UESPWiki talk:Namespaces

Archives
Archive: February 2005 – July 2006
Discussions
Namespace Reorganization
Related Discussions
Archived discussions about namespaces
Archived discussions about the Tamriel namespace

Really, really want to delete garbage talk posts...

Take a look here. Do we have the discretion to delete this kind of garbage? I generally hate putting more time into cleaning up a comment than the author put into making it, so I would really like to just erase the whole section. I could delete for the poor etiquette and/or for lack of relevance, but I don't know if either rationale would justify deleting the whole thing. It seems like a hazy area of the rules, so I thought I should ask. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I’d deleted that one, due to the unhealthy language and the fact that he doesn’t ask a question but lets off some steam. Generally, it’s the forum-style posts that can go freely – and we have a lot of those these days. As for other types of posts, it’s up to your personal judgment. --Krusty 21:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Namespace guidelines

Alright so, as per Minor Edits' suggestion, and as I also think cluttering the community portal with all this is unnecessary since we have somewhere to adress the topic, let's talk about guidelines here. Several users are not satisfied with the way DLCs are treated and namespaces are attributed and Bethesda officially treats all add-ons as equal, so we have to do something on our own.

As several users mentionned, Tribunal, Bloodmoon, Shivering Isles and Dragonborn got their own namespace given the amount of stuff they add, and by providing an entirely new landmass where most if not all new quests take place. I think we can all agree that it makes for easier reading and documenting. The source of our problem seems to be Dawnguard. As I already said on the Community Portal, I don't think comparing it to Knights of the Nine is fair or objective. While the four Add-ons I previously mentioned all add a similar amount of items, creatures and quests, Dawnguard adds much, much more content that KotN; in fact, I can't find an Add-on of similar size. To put it in perspective, Kotn added 8 locations (none of them open world), two creatures, 18 items, 32 NPCs, one questline and no side-quest. Dawnguard adds 24 locations (3 of them open world), seven new creatures and 23 variants of pre-existing creatures, 110+ items (excluding notes, generic enchanted items and quest items), 60+ NPCs (excluding generic NPCs), one questline and 25 side quests (many of them repeatable).

One of the objection that was raised when proposing that Dawnguard gets its own namespace was that it does not provide significant landmass. Indeed, the Forgotten Vale, Dayspring Canyon and Soul Cairn put together are nowhere as big as Solstheim and even then, few quests take place there. Additionally, even though most quests happen in new locations, many of those locations are in mainland Skyrim. The opposition is understandable, but I don't think we should limit ourselves to this. Yes, Dawnguard adds few locations compared to Dragonborn and, even put together, all those locations amount to only half of Solstheim. But half of Solstheim sounds pretty big to me.

Now, let's say we overlook the landmass and locations. What about content? Again, and, rather obviously, if we compare it to Dragonborn it looks rather small. Half as many quests, items and a bit more than half as many NPCs. There are more new creatures in Dragonborn, but more variants in Dawnguard. Almost as many spells, dragon shouts and blessings, but no powers. Dawnguard adds the major revamp regarding vampires players and NPCs, lycanthropy and adds the vampire lord transformation, the latter two with respective skill trees. It also adds crossbows and the ability to craft arrows and bolts which is pretty helpful considering the rarity of bolts and high-grade arrows.

Overall, while it isn't on the same scale as Dragonborn, Dawnguard is still a very big DLC that, in my opinion, deserves its own namespace. Now, if we did accept to provide said namespace, we would need to forget about the landmass addition and set a minimum for the amount of content added to distinguish them* from smaller Add-ons. However, how high those limits should be set, I can't really answer. An actual questline and some side-quests should be necessary in my opinion, and a certain number of items, NPCs, locations and possibly creatures. If we were to include Dawnguard, a slightly lower number would be a good choice, something like 10% less.

* I say "them" because I'm thinking about future games and their respective add-ons. We might encounter the same "problem" in the future, that's what the guidelines are for after all.

Now I must add that, first: I'm not in favor of all-out separating especially on list pages such as Followers, Spells, Items, etc... I think making a different section named "Dawnguard thing" or "Dragonborn thing" is enough in most cases, especially when there isn't that much added. Having an entirely different page for a dozen new things/people seems completely unnecessary. Second: while I'm in favor of a Dawnguard namespace and what I just mentioned, I won't make a scene/have a heart attack/[insert other horrible thing here] if it doesn't happen. I'm adressing the topic because it's obviously an issue for some people and I have my opinion on the subject, but I'm not all that into it so feel free to debunk anything I just said.

Well, I think that's all for the moment. Elakyn (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

What about the point that if we were to split the namespaces, the majority of links on the Dawnguard pages, from locations to creatures to people, would point to pages in the Skyrim namespace. Take, for example, Icewater Jetty. Of the 10 links on the actual page, 8 of them point to pure Skyrim pages, one points to a Dawnguard page, and one link points to a Skyrim topic with a Dawnguard section. If we were to move this to a new namespace, only one link would change. How is that helpful? These locations are so integrated with Skyrim locations that to move them would change few links, for the sole purpose of distinguishing it in a way that the mod header already does. Dragonborn pages are almost entirely linked to Dragonborn topics, and only one, Last Vigil appears on the Skyrim Mainland. I don't think we should simply ignore the separate landmass issue. I think it is a significant point that has a real effect on the makeup of a page. Jeancey (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Huh, completely forgot about that. Icewater Jetty is a pretty extreme example though, most documented locations have a nearly equivalent ratio of Skyrim/respective namespace links. The difference will get smaller as Dragonborn locations get more detailed; for the moment, there is nearly no mention of ingredients and items found, most of which are from the vanilla game. The only difference will be that Dawnguard locations feature links toward nearby vanilla locations, while some Dragonborn locations feature links toward Bloodmoon and Lore. Regarding landmass, I don't think we should ignore it either, it was just for the sake of example. Dawnguard does add landmass, even though it's much smaller and clearly less exploited. Elakyn (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

That's where the term "significant" comes in. Besides, the majority of the static plants and ingredients are Dragonborn specific. Many of the items, such as chitin, bonemold, and stalhrim armors are also Dragonborn specific. The majority of the books in the new areas also seem to be Dragonborn specific, though this may be the case for Dawnguard as well. The fact that some Dragonborn pages link to Bloodmoon or Lore pages is irrelevant, because they would not change no matter what namespace it was put in, whereas the links to Skyrim pages would change from being a link within a namespace to being a link to another namespace. Also, several of the Dawnguard locations, for instance Castle Volkihar, also have links to lore pages. That should not factor into this. What do we have to gain from splitting Dawnguard into a separate namespace? Since we have outlined the issues with it. Also, what, precisely, would be the guidelines for distinguishing a DLC that deserves a namespace, if we split dawnguard into its own? Jeancey (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Two things. One: Icewater Jetty is a Dawnguard location. It's had about half a year to be fleshed out, and as it stands, it only has one Dawnguard-specific link. Looking around at the rest of the Dawnguard articles, this isn't uncommon. One of the key reasons (if not the key reason) to have a separate namespace is for separation of content. Having a namespace with 90% of its links to another namespace completely defeats the purpose of it. Two: the main argument that AKB made (and I am making now in a more coherent form) is about the separation of content. Clearly, this goes hand-in-hand with namespaces - content that is highly separated wouldn't require a large number of links to other namespaces. This is exactly why I've been calling Dawnguard a very large KotN. It's content is not separated from the main game. It is very deeply integrated into the base game. Nearly all of its new creatures are additions to existing leveled lists. Dragonbone equipment is integrated. The new vampire and werewolf perk trees are integrated into the existing abilities. Fletching is really an addition to smithing. Just about all of the locations are in the Skyrim mainland, and quite a few existing locations are affected by this DLC. It adds 25 new sidequests, yes, but they primarily take you to existing dungeons, primarily fighting existing enemies. The new locations are big, but they have no purpose outside of a single story quest (except each faction's castle, of course). It's big, yes, but it is deeply integrated into Skyrim, and pulling it out into a separate namespace, almost exclusively linking to a namespace that doesn't link back, is a very bad idea, especially for the idea of consistency. Skyrim isn't a consistent game, where everything is the same size and shape. It's different, and has variation, which is exactly why we (and our readers) love to play the game. Giving each DLC a namesoace based on its size instead of its purpose is, in my mind, a very bad idea. • JA^T 01:45, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Alright, so for the guidelines we just turn official what is currently officious? Big, separate landmass with corresponding items, spells, creatures, quests and NPCs? (Okay, Bloodmoon and Tribunal don't seem to add spells but whatever) I don't really know how to turn this in a more respectable and guideline-worthy manner without making it sound like a trial, though. Elakyn (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) Well, for instance, the guidelines silencer outlined are that it has to follow three criteria: It has to add significant amounts of content, it has to add significant landmass, and the vast majority of that content has to appear on the new landmass rather than the landmass of the base game. Could you come up with some guidelines like that which would include dawnguard? Jeancey (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

To chime in, I don't think "landmass" is a good general term. To what I've read, it seems a requirement would be that most content of the add-on is separated from the base game, pretty much. I don't know if landmass is in this case always applicable, maybe it is, but it may just be clearer to state the reason of it ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Well the issue with Dawnguard is that many of the links would still lead to the Skyrim namespace due to the proximity with other locations and, as Jak said, the fact that radiant quests often take place in pre-existing locations. So "the vast majority of that content has to appear on the new landmass rather than the landmass" is not applicable to Dawnguard; the majority, yes, but not the vast majority.

And Dwarfmp, while I agree with you, I can't objectively say that much happens in the Soul Cairn or Forgotten Vale. Six quests, plus the Reaper and Voslaarum & Naaslaarum fights. The places are of significant size and important to the questline, but that's about it. Elakyn (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

I'm saying if we're writing guidelines, we shouldn't say "landmass", but the reason behind it. It's like saying "do not cut off people's limbs" instead of "do not harm people" ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

I actually think that "landmass" is a good term because, as Elakyn pointed out, the majority of the quests in DG occur in new locations, but those locations are in Skyrim proper. So, only 6 quests and a few dragon fights actually occur in the new land added by Dawnguard. The rest occurs within Skyrim itself. That's the reasoning behind using the term "landmass". Is there another term to take its place that you think might be better? Jeancey (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Well simply stating something like "of which the vast majority of the content is clearly separated from the base game's content", perhaps landmass would always imply this, but I don't know. I can imagine it now: "Yes, but you see here, the guidelines say landmass and that's the case! So it should have a namespace of its own!" Perhaps in such case where a lot of NPCs and creatures are added to Skyrim (or a future game's base content), but does have significant landmass added elsewhere; something like that. We should be very specific, because what you guys have said is not that the landmass is actually important, but the data implemented as I said, that Dragonborn's additions are almost all separated from Skyrim's original data/location ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Would the word "significant" not stop that? The land mass has to be fairly large, so adding a new fort off the coast on a new, small island wouldn't be "significant", even though it is land mass. I'm confused on how we can be more specific? Jeancey (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Significant is vague, what if the landmass is really large and there's a good deal of additions there, but yet more additions to the base game itself. It's better to make sure to cover up everything by being a little more clear. In any case, I'm only suggesting writing down the roots of it, if you think "significant landmass" covers any possible scenario, it should be fine. But me, I wouldn't be sure that it does ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

I'm just not entirely sure how to write down the roots of it. Do you mean like specific file sizes, or percentages? Jeancey (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) No, you have to gather up the different arguments as to why Dragonborn has its namespace as opposed to Dawnguard, and then think about why they are good arguments. Landmass, why landmass? Because the new landmass contains most of the data added by the add-on, and is therefore separated from the original game. That's what I mean, analyze the arguments ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

But then, how would you change the wording to be more specific? Simply saying that the new things are separated from the main game is less specific than saying landmass, because then someone could say that the new areas added by Dawnguard are interiors, and thus separate from Skyrim locations. Landmass indicates that it is actually new land that isn't located in the main game itself. I can't think of a way for significant content to be added, and for it to not be in the main area of the game without them adding new landmass. I just don't think that it would ever come up. Jeancey (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

This discussion (and the discussion that sparked it) seems to put a lot of emphasis on comparing Dragonborn to Dawnguard. However, we're setting standards here for the site as a whole now. Each DLC needs to stand or fall on its own merit, and not be compared to the next or future one. As was pointed out in that CP discussion, and as Elakyn points out in the opening post here, we don't know what the next DLC for Skyrim will look like, and it could be a game-changer too, relegating even the mighty Dragonborn DLC to the insignificant. It seems that every new release from Bethesda is likely to see us reviewing any guidelines that we set here, as they are constantly shifting the goalposts on us. To me, this gives good enough reason to just keep all DLCs, as in, content that adds to a main game, whether significant or inconsequential, inside the namespace of the main game it is related to. Why do we even need to break DLCs out into separate namespaces anyway? As has been mentioned numerous times already, namespaces are there for the convenience of organization of the wiki. To me, the gamespace of the wiki would be perfectly organized if it just had namespaces for the main games, nothing more. We can then just use {{DG}} type templates for those items that are expressly identified as being from a particular DLC, and make more use of disabiguation pages. That honestly shouldn't be too hard to do with a bot, should it? You can't tell me it can't be done, because practically every other wiki in existence does it. Argument against this idea seems to be of the opinion that "those of use who don't yet have the DLC don't want to be faced with information about that DLC yet". Well, guess what, this is an encyclopedic wiki about the games. If you don't want spoilers, don't look here. It's that simple. That's basically what it says on the Main Page.

"This site's purpose is to provide information; therefore, most of the content contains spoilers."

I propose doing away with extra namespaces for additional content altogether, and just integrating all DLC information into the namespace of the main game it relates to. — Daric✐ 18:54, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Expansion namespaces are good for making sure that a game namespace doesn't get simply massive. I would not support doing away with expansion namespaces. How does everyone else feel? Jeancey (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

What is wrong with gamespaces getting massive? As I pointed out, practically every other wiki only has one namespace anyway, the Main namespace. Large namespaces are not unwieldy just because they're large. — Daric✐ 18:59, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Part of what makes this wiki unique is namespaces. Also, yes it might be "easy" for a bot to move them compared to doing it by hand, but accomplishing that is very difficult and would take massive amounts of time and wiki resources. The site would possibly be down or practically unusable for days if not longer. A conservative estimate would be that several thousand pages would need to be moved, possibly ten thousand pages, including talk pages and sub pages. Several hundred separate pages would also need to be updated, i.e. those that link to them. The majority of the major templates would also have to be changed, which would require the software to update them across the wiki, slowing things down even further. In all, every single page on the wiki would be affected in some way. It's not that we can't do it. We won't. Removing the expansion namespaces entirely is pretty much out of the question. Jeancey (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

And here I was thinking that this was a discussion about revamping the guidelines for namespaces. — Daric✐ 19:25, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) (edit conflict) I think removing namespaces, and by that I mean only avoiding any more expansion namespaces, is a bad idea alone. This isn't really about spoilers at all, it's about keeping the content structured and organized. If we can distinguish them, we should, because some base game pages alone are already too massive, like generic magic weapons or something like that. If you'd say "then create a separate page for the DLC additions", you'd practically be doing exactly the same as giving it a namespace. It makes going through the site's content a lot easier, because everything is neatly "recycled". By the way, if we CAN avoid/postpone spoilers and the like, we should, we must always do the best we can to avoid such things within the confines of the rules, but that's not really on-topic.

The reason both Dawnguard and Dragonborn are the main subject of the matter is because, apparently, in the past it was clear what "deserved" a namespace and what not. Comparing these two should grant us some clear guidelines for the future ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Daric: It is. But it just isn't feasible to remove four entire namespaces. Btw, I checked with RobinHood about the techincal aspects before I posted, since his bot would do most of the work. It just isn't a practical solution to the problem. Jeancey (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Others have said, both here and in the CP discussion, that they'd rather see Dragonborn integrated into the Skyrim namespace like Dawnguard was, than see Dawnguard separated out into its own namespace. By extension, removing all DLC namespaces and integrating everything into the namespaces of their main games is the best way to retain some semblance of consistency, while still having the wiki organized by namespaces. — Daric✐ 19:39, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Alright... by the end of this discussion we will come up with three options, No expansion namespaces, Guidelines that include Dawnguard and Dragonborn both, and guidelines that keep the namespaces as they are. Is that fair? We have the first and the last ones (though the wording needs to be confirmed for keeping the status quo). What would be the guidelines that would include dawnguard, but exclude DLC from former games? Jeancey (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Thanks Jeancey, that seems fair. I'll be away for the rest of the day, so if there is a vote, you know what my vote will be in favour of. — Daric✐ 19:46, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Alright, so this is a suggestion for guidelines which include Dawnguard. Please feel free to tear it to pieces because I forgot about x, y other things or made z inconsistencies which don't work. (My suggestion here is not in support of a DG namespace, nor in opposition to one; it's solely an unbiased suggestion.) To have a new namespace, an add-on must have: a significant amount of content, including a main questline and side quests; it has to add at least one new worldspace/open world area; a reasonable amount (~40%) of the main quest must take place within a new worldspace; and a significant amount of all quests (>80%) must be started from within a new worldspace. --Enodoc (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) Daric has brought up some valid concerns, primarily "what's so bad about integrating it into the base gamespace?" For me, it's for the readers' sake. Addons are exactly that - addons. They are not part of the base game. By writing about it equally, readers will assume that everything they read under Skyrim is about Skyrim, so they will be frustrated if they read about all this cool Stalhrim gear, only to discover "oh, you actually have to pay for this". Dwarfmp mentioned spoilers, and that is a good reason as well. A lot of people don't want to know about the DLC that they are about to get; I've discovered after doing so a few times that researching a game or addon in-depth kills a lot of the fun when you actually get it. I've read a couple of wikis for videogames in which they barely differentiate between what is and isn't DLC-only, and I've spent half an hour reading about this kickass weapon, where to find it, and what quests to do to get it, only to read a little footnote saying that it's DLC-only. Our {{Mod Header}}s and our {{DG}}s do a good job of identifying DLC-only stuff, but Mod Headers can be easily overlooked (or misplaced). By keeping our DLC material well separated, we help the readers immensely in finding DLC-only information without spoiling all of the content.

Having said that, now the question becomes how best to separate the DLC, and that comes down to what is reasonable. Smaller DLC like Hearthfire can be kept in a handful of pages, plus giving it a namespace would just result in a namespace almost entirely composed of non-Hearthfire links, defeating the purpose of a namespace. Larger DLC like Dawnguard which primarily alter or rely on existing elements of the game also shouldn't get a namespace, mostly for technical reasons. Many hub pages, like Skyrim:Dragon, would have to be duplicated almost in their entirety to give additions like Revered and Legendary dragons the necessary context. Due to the way the pages are structured, a large transclusion would not be possible. Dawnguard also modifies a number of existing locations - will you have duplicate articles, and expect readers to just figure out that there's a Dawnguard article? For those thinking "Then just note the Dawnguard-only info on those pages", I say, then why bother have a separate namespace if you're just going to include the info in the main gamespace? Dwanguard doesn't have a namespace for the same reason Knights of the Nine doesn't, and it's not size. The info is just too closely integrated into the base game to be able to separate it.

I think the following are suitable guidelines:

Namespaces are for separating information and easing navigation. Some add-ons may have a significant amount of content which would further clutter up large hub pages and provide excessive spoilers, detracting from the readers' experience. Other add-ons are small and can be contained in a handful of articles, or primarily consist of modifications to the main game, and documenting it separately would be excessively difficult (especially if it changes game mechanics or modifies lists of creatures). In order for an add-on to receive its own namespace, it must be large, self-contained (meaning that the majority of new content does not take place in the main land), and its information must be easily separable from the main game's namespace. The add-on primarily taking place on a new landmass is highly recommended, but not strictly required.

If Bethesda comes up with a new super-Dawnguard DLC that makes these guidelines inappropriate, then they can be changed, but for the current situation I think they are suitable. They would leave Dragonborn and Dawnguard the way they are, while providing guidelines that retroactively cover previous namespaces and allow us to quickly and easily decide whether or not a new DLC deserves its own namespace. • JA^T 21:26, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Here's my half-assed attempt to draft guidelines. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 21:35, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

With a bit of further thinking I'd like to modify my Dawnguard-inclusive suggestion, as a couple of the points are still slightly tenuous in relation to it. Modification as shown: a reasonable amount (~40%) of the main quest must take place within a new worldspace; at least one main quest section must take place within each new worldspace, and a reasonable amount (~60%) of the main questline must take place within new locations (worldspaces or dungeons). --Enodoc (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

I've tweaked that draft a bit; if anyone's aware of relevant conversations on namespaces that I did not link to, please let me know or add them yourself. I tried to take into account Dwarf's concerns about "landmass" (it's own used only once, and only in reference to the historical pattern). I think it's important not to tie anyone's hands in the future; we can't necessarily predict what future TES games will be like and what kind of model developers will follow with future DLC. So I think Enodoc's proposal above is a bit too strict. These guidelines aren't trying to end future discussion for one side or the other, but more or less act to make sure people who take part in future discussions will have someplace to look to educate themselves as needed so that they can reach decisions amicably and quickly. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:41, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

Hey ho, fair enough. Can anyone think of a way for it to be less strict such that it still counts for a DG namespace, but doesn't inadvertently also include namespacing something like KotN? All I'm trying to do here is come up with the criteria for that "option" (I think I'm right in saying there were three options suggested: 'status quo', with criteria as suggested by Silencer [and others]; 'one NS per game', where the criteria are obvious; or 'status quo + DG', which I'm trying to provide criteria for), then whichever of the three criteria options we choose can be worded eloquently by someone other than me into the guidelines (as drafted by Minor Edits and others). --Enodoc (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) If I'm understanding where we're at right now, merging the four existing DLC namespaces into the namespaces of their respective games is not feasible. So, we're left with the question of what to do moving forward, and the way I see it, there are four options.

1. We codify the status quo. I tried to aim my draft of a new section for the page at doing so, but I'd be thrilled if someone else wanted to take this particular ball and run with it. It could be more helpful/better written.

2. We depart from precedent and explicitly ban DLC namespaces. Instead, we rely only on various symbols and disclaimers to distinguish DLC from the vanilla content.

3. We expressly adopt more stringent guidelines than past practice. How to do that fairly, I don't know; I think getting any more strict will just get future arguments bogged down in semantics (although it's possible we could further elaborate or clarify some matters).

4. We call this off and leave the issue of creating DLC namespaces to the chaos.

Obviously, I prefer #1. It has the benefit of consistency. I think it's better to leave a summary of precedent and past discussions for the future, to help edify any newer users on the issue when this inevitably crops up again. A more knowledgeable community increases the chance they'll make the wisest decision. And if we goof up somehow, change is always just a conversation away.

As for #2 ... I fear change. I haven't seen anything which has convinced me that separate DLC namespaces are inappropriate or on balance unhelpful. I'm worried about the tying the hands of future editors with #3, but #2 is closer to chopping one off. No future DLC is entitled to a namespace, but it's easy to imagine future circumstances where essentially treating a DLC like a mini-sequel would make all the sense in the world. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:38, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

As much as I dislike the "let's separate everything" method currently into place, I don't think banning DLC namespaces is a good idea, be it for readers or for the people documenting the pages, and that even if we don't integrate former Add-ons into their respective main game namespace. The lack of organization skills in virtually every other wikis is not a reason to follow their example because, as Jak pointed out, it's often confusing and not really well explained/written. Forgetting about all this is also not a solution either, since we're here to make some clear guidelines and avoid other "debates" in the future.

I think adopting strict (but not ridiculously so) guidelines is a good choice; it should cover up past Add-ons and still leave the possibility to encompass future ones that are not as big as TR, BM, SI or DB, but still bigger than DG. The problem would be making clear limits: let's imagine that, instead of spending so much time in mainland Skyrim, most of Dawnguard happened in the Forgotten Vale and Soul Cairn, say instead of 6 quests, 15 happened there and we got rid of a few mainland locations. Would it qualify? The difficulty is trying to imagine what will happen in the future; there may never be an Add-on as big as the former ones, but still bigger than any of the others, or without significant new landmass. If that happened, should we give it a namespace? Or would we end up putting all informations about it in the main one and do exactly what we're trying to avoid, that is, cluttering it and put tiny, easy to miss {{DLC}} everywhere? Elakyn (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

Namespace guidelines - Edit Break 1

Guys, I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. Namespacing honestly isn't that hard, it just takes a case-by-case approach and a fair dose of common sense. Trying to find an exhaustive shopping list of details that qualify something for namespace status so we can avoid taking a few minutes to actually think about whether the specific plugin requires one seems silly. Similarly dragging out obscure criteria such as Bethesda or CS terminology is pointless - we have to think about how it translates on the wiki. As a side note to a comment on CP, in the CS SI is exactly the same as KOTN: it's a .esp. This is were "plugin" comes from (esp = elder scrolls plugin). In general I would avoid namespacing as much as possible, but if the plugin is extensive enough then it makes sense to. --SerCenKing (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

Although I've already made my position fairly clear on this, (and I still don't see that integrating all the existing DLC namespaces should be all that hard), I actually agree with SerCenKing. This should be taken on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a fixed, defined set of arbitrary guidelines which may not even be appropriate in light of the next additional content to be released from Bethesda. We can't make rules for a constantly changing gamefield. Instead we should have a simple voting system at the time of the release of new content, to decide whether the new content gets its own namespace. That decision then gets made and enacted, and can be reviewed again later, as per the consensus guidelines which state that "any issue can be reopened for discussion, even if a consensus was previously reached". To lower the likelihood of this becoming a constant revision of one particular DLC/add-on/plugin, we could establish guidelines for a "cooling down period" between votes, and a requirement to garner support for a review from a set number of editors, a critical mass, so to speak, before such a review is triggered. There could also be some requirement established that those proposing such a change should make themselves available to help enact the changes if they are agreed to (just as I am happy to help out where I can to move all existing DLC content into their parent gamespaces). — Daric✐ 22:50, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

Or in other words: to avoid having to establish firm policy here, let's start a discussion on new guidelines for our decision making process that will ensure we will be able to continue doing things the way we were doing things before. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:02, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

And how is the wiki being down for days help anything? How is that "not all that hard". Every single page on the wiki would be affected and the wiki would be practically inaccessible while the software tries to catch up. When ten thousand pages on wikipedia had to be updated, it was down for 30 minutes. We have more pages, and much, much less in terms of computing ability. You wouldn't be ABLE to help out, because the wiki would be inaccessible. It just isn't worth it. Jeancey (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

We are talking about personal preference here, Jeancey. Saying "it just isn't worth it" is meaningless in such a discussion, as to some people having DLCs in namespaces at all isn't worth it either. As the old Latin maxim goes, "De gustibus non est disputandum". As you can tell, I'm not in favour of the status quo (another Latin term), but I really think SerCenKing is onto something here. — Daric✐ 23:21, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

At this point this is just being discussed to death. In fact, I find myself not caring at all about virtually anything that has been said here. I tend not to when I find a discussion has gone onto be less of a discussion on improving the wiki, and a discussion about the discussion itself. So I would kindly suggest everyone in this walk away from this discussion for a week or so. This is going nowhere, and each and every single post from this point out will only lead to a solution being farther away. So collect yourselves and ignore this topic for AT LEAST a week. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:29, 1 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) Was everyone waiting for me? Well, here's my revamp, of the entire page. Mostly everything is more detailed, but the guidelines are in there. Everyone is free to adjust the wording in the sandbox, but these are my suggestions, which are (I feel) basically what everyone has agreed to anyway. Remember these are my suggestions, so I may undo edits if I feel they stray too far from my thoughts on the matter. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:08, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Silencer, if you decide to change my latest revision, you should still keep a link to consensus in its first appearance in that section. There is another link to consensus further down the page; don't know if you want to keep or lose that one.

Support: If we're going to do this formally. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:14, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Support: That works for me. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:23, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Oppose: The rest of the wording is great, but I take issue with this comment "These are some guidelines that a DLC should meet, but these guidelines can be overridden by consensus. DLC may fail to meet one or even all of the guidelines but may still be granted a namespace due to consensus, and DLC that meets all the guidelines will not be guaranteed a namespace." I'm sorry, but that just doesn't mean anything. When is a guideline not a guideline? Let's just be honest about this, and say that these are some factors that some people in the past have considered to be important when deciding whether a DLC deserves a namespace or not. To me they are still arbitrary, whether you codify them as a "guideline" or not. The simplest "guideline" is that each game gets its own namespace. Leave it at that. That's my opinion anyway, for what it's worth. — Daric✐ 03:52, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Comment: Although it's apparently infeasible for us to merge the existing DLC namespaces at this time, there's a minority (I think; we'll see how the votes play out) that do not believe in creating any more DLC namespaces. No one is trying to ignore the potential merits of this argument, which I assume you favor. That's why this language is present, so in the future, when you say "We shouldn't even consider giving this DLC its own namespace", contributors at that time may actually listen instead of bowing to inertia and perpetuating the status quo. Virtually every "rule" in every policy can be overridden by a community consensus; it controls almost everything. Every policy is essentially a restatement of past practice or conclusions, not hard and fast rules dictating our current decisions. So this articulation of the non-binding nature of past DLC namespace creation criteria is only meant to help make sure you, or others feeling the same way you do, will get a fair hearing when this inevitably becomes an issue again. So you can argue against that language, I suppose, but I don't see how doing so will help your cause moving forward. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:38, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Response to Comment: "moving forward" is what I am talking about. Let's not hamstring future editors with inane guidelines about petty and arbitrary factors that may or may not determine if a DLC should be given its own namespace. Consensus changes. Deal with it. Don't try to hide behind "status quo", or do what the NZ government is trying to do at the moment, and rewrite the rulebook just because they were caught on the hop. I'm only relatively new to the world of the Elder Scrolls. Tell me, those who have been playing the games since Morrowind or before, if you knew back then what you know now about Bethesda's proclivity to change the goalposts on "additional content" (for want of a better term), would you have agreed back then to separate out the DLC namespaces? — Daric✐ 08:18, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Comment: You don't seem to be entirely sure of what a guideline is. Let me quote the relevant text from UESPWiki:Policies and Guidelines:

"In general, the policies have been written just in case future situations arise where they are needed. They provide a reference for editors on recommended courses of action. The policies have been written up ahead of time so that details can be worked out in a neutral atmosphere, instead of being determined after a problem has already arisen. The policies often take into account the collective experience of the many editors who have contributed to the site.

In addition, some guidelines are primarily a summary of discussions that have cropped up about how to best accomplish certain tasks. In cases where the discussed questions are likely to be of long-term interest, the conclusions are written up into a guideline for future reference by all members of the community."

A policy describes what you should do in a situation, and a guideline exists to help you do it. Neither are set in stone. As such, the current version is perfectly reasonable as a guideline. In fact, it's just a restatement of the classic line from Wikpedia, ignore all rules. Either way, these guidelines don't change anything, really. It's just more clearly stating the way we've been doing things so there is no more confusion on the issue. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:49, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Reponse: This is a circular argument, and I'll say no more on the subject for now, except to restate my original point: "Let's just be honest about this, and say that these are some factors that some people in the past have considered to be important when deciding whether a DLC deserves a namespace or not." — Daric✐ 20:02, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) Comment: Yes, that is a completely true statement. People do things they consider to be important. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:10, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Support: I agree that these should be guidelines, allowing for interpretation and consensus, rather that hard-and-fast rules, since trying to define where a bright-line rule should be drawn would provoke 10 times the conflict.

One thing I would ask is to remove all mention of DLC "deserving" its own namespace. We are not granting favors or making a value judgement about which DLC is better or worth more than another. I think some of the strong opinions expressed about this topic have stemmed from this idea of a DLC being more "deserving' of its own namespace. It's just computer code. --Xyzzy ^Talk 04:32, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Support: I'm okay with The Silencer's version. I hope this will cut short to most of the "debate", now that it's all official. -- Elakyn (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Oppose: Significant is far too ambiguous, it will only end up causing more debate than it resolves. In my opinion, anything that Bethesda labels as a separate and unique DLC should qualify for its own namespace, the amount of data it involves be damned. Because, ultimately... this is a Wiki about their products, their content, their work. -Kharay (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

We simply can't do that. That would mean adding 17 new namespaces, including ones for horse armor and for the Sounds of the Bitter Coast. Namespaces have absolutely nothing to do with what Bethesda calls something. They are unique to the wiki, and thus us, as wiki editors, decide how they are used. Jeancey (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I did say should qualify, I did not say it should actually get it. As others have pointed out, it should be a matter of consensus. Which still leaves the somewhat ambiguous nature of the proposed guidelines. To which I am still Opposed, specifically because of the ambiguous nature. In fact, I see no reason to generalize the guidelines in such a manner. It is not like DLCs are automatically generated or something along those lines. The number is quite limited and the release of a new one is quite rare, particularly given the recent announcement that active development on Skyrim has stopped. Meaning that until the release of Elder Scrolls Online there will be no release of any kind within the Elder Scrolls-lore. Consequently, there is no real need to generalize any guidelines concerning new namespaces for game related content. It is simply a matter of deciding which content does and which content does not deserve its own namespace, by consensus. Without the literal need for guidelines on the matter. -Kharay (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Ah, I understand what you meant. The problem is, we WERE doing that, and every few months this issue comes up, again and again and again. Therefore, we have decided to nip it in the bud and create guidelines that we can point to and say, this is why the namespaces are set up the way they are. That doesn't mean that these guidelines shouldn't and won't change upon the release of a new DLC. In fact, I think it is quite the opposite. I think that if a new major DLC is released for a game, it should be assessed against these guidelines. If it fits, perfect, new namespace. If not, then a discussion can happen as to whether it needs one, and, if it does, the guidelines can be amended at that time. The real reason I see for these guidelines is to stop the constant questions as to why they exist, and why certain DLC has them and others don't, and then to provide a starting point for deciding in the future whether specific DLC should have a namespace. Jeancey (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

My point is this -- the discussion is derailing like this. Instead of deciding which content should get its own namespace, we are currently debating how to decide which content should get its own namespace. That seems superfluous to me. Particularly given the fact we will most likely not see any release of a major DLC or content for quite a while. Obviously, Elder Scrolls Online will be released later this year but an expansion to it will probably not happen before 2015 and to my knowledge there aren't even any plans for a TES6 yet. As such, I feel we should just cut a corner and simply take an inventory on what content could possibly deserve its own namespace, make a list and go from there. Referencing to that list in case the discussion flares up again. An example -- I keep tripping over the ambiguous nature of significant, I can't imagine I'm the only one. As to why I object to the word significant, well... that's something I'd much rather take to a different form of communication. To avoid adding yet another 20,000 words to the debate. Because I do so love using a lot of words. ;) -Kharay (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

The reason for significant is so that a single small island (like Siege at Firemoth) is automatically cut out of having its own namespace. Everything on the wiki is subject to discussion, and the discussion, I believe, for future DLCs should focus around whether it is significant. As for TES6, they have been working on it for about 1.5 years now, ever since Skyrim was released. I would bet that they already have several ideas for DLC for it. True, we likely won't get it before 2016, but that doesn't mean they aren't making plans for it. What you forget, however, is that ESO is likely to have a much faster development time for new content than a single player game. ESO is pretty much finished at this point. Not all of the quests are in the game, but the majority of the work, which is the art and physical world creation (i.e. the topography of the world), is done at this point. I would guess that at least some people are already working on the art for ESOs first expansion. For WoW (one of the only significant recent MMO with major expansions), work on The Burning Crusade began pretty much as soon as the game was released, and work on Wrath of the Lich King began BEFORE the burning crusade was released. Game companies work on these things far, far in advance, though not with entire teams. Just because something isn't going to happen soon doesn't mean we should simply ignore the problem. If we do, all the progress we have made during this discussion (and we have made progress) will be for naught. Jeancey (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Well, I played WoW (the essentially genre defining MMORPG title) for 6 years, so I do know a bit about the development cycle of MMORPGs and an MMORPG for which new content is released in very rapid succession will ultimately only end up shooting itself in the foot. I severely doubt we will see more than one expansion every 18 months of ESO's lifecycle. Anyhow, that's besides the point. ;) My point is this -- we can respond much more easily and much more quickly to each individual DLC/expansion as it is released than the development of that DLC/expansion took. Consensus on whether or not said content deserves its own namespace can essentially be reached within a week, assuming enough traffic on the Wiki of course. Not sure what the normal timeframe is for reaching consensus on a particular subject but ultimately it will never be longer than the development time of said content. I still maintain that having a debate on how to have the debate is superfluous but in this I will also abide by consensus. So, if consensus ultimately is that a guideline is needed, I will obviously accept it. Just don't ask me to like it with a passion. ;) -Kharay (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Namespace guidelines - Edit Break 2

(←) I agree with Kharay on this. Your solution is an "all inclusive" one, whereas mine is an "all excluded" one, but the argument itself is still pretty much the same. Do you think we could resolve your objections, Kharay, by replacing the part about guidelines for new DLC namespaces, with a statement of fact about how the namespaces were decided upon in the past, and leave it at that? This way, future DLC namespace discussions can continue to be free-flowing consensus discussions, but with a point of reference to a list of factors that have been considered to be important in the past. — Daric✐ 20:10, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

My solution remains what it always was -- to simply forego implementing guidelines on this and go about it on a case-by-case basis. Starting off with simply collecting a list of all relevant DLCs that could potentially qualify for a namespace and simply reach consensus for each of those whether or not it truly deserves one. I do appreciate the need for people to have some form of structure and order to this but at the end of the day what matters is that the job gets done. Debating endlessly on how to do the job will not get that job done and given the fact this debate apparently is older than me joining it, far older I think it has gone long enough. ;) -Kharay (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I don't want to see like I am dismissing you, but the consensus is definitely for guidelines. Also right now, the majority of people support the proposed guidelines. The discussion right now should be about the guidelines, and how to tweak them to make them acceptable for the majority of people. I think that clarifying that the guidelines are based off how we have created namespaces in the past is valid. I think that I could support that addition to the page. But I do think that completely dismissing the entire conversation doesn't help. Jeancey (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) The problem with that position Kharay, as far as I can tell, is that there are people here who have already made those decisions in the past, and they cannot see any logical reason to re-make those decisions. Now they want to retro-actively codify their resoning for their decisions into a list of guidelines for any new DLCs. To my way of thinking, any codifying of reasoning that results in the haphazard, shambolic, and clearly controversial mess we have today, is a wasted effort. — Daric✐ 20:35, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Jeancey: Sorry, your statement that "the consensus is definitely for guidelines" is blatantly untrue. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, consensus means a general agreement, or solidarity in sentiment and belief. I for one do not agree that "guidelines" for deciding on DLC namespaces are necessary. It is sufficient to say that this is how the mess we have today came about, but to extend that as a blanket over future DLCs would be a mistake, in my opinion. — Daric✐ 21:11, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I concur with Daric, consensus in and of itself simply is that ... consensus. The word, its definition and its meaning existed long before the concept of a Wiki was ever conceived. My point being that we should also consider the possibility of reaching consensus on not blindly adopting guidelines for whatever people feel the need to have guidelines for. An endless list of guidelines will only serve to derail and disrupt the meaningful function of a Wiki and in fact of any collaboration. As I have implied before, it is imperative that we do not lose track of the issue at hand -- the job that needs doing. It is my understanding that ultimately this debate is about cleaning up/restructuring the namespaces as they are in use on this Wiki. I would suggest we get back to that matter as opposed to debating endlessly on how to do that in hypothetical scenarios possibly years down the line. -Kharay (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) I think Kharay may be on to something here. We have an opportunity here people, to straighten out the namespaces before the arrival of Elder Scrolls Online. Perhaps now is the time to go over each and every existing namespace and DLC, ignoring how they came to have (or not have) their own namespace in the past, and decide whether, in light of current conditions, they still really need to have their own namespace or not. This is the best time to do it, before ESO arrives. — Daric✐ 21:23, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

We're not doing that. The vast majority of users like it the way it is, and changing it for a minority of the communities personal preference is just a terrible idea. This is entirely off track at this point and we should get back to discussing the currently proposed change instead of a tangential suggestion that doesn't have a chance of being implemented. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:32, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Putting off a "solution" when we are nearing a conclusion is utterly ridiculous, why in all that is logical should we ignore the problem until it crops up again and again and again. Suggesting each piece of DLC gets a namespace is ridiculous too, and I can only hope you were trying to make a point, not create some additional controversy. Consensus is the majority opinion, just because a small group opposes something does not make consensus unreachable. I believe I speak for all logically minded people when I reject your idea, Daric, of reviewing every piece of DLC again, that is nonsense. These guidelines are not binding, they are not so restrictive, and "consensus" can overrule them in any case. These guidelines do retrofit past decisions because they are based off past decisions. If we were able to call back every editor who voted on a decision for each DLC's namespace the overwhelming majority would agree with them, because, through the life of the wiki, these are the guidelines that have been the only thing consistent. Instead of trying to move this argument to a conclusion, you are fighting the tide of overwhelming opinion that wants DLC namespaces. Currently we are 5-2 on people who have expressed solid opinions on the matter in this discussion about the guidelines. If you wish to argue the existence of namespaces altogether please start a new discussion, this one is supposed to be about the guidelines. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:34, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I would also like to point out. We HAD a discussion about whether to have namespaces at all, and you were the only one who thought we shouldn't have them. Jeancey (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Sorry to disagree with you, AKB, but if the "vast majority of users like it the way it is", we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. And Silencer, this discussion is taking place on the UESPWiki:Namespaces page, not the UESPWiki:Policies and Guidelines page, so I can only assume that any discussion about namespaces here is relevant. — Daric✐ 21:41, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I do take mild offense at the implication my thought processes are illogical. Irrelevant to that though is the following -- I was under the impression there was an actual debate regarding possible restructuring of namespaces out of which the debate concerning guidelines for namespaces simply flowed naturally. If the case now is merely concerning just those, the guidelines then my proposed solution is simple -- don't do anything. I do have the impression as well most people seem to like the namespaces where they are now and from personal experience I agree, I have no issue whatsoever with the namespaces as they are. And regarding future namespaces, I find it highly illogical (right back at ya, bro) to feel the need to generalize some arbitrary guidelines when the number of new game content namespaces will never ever get to the point where said arbitrary guidelines are needed to keep things in line. In fact, I personally fully expect ESO to kill the Elder Scrolls franchise and do not ever expect a TES7 to see the light of day. But even if it did, realistically speaking, how many new namespaces are you people expecting over the course of time? If it is one new namespace, on average, a year... it would be at the high end of the possible estimates. -Kharay (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Any, yes, but not two at once which accomplishes nothing. This one is about what guidelines we should have, end of story, I will remove anything about having them at all to a separate discussion from now on. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:44, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) Daric, please note that "vast majority of users" does not refer to everyone. It only takes a single person to voice an opinion. As of right now, this discussion is on the currently proposed guidelines for Namespaces. The time for voicing opposing suggestions has now passed for this discussion. If you want to express your pov still, please start a new discussion (even on this page) instead of derailing this current one. The most you could possibly do here is continue to argue your point here for a week, at which point consensus will almost surely favor the proposed changes; leading to them becoming the codified standards for determining what deserves to be a namespace or not. If you want your point of view to stand on its own, I'd suggest organizing your own proposal and voicing it when convenient for you.

Also, I would like to remind all editors that personal attacks aren't tolerated, and will only lead to further issues in resolving this otherwise simple topic. We can discuss this topic civilly, or not at all. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:13, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) @Daric. The page is about namespaces in general, but this specific topic on the talk page is about the guidelines. Hopefully that helps to explain what Silencer meant about creating a new discussion. Also, I feel that the side of guidelines is trying to figure out how we can change the guidelines to better address the issues, whereas the side against guidelines is holding firm, which I think is detrimental to a discussion. Consensus is about coming together to find something that works for the majority of people. When anyone in a discussion refuses to budge and doesn't offer any kind of compromise, then we start to have issues, and at some point you just have to ignore them. It really doesn't help the discussion, and must simply be dismissed in order for the discussion to continue. I'm not saying that anyone in this discussion is at that point, in fact, I don't think anyone is, but I feel we might be heading towards that. Thus, I would ask that the side that doesn't want guidelines (or these guidelines) find a way that the guidelines could work for them, because asking everyone to completely abandon their hard work on this matter is unfair. I'm not asking for you to simply set aside your objections, but try to find a way to modify the guidelines offer so that they address those issues. Specifically for Kharay, I believe your position is that we should have this discussion when a new DLC is released and not before. Keeping that in mind, imagine that right now a new DLC is released. What would qualify that DLC to get a separate namespace? What would cause it to not get a separate namespace? Jeancey (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

My intention was not to derail this conversation. The conversation had already taken a major turn with Kharay's contribution. It does, however, show that there are more people out there with similar views to my own about this issue. As to the suggestion that I start a whole new discussion about whether or not we need guidelines, or the suggestion that I should write my own draft of some guidelines, that is not going to happen. I won't intrude further on your conversation about refining the guidelines, but the thought of writing a draft guideline myself, when I don't agree that guidelines in this instance are necessary, is beyond absurd. — Daric✐ 22:25, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself well enough. I didn't mean you should draft your own guidelines, but how to change these ones. For instance, you suggested that we specifically state that these guidelines are how namespaces have been created to follow in the past. I think that is a good suggestion and that we should include that in these guidelines. That's all I meant by that, suggestions to make these guidelines a little more flexible than they seem to you right now. I personally think that they are quite flexible, but if you disagree, and we can figure out how to portray them in a more flexible way, I think we should do that. Jeancey (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Given the fact consensus on whether or not to have them (the guidelines) apparently already has been reached (shame I wasn't around for that debate, since I find it the far more interesting topic) it is kind of a moot point to continue that particular debate. At least, I am developing the clear impression there is consensus on that particular matter. To the point of your question -- It highly depends on the DLC in question. I can only provide examples at this point -- regarding Skyrim, I find that both Dawnguard and Dragonborn both warrant their own namespace, Hearthfire does not. As Hearthfire does not really add any relevant or exciting quest content. Even though Dawnguard does not add a new map or anything, it does add a very provocative and compelling story and it does add some very compelling locations and rewards. Regarding on when to have the actual debate on whether or not hypothetical DLC should have its own namespace -- there is a window of opportunity in between its announcement and its release. A window of opportunity which far exceeds the time required to reach consensus. I would imagine that window of opportunity to be more than enough to have that debate, reach consensus and do some preliminary work on preparing the Wiki for the release of said DLC. -Kharay (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

This is completely pointless now with the opposition even refusing the notion that they present their own ideas in any other method but a several thousand word discussion with most of it seemingly being about nothing. As the current point of those opposing seems to be standing on a notion that it's somehow inappropriate to even have a discussion or formalize unofficial guidelines and policies, and I really don't care if I'm off on this notion, as the only response I would get would be several thousand words of replies leading to absolutely no conclusion, I feel comfortable in saying this is literally about nothing at this point. Let's stop this line of thought now. Any further comments should be about the current discussion on Silencer's proposed changes, or an actual suggestion to do something different instead of extraordinarily unclear ideas. This entire discussion came about because it was unclear about why we chose what a namespace was, so I absolutely refuse to allow it to be engulfed by a suggestion that we go back to the so-hated "status quo" after all of this. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:41, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) (edit conflict) I am fairly sure that the debate will still happen every time a new DLC is released. I don't think this is intended to squash that debate. I think this is intended to cut out the first 2/3rd of the debate, which is usually centered around what the current practice is, and how that should be applied to the new DLC. Instead, when a new DLC is released, we can say, that's what we currently do. Does that work for this DLC? If not, does the DLC need a separate namespace anyway, and if so why? The issue with having the discussion starting at the announcement, is that we know next to nothing about a DLC when it is announced. It takes several weeks, if not longer, for enough information to be released for us to make a decision, and sometimes we only get enough information a week or two before it is released, which is a much shorter amount of time to have a debate in. Keep in mind, this debate has been going on for about a month, if that help you figure out how long these debates can take. Having the guidelines allows for a much shorter debate for each individual DLC when it is released. Jeancey (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

I am with you on this, Jeancey. All I am trying to say here, and I've mentioned it several times now, (and you're the only one who seems to have picked up on it, Jeancey) is that the factors that have been used previously to decide on whether or not a DLC gets a namespace are just that, factors that have been used in the past. We should list them as such in these "guidelines", but they should not have any weight or bearing other than that they have been used before. — Daric✐ 22:54, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

And I think that is a valid addition, because that's all the guidelines are, those which we seem to have followed in the past. That should be used as a starting point for future DLC, and not just blindly followed from now on. Jeancey (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Dare I say it, if everyone is in agreement, Silencer, would you mind rewording the draft guidelines to reflect this? Currently your wording seems to take the opinion that "this is how it was done, so this is how it should be done". — Daric✐ 23:12, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

It already does that. It's the language you were protesting. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:31, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

It doesn't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. Please don't tell me what I am protesting about. I think I can work that out for myself. — Daric✐ 23:38, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Daric, if your concern is that we're not "picking up" on what you've said, rest assured that we are. The language as it stands does anything but say "this is how it was done, so this is how it should be done". The language you explicitly protested: "These are some guidelines that a DLC should meet, but these guidelines can be overridden by consensus. DLC may fail to meet one or even all of the guidelines but may still be granted a namespace due to consensus, and DLC that meets all the guidelines will not be guaranteed a namespace." This translates to "this is how we've done it in the past, but you're more than welcome to come to your own conclusion", which is the message you now are saying that you want the guidelines to convey. The guidelines already bend backwards to reinforce this. Whether we call them "factors" or "guidelines" is, as Silencer said earlier in IRC, semantics, entirely pointless semantics. So when you've worked out what exactly you're protesting, please let us know. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:52, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Namespace guidelines - Edit Break 3

Although I had previously said I would not be writing my own guidelines, as I don't believe a guideline is needed for this, I have rewritten Silencer's draft, in my own sandbox, to show exactly what I mean. And no, I do not believe it is "entirely pointless semantics". It is the crux of my argument, what I am protesting about, to use your terminology. — Daric✐ 00:08, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Really? All of that was just semantics?!? Having read both versions word for word, that's all I can call this. I'm done with this conversation until the week is up. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:27, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

If people think it is just semantics, then they really don't understand that calling these factors a "guideline" somehow validates the status quo, and it is the problems resulting from the status quo (which culminated in the whole DB vs DG debacle) that brought about this whole discussion in the first place. I'll bow out of this conversation too for now. You have my opinion. — Daric✐ 00:31, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

The only difference I see is that it is less succinct. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:07, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

My concern with Daric's revised version is that it reads like a history lesson rather than a guideline. If we're going to make a guideline, then it needs to read like a guideline, with concrete points that should be taken into consideration in any future discussions of what deserves a namespace. Truthfully, I find even Silencer's version is a little less "guideliney" than I'd like it to be, and I think that's a reflection on the amount of debate that's gone on, both here and on the CP.

I don't really see why this has been such a big deal. Most people seem to be happy with the current arrangement, at least more or less. There's been talk of creating a namespace for every DLC, and talk of creating namespaces for no DLCs at all. I see problems with both possibilities, but then again, there are problems with the existing setup as well. Take, for example, vampires. Vampires with Dawnguard and vampires without are two completely different things, particularly if you bring vampire lords into the discussion, and if I had a choice, I'd suggest that they should be two separate articles. But hey, I'm one person, and most people seem to favour integrating normal and DG vampires, so I just accept that and move on. I think the same thing needs to happen here: most people want guidelines to minimize this sort of debate when it comes to future namespaces. (I don't remember there being all that much debate in the past, either, so again, I'm not sure where this is all coming from this time around, but whatever. My memory's not the greatest, so maybe I'm just forgetting some really big discussions somewhere.) Those of you who don't want any guidelines at all are a very small minority, and I think you need to accept that and move on.

Where that leaves us is with Silencer's currently suggested guidelines. If we take it as a given that guidelines are going to happen, how are Silencer's guidelines? What can be done to improve them? That's what this discussion needs to be about, nothing else.

To that end, I'd like to suggest tightening up the language a bit. Trim the paragraph before the bullet points right down to say something along the lines of "Considerations for creating new gamespaces include the following: ...(numbered points)... As with any guidelines, these can be overridden by community consensus." – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:36, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

I find it particularly odd that people are arguing against creating guidelines. If we didn't need guidelines, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, would we?

I support Robin Hood's suggestion of tightening the language a bit. Also, the third bullet should be rephrased. Having the first two bullets describe what it should have and the third one what it shouldn't have is very counter-intuitive and odd. This is how I'd rephrase that bullet:

Separation: DLC that primarily adds content which is separate from the base game should generally be separated. If it instead adds data that is deeply integrated into the base game, it should not generally be separated. This is due to large amounts of overlapping data where one page will be redundant to the reader who has the DLC installed, thus confusing the reader and causing undue frustration.

It's a minor change, but since we're at it, we might as well. I entirely agree with Robin Hood's assessment of Daric's and The Silencer's guidelines as well. People are making a much bigger deal out of this than they should be. There has been a continuous communication breakdown in which people aren't acknowledging the others' arguments and restating their own over and over, and multiple times people have walked away from the discussion. People are talking past each other, not to each other. At this point, it's become argument for the sake of argument. Instead of fighting over this, we should be trying to be constructive. I'll echo Robin Hood and say that we should focus on improving The Silencer's guidelines so that they are satisfactory. I'm holding off on officially supporting it until various grammatical errors are fixed. • JA^T 06:59, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) I'm not against having guidelines. Far from it. I'm against codifying into a "guideline" the previous factors that were considered to be important for deciding whether or not a DLC should get its own namespace. I'm against it because it is self evident that those previous factors have lead us to the stand-off that we are in at the moment with the DG vs DB issue. Replicating the same errors of the past, and codifying them into a "guideline" is only going to result in the same mistakes being made in the future. You're asking us to submit improvements on Silencer's draft. I have submitted my proposed amendments. My proposed changes should adhere to what Jeancey had commented on above (and yes, I'm going to quote it here, because I think it is important to show that I have tried to follow the intent of this discussion). "And I think that is a valid addition, because that's all the guidelines are, those which we seem to have followed in the past. That should be used as a starting point for future DLC, and not just blindly followed from now on." (emphasis mine). — Daric✐ 08:02, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

All of this for two words? This is utterly pathetic. I really regret getting involved in all this because it was clearly a waste of time. Daric, I've met many people who were stubborn and close-minded, to the point of being annoying, but you rank high among them. There is no "DG vs DB" here and the majority agrees that The Silencer's guideline are to be favored, if only modified a bit, and that's it. People have expressed their opinions and nearly everyone agrees that things should stay as they are; the fact that you refuse to listen other people's arguments doesn't mean you're right. This isn't about who will type the most, or who will be the loudest, this is about most people agreeing. Most, not all. No one cares about this "issue" but you, and the site's purpose is not to please your every whim. When I started all this I suported your position, the others have brought convincing arguments, and I resigned; this is something you're obviouly incapable of, and I really see no point in discussing with you. Rant over. -- Elakyn (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Not to get drawn into the discussion again, as I see little point debating this endlessly as well when it is obvious everyone is being stubborn about their opinion but I do feel the need to point something out -- Several people by now have claimed Daric and I are being stubborn and supposedly refuse to see people's arguments. I would contend that acknowledging someone's arguments does not mean agreeing with said argument. There is a vital difference between the two. Do not lose track of this lest a really strange atmosphere does start to develop within this community. Just my 2 cents. -Kharay (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

On the one hand, we have Jak complaining that "multiple times people have walked away from the discussion", and on the other we have people, including Elakyn's comment above, insinuating that I should just butt out of the conversation altogether. Personally, I prefer reasoned discussion, with thoughtful replies. I'm not trying to win any argument based on the number of words I can type. I hope that people read and understand what I'm saying, just as I read everything that others say to support their own views in this discussion.

As to there being "no DG vs DB here", do I really need to point you back to your opening post, Elakyn, where you linked to the Community Portal discussion, which Dwarfmp began this whole debate from, citing issues with Dawnguard not having its own namespace, while Dragonborn does. Surely you can remember that, right? I know, this discussion has gone on for ages, and has many, many words in it, but let's not forget what it is all about. — Daric✐ 11:25, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Elakyn, that was not necessary. We're getting off-track here. Daric, I'll be honest, I fail to see why your version is better than The Silencer's. There's no need to state that "this is simply a behavior that we've followed in the past, and should be considered in the future but not followed blindly." That is the very definition of a guideline. I know I've stated this multiple times, but it's an important point. If you are writing a guideline, it's implicit that, well, it's a guideline. When you write a law, you don't have to say "This is a law that will be enforced by authorities, but it can be changed through the judicial system." It's implied that this is the case. Silencer's does the same thing, and that ought to be fixed. If you have a problem with this, then explain it, but there is no reason whatsoever to restate the definition of a guideline while writing a guideline.

Having reread the arguments, I now kind of see where Daric is coming from. We're for codifying the status quo, whereas Daric is saying that the status quo is wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be having the DG vs DB debate. In that debate, it was asked what exactly our "arbitrary" namespace system actually was, and if we were following any sort of rules or were just hand-choosing. The answer is, we had been hand-choosing in the past, but most of us had followed a few specific criteria for defining a namespace. There are also many more criteria, but it primarily boils down to these three. Because the DG vs DB debate is unlikely to end any time soon, so as a compromise, we should codify our current practice so that we have something on paper, and then depending on the results of the above discussion, we can revisit the guidelines and modify them as we see fit. The reason for doing it this way is because in order to challenge the guidelines as a whole, you are challenging how our DLC gets a namespace, and that is a potentially huge argument that doesn't belong here. Let's just fix up The Silencer's guidelines so that they properly document the status quo, then we can bring up the various debates to challenge them. It's important that we have something physical, especially after all that's gone into this discussion. • JA^T 16:47, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Any further personal attacks in this topic will not be tolerated. This conversation has seen gross violations of etiquette and any more inappropriate behavior will result in more drastic measures to curb the breach of site policy. I also implore that other users who have gotten too caught up in this avoid contributing further at this time. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:58, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. Silencer's suggested version passes. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:31, 23 April 2013 (GMT)

Just found this after posting about it on another talk page. One thing that doesn't make sense to me are Artifacts pages, there's one for all the base games, Dragonborn, but not Dawnguard. So DB Artifacts are nowhere to be (easily) found, resulting in a proposition that there be a DB Artifacts page. Now if one were to be looking for Artifacts in the base game, then comes across Harkon's Sword, for instance, that would cause a lot of confusion when the article starts talking about an enemy, location and quest that doesn't exist in the main game. That is one if the many reasons that I believe DG should have its own namespace. 121.215.68.23 19:26, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Dawnguard artifacts are found on the Skyrim Artifacts page, and are clearly marked as being only found if you have Dawnguard. Jeancey (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Sometimes I don't understand what the UESP is doing to itself. Editors are getting too caught up in setting criteria for things like this in stone; "this can't have a namespace because blah". Perhaps a more fluid approach is required to this issue, who cares if we say DG can have its own namespace but KoTN can't? It's a community Wiki and obviously some here in the COMMUNITY think that DG should have its own namespace. I considered DG to be a bigger DLC than Dragonborn, perhaps that's just my personal experience with it, but I just found Dragonborn to be incredibly short compared to Dawnguard, regardless of "landmass" or "individuality" from the Skyrim main quest and land area. I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, as the massive discussion above aptly demonstrates, but I thought it necessary to get that out there to see what others think. 121.215.68.23 19:42, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

This has absolutely nothing to do with story, length of play or any of that. Dragonborn has more data than DG. The file is physically larger in size. Also, all that content (with two exceptions) are found on a separate landmass from skyrim, separate NOT in a geographical sense, but in a data-structure sense. The world is physically separate in the data, completely different map. DG has less data, and almost all of that content appears in the skyrim landmass. The new creatures in DB are in separate lists that do not effect the skyrim lists, whereas DG creatures are added to the skyrim leveled lists. DB *IS* separated from skyrim, while DG isn't. Thus, it gets a new namespace, and DG doesn't. Jeancey (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but I find it extraordinarily suspicious when an anonymous user tries to revive a small section of the UESP's opinion on a resolved discussion Especially when you weren't linked to said discussion on a somewhat hard to find page, and find it almost immediately after your first comment on a different talk page in a different namespace. Either way, this is the decision we came to. There is not anywhere near enough support to back up a change. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:05, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Oh, more dissenters? And no doubt there will be more dissenters in the future as well, as more people come across this illogical decision that codifies a raft of illogical decisions from the past. Thank goodness for the consensus guidelines that allows for "...any issue [to] be reopened for discussion, even if a consensus was previously reached..." — Daric✐ 23:39, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

(←) This section is now closed as the changes were passed by consensus. Any further debate should take place in a separate section to provide a suitable break from this one. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:46, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

SR vs. Skyrim

Is there really any difference between using a namespace's abbreviation rather than the full name when linking (e.g. "Skyrim:Alduin|Alduin" vs. "SR:Alduin|Alduin")? I occasionally see an editor change links from the abbreviation to the full name (I've done it myself on occasion), and would like to know if it's just OCD. --Xyzzy ^Talk 14:25, 15 August 2013 (GMT)

Yes, it's just OCD. There's absolutely no difference whatsoever. Generally, there's no reason to make an edit just to change them, but if you're making other needed changes on the page it's fine to change those while you're there. — ABCface^◥ 14:46, 15 August 2013 (GMT)