eshe's, but now I can't seem to find it. If anyone knows what the consensus was for that (assuming I haven't completely lost my mind and such a discussion did take place), I'd appreciate it. –Eshe^talk 17:04, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm fine with decapitalization of common words; as Timenn pointed out, we don't have any real guidelines, so I just went with the flow. In regards to possessives and links, I prefer SerCenKing's, since the link is not 'of SerCenKing' but rather 'SerCenKing'. --SerCenKing ^Talk 17:08, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree. I just noticed you changing a few of them and wanted to find out if there had been some sort of decision on the matter. Thanks! –Eshe^talk 17:20, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't think there's a guideline, but I agree with Timenn and Eshe's common-sense approach: apart from anything else it's what I've been doing when making edits. "Imperial", "Breton" etc are proper nouns so should be capitalised; "archer", "commoner" and other class names aren't proper nouns, and neither are items of clothing like "belted braies" or "tan shirt". I agree with Timenn about Daedra and Dremora, even though those stretch the point slightly, and also agree with Eshe about "Akaviri" and "Blades".

The discussion about possessives is probably this one. Nephele's and Vesna's superb efforts at categorization are helpful, but it's even more helpful to have been around during the debate so you know where to look :) –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:37, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Of course, the other advantage to putting the 's outside of the link is that you can shortcut it, like this: [[User:RobinHood70|]]'s --> RobinHood70's. So if ever we change policy away from that, I want a veto! :) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

A bit late to chime in, but I agree with the above decisions anyway, and the sole reason for most of the classes being capitalized is because we didn't have this discussion earlier. BUT: What about skills? I just noticed, that the "Marksman" training bit on the Pinarus Inventius-page has been changed into "marksman". I'm not really sure, if I think this is correct - but on the other hand, I think that when we mention skill books, the skill should be decapitalized. Any thoughts? Krusty 05:52, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

In the case of "Marksman", the skill should be capitalised, since "marksman" can refer to a sharpshooter or hunter; while in this case we are talking about a skill. If there are any other skills like this they should be capitalised, although none spring to my head right now. --SerCenKing ^Talk 06:01, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd agree with that. Magic schools are being left capitalized, so I think the skills should be too. –Eshe^talk 10:07, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Having thought about it for a while, I'm just going to agree with capitalizing "Heavy Armor" et al.

I don't think the comparison to magic skills is valid: books and NPCs in the game talk about "schools of [skill]", so capitalizing "Alteration", "Conjuration" and the others makes sense in that they are recognized disciplines. Having said that, and stepping into supposition for a moment, the FG is more likely to call a spade a spade whilst the MG is more likely to mess around. In other words, the MG might use capitals to signify special status but the FG would only care about people hitting you with big sticks. Furthermore, the Fighters Guild don't separate people in the same way that the Mages Guild do, so there are no such "schools".

Everything I've said so far would lead to the conclusion that magic skills should be capitalized and non-magic skills shouldn't. In a nutshell, that would satisfy the snobbishness of the MG and the don't-really-care-ish'ness of everyone else.

The thought that some skills should receive capital letters whilst others don't might make the MG happy, but for us poor wiki editors it's going to be horrible. I think we should do what we've been doing and use capital letters for all the skills: the MG will be happy about their schools, and nobody else cared in the first place.

I can't believe I just spent so long thinking about this. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:16, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

It's not because you spent so long thinking about it that I think you're nuts, Rpeh - it's because you spent any time at all thinking about it in in-game terms! And I second (or third or whatever) the vote to keep all skills and schools capitalized. And probably attributes as well, when appropriate (i.e., referring clearly to the attribute itself as opposed to a general term like "speed"). --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Night Traders

Following on from this discussion...

Do many traders offer services during their sleep hours, or is it just one or two? Before trying to set a standard I'd like to know how prevalent each type of trader is in the game. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We should probably include trainers in this discussion as well, just to be on the safe side. I suddenly remembered Uuras the Shepherd and checked him once again. And even though I broke into his house and woke him up, he would still offer training. He's one of the only service providers I have seen to do so. Krusty 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If the "standard" is that people don't offer services, then it's worth mentioning the ones that do, I think. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nirnroot dialogue and related quest?

So, I reckon that all(?) of Cyrodiils alchemists have a piece of unique dialogue associated with Nirnroot - and will point you towards Sinderion when asked. I would gladly add this dialogue to all the NPC pages (with some sort of standard description a la advanced trainers) but I thought I would check here first: Do we want the dialogue on the pages? And shouldn't Seeking Your Roots be added as a related quest for each and every one of them? Krusty 07:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the dialogue (it's quest-related and not unique), but it's a fair point about the related quest. They do all update the quest stage after all. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not unique? Then there's no need for it. I'm going through most of the Guild members anyway (to check their services), so I'll just add the related quest as I go along. Krusty 07:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That dialogue is unique. Each of the alchemists says something different when you first show them a Nirnroot. The follow-up dialogue is shared, I believe; as is the response they give you if you ask them about Nirnroot without any in your inventory. --Gaebrial 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, my bad. I was thinking of the "Good luck with your field work for Sinderion." line, which is definitely not unique. I just looked again and Brotch Calus, Claudette Perrick, Ogier Georick, Julienne Fanis, Falanu Hlaalu, Felen Relas, Angalmo, Eilonwy and S'drassa all have different lines introducing the quest. Serves me right for relying on my memory. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And Ardaline. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I can see the dialogue is already included on some of the pages (Ardaline's for example, and it seems like I put it there, even though I can't remember it). I'll just add it as I go along with the services - we can always remove it later if it seems too "quest-ish"... Krusty 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the dialogues being added. It's not really quest-related but it is unique. It might have been me who brought up this point with my edit summary concerning Angalmo a while back. Wolok gro-Barok 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quest-related unique dialogue

Extrapolating from the Nirnroot dialogue discussed above, a number of people have unique dialogue related to certain quests. Should this be added to the NPC's page? Some of them have unique dialogue related to quests they are not otherwise involved in. For example, the inhabitants of the Dark Brotherhood sanctuary in Cheydinhal each have something unique (I think) to say about each of the jobs you are given, and I think I remember each member of the Chorrol Mages Guild having something to say about Earana or Fingers of the Mountain while you are on that quest. While the latter is basically just background chatter, the DB dialogue contains hints to how to execute the task at hand - indeed, somebody (Vicente?) suggests that you speak to the others for tips. But is it worth mentioning? Or should we only mention that dialogue that advances the quest?

In fact, this leads to a more general question about quest dialogue. Take the Chorrol Recommendation quest again (Fingers of the Mountain) - should Teekeeus's and Earana's specific dialogue for this quest be recorded on their NPC pages? If not, should it be on the quest page?

--Gaebrial 10:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for not including quest dialogue was that it would lead to some NPC's pages being filled with text that would only be relevant at one point. Having said that, there's definitely an argument for not excluding everything. The DB lines would add colour and background, and also help to illustrate the NPC's character (Gogron gro-Bolmog's violence; Telaendril's stealth and so on), but even with just those lines there's a LOT of text to add, as there's both a helpful comment and an I-don't-like-you one. ("Ah, now this is the type of contract I live for! You must become pure shadow. It's as if you were never there, and then Roderick simply... dies." vs "This is an outrage! This contract should have gone to me! My stealth skills are unmatched! You will never succeed! Never!", for instance).

I suppose the best thing is to leave it up to the editors' discretions and then we can clean it up afterwards if necessary. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A good and relevant question. I have thought about it a lot, as I'm finding myself adding more and more quest-related dialogue as I progress. I try to only add dialogue that gives some kind of description of the personality of the NPC, whether it's quest-related or not. Problem is, the "relevant" dialogue often connects with purely quest-related dialogue, and then the troubles begin. Take a look at Quill-Weave for example. On her talk page, I expressed my concerns with the scope of the page because of the dialogue - but looking at it again, I really can't find anything I would delete. I ended up thinking, that it's better to add a little bit more dialogue - and when the time comes to finally review the page (as we will be doing on THIS page), we can remove any unnecessary dialogue and make the page perfect. Krusty 10:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this discussion adds a bit of information too. When an NPC only shows up during a quest and then dissapears, we might as well include his entire "performance". Krusty 10:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Madness

I think it would be fitting to list the type of "Madness" Of every NPC in the shivering isles. Because some are vague and unnoticeable at first. (Like the shopkeeper of the clothing store in Bliss). Anyone agree? Lucky the Cat Guy. 00:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think there's actually any programming that specifies the "type" of madness each character has. If we can't be objective about it, I'm not sure it's a good idea. –Eshe^talk 01:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I basically mean a section telling what type of insanity the NPC has. For example, Big head. His insanity is an obsession with forks, and percieveing inanimate objects as alive and being able to sing to him. Lucky the Cat Guy. 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think any weird actions are easily and already explained in the article without having to have a little section about it on each ones page. First, their citizenship shows the stylized plight they have. Second, people like Big Head have an obvious obsession. Then you have Thaedil and Tove. What I am saying is, we are bluntly saying in the article already. There doesn't need to be a separated section. –Elliot^(T-C) 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Err... It mentions the Adoring Fan's faction in two places on his page and teh template still says "Faction(s) = Not Writen" or something like that. — Unsigned comment by Theg721 (talk • contribs) at 17:32 on 10 July 2009

Actually only one place, since I just reverted your edit ;) The reason why the page still says "Faction(s) = Not Written", is that no-one has checked yet if he joins any factions or if their rank has changed during gameplay, according to the ONPCRP-guidelines. If those two are checked, his factions are "written". Wolok gro-Barok 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Helping Out Also

I'll be helping out with the Project also, checking inventory. I have the 360 version so I'll be doing in game verification. Is it okay if I add my name to the Project Members section?Jplatinum16 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead. --Elliot^(T-C) 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help check personal and house inventories, if you'd have me.-Kaito 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course we want you to help. Feel free to add your name to the Project Members section. Wolok gro-Barok 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Krusty’s impossible-to-do NPC list

moved to UESPWiki:Oblivion NPC Redesign Project/Problematic NPCs

NPC Houses

A few of us discussed this in IRC, but for obvious reasons we need to bring it to the site to get more opinions.

Since GK has proven to be pretty much awesome at writing building pages and therefore house contents, it might be a good idea to start making decisions now about how to handle this for the NPC articles. I figure if we can be detailed without going overboard, it's probably not a bad thing. I would be in favor of breaking house information into a separate section on NPC pages; this way we can be more organized and even include images :). Krusty has provided an example of this in a sandbox page.

Another option is to have houses as separate pages, but doing this for every character would seem to be overkill, especially considering the relatively teensy size of many houses. It has been suggested that we create separate pages for Imperial City homes only.

Thoughts? Ready...go! –Eshe^talk 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The hardest to implement option would be the most complete and easiest to use, they could be transcluded in NPC pages, and also categorized on other useful pages. I believe that's a little overboard though, since many houses are tiny and have no significance outside of who lives there. Instead; houses could be on the general location page, without links to a house page itself. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's my thoughts...

To me, there's two types of homes; "one-cell" and "more-than-one-cell". One-cell homes can be described in the NPC description, just with an extra paragraph. The more-than-one-cell homes, however, I think should have a dedicated section on the NPC's page. Whether that's done as a subpage that's transcluded onto the NPC's page, or just a level-2/3 header doesn't really matter. I do love having detailed information about building contents on the wiki. Oh, and images! Yes, we need them for each one, I think, no matter how many cells. An exterior shot, and at least one interior shot for each cell. --GK^Talk2me 03:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, since the example can be found in my sandbox, I’m in favor of doing this. And I agree with GK, this should be done with ”more-than-one-cell”-houses only. Also, my suggestion would be that we begin with the Imperial City houses. Why? Mostly because it would be ridiculous doing this with, say, Bravil homes. If you look at City-Swimmer’s house description on her page, you will find that it is fitting for her lower-class apartment with a brief description amidst the usual ONPCRP-stuff. Of course, there’s some food in her apartment as well, but I don’t think it’s overly necessary to list all bread loafs and cheese wedges on all pages, nor is it necessary to mention if the barrels and cupboards contain food or clutter. At least not to begin with. For a home like that, the original guidelines for the ONPCRP is more than fitting and I think we should continue writing them like that. The Imperial City houses is another matter. They are huge, loaded with goods and kindda deserves the special treatment. Looking at the example in my sandbox, doing it this way is not only informative, it also adds a collosal ”wow-factor” to the page – and we like that.

To sum it up: yes, I think this is a good idea, as long as we limit ourselves to the Imperial City houses. In time, we can discuss doing it in other cities, but for now I think we should say IC houses only. --Krusty 07:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this in order to get a focused view point. If we want to be an encyclopedia on The Elder Scrolls, then we have to have everything. So, I believe that we need individual articles on each and every house within the game; most with their own page. Ones that won't have a page are houses that are one-cell, as mentioned before. (Although, there is a part of me that says we need an article on every single house because we have an article on every single NPC, ignoring importance/effect on that game; I mean, we have an article on a dog and pig...) I am still undecided as to which I really feel like pushing for. But, here is my idea:

One-cell Houses

• Mention of some information on the owner's page
• Exterior/interior image
• Mention of important items in a brief manner

2+-cell Houses

• Own page
• One or two shots per cell (as usual), exterior shot (as main)
• Mention of the majority of items

However, there are some benefits of having every house with its page. The major one would be the {{Place Summary}} template and its auto trailing and categorizing. I see that as something huge. Also, it might be easier for some to find information about the houses if they each had their own page. Frankly, I see no problem with it as I mentioned earlier, we have pages on NPCs despite their impact within the game. Just because a house has little content hardly matters to me. It matters in terms of what is done first, and what is done last. Also, it would be good practice for the upcoming game. –Elliot ^talk 08:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having a lot of house pages. When we're talking guild halls, chapels and the like, it's another matter because these are buildings not owned specifically by one NPC. It would be clumsy to have pages called "Hagaer's House", "Dul gro-Shug's House" and so on, and I think it is un-necessary, at least for the time being. The Sandbox example works for me, mostly because the house descriptions can still be part of the ONPCRP (which is practical) and because we will end up with tons of pages and another never-ending project with only two or three participants. I say, let's do the Imperial City the "Sandbox way" and THEN decide whether or not it would be useful to make seperate pages. Krusty 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Krusty here. I'm not opposed to eventually having individual house pages, but I think the middle of one huge project is not the time to introduce another fairly hefty project.

I also agree with the Cell Standard, but separate house sections shouldn't be limited to IC houses, as there are some pretty good-sized houses elsewhere as well. I will start grabbing images for IC houses since it seems we all agree we want eye candy, and hopefully progress from there, assuming I don't lose my mind first! Any preferences as to which district I should start with? –Eshe^talk 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, every house page will be created right due to redirects and whatnot, no? Then why not just transfer all of the information onto there? Seems simple enough to me. It would only need a little bit of tweaking. –Elliot ^talk 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we'd said anything about redirects... I really think that the house info being on the NPC's page is sufficient, and rather fitting. Even if we do eventually decide to give them articles of their own, I'd think it would make sense for those pages to be transcluded onto the NPC's page, and then why would they need to be separate articles? Basically, I'm not against it, but I don't see the benefit of having individual house articles. --GK^Talk2me 18:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to separate pages either - all I'm saying is, let's do this the easy way. We have the ONPCRP with the "house written by" and "house checked by" options, making it much more simple to control what's been written and checked. And the Sandbox example looks good enough to keep if we decide NOT to go for separate pages in the end. That is why I think we should wait with the separate pages - once we've "beat" the Imperial City (and it will be a LONG time from now) we can judge whether or not separate pages is the better idea. Oh, and I'm only suggesting the Imperial City as first project because it is the "hard one". If we can get through that, we can easily take on the rest of Cyrodiil. If, on the other hand, we feel we should stop because - A) the other houses are too empty, or B) GK goes insane - there is some kind of good feeling about having covered the IC only. That's why I'm only doing the Market District stores for example.

Eshe, it's a bit hard to say which houses to begin with, as we haven't really started yet - but GK have done LOTS of pages recently, and I bet she would be happy to see some images on there. And, all the 14(?) written Market District stores needs images as well. --Krusty 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any specific reason why we should limit ourselves to the Imperial City. Every house at least deserves to be done the sandbox way. I like the idea of having individual articles for every house, even though it means a lot more work and a change to what we have been doing so far. I also think it's best to start with it now (if that's the decision of course), because the longer we wait, the more work that potentially has to be done. Filling in house details on an NPC's page before deciding individual house articles are the way to go means double work, as it's probably not just a copy and paste work. Therefore, I think a decision has to be taken now. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being able to understand completely where you stand in this, Wolok. You think separate articles/pages is the way to go, or...? As for my suggestion about doing the Imperial City first: I like the idea of doing all the houses of Cyrodiil the sandbox way, but let's be realistic - it WILL be another giant project like the OPRP or ONPCRP and with only three or four truly active content editors, it might just die in time. And IF it dies, it makes sense to me that it dies after the Imperial City. --Krusty 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciations

I am making this post to explain why I removed the pronunciations from the NPCs. Basically it comes down to these: it was not done for the majority of the NPCs, it was highly inconsistent, it used a weird system of IPA (not the normal IPA), and the people who were interested in it seemed to give up on the mini-project. –Elliot ^talk 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree they should have gone, although they were pretty cool. XD Next time give me a warning though, I had a bit of a shock when half of the NPCs on my watchlist came up as "removing pronounciations"! --SerCenKing ^Talk 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: UESPWiki talk:Oblivion NPC Redesign Project

Next: Archive 3