The Vault talk:Fallout 3 NPC overhaul project/Archive 2

Ready to go
All guidelines have been written, a sample article is available and the progress tables have been created. This means the concept phase is over and people can now start editing articles. Have fun :) -- Porter21 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Inventory tables...
Let's say I fill in nothing but inventory tables on a page (which I probably will; I just luuurv items). Which bit of the progress table would I mark? Nitty 19:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a field in the table for that. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: shouldn't the "armor" section of the Inventory table more accurately be retitled "Apparel"? -- CapAp 22:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Combat
Should that be considered a tactics section that goes to the discussion page? That section seems to get edited alot. Let me know what you guys think. If it stays we need to add it to the little template on the project page--Kingclyde 23:56, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you link to an example? -- Porter21 (talk) 07:32, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkout Charon's talk page. The ToC Combat used to be in the article. Seems to bulky and similar to tactics and /or opinions. Let me know. If you want it back in the article, which ToC would it go under? RL-3 has a similar section.--Kingclyde 16:55, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the more objective details and put them in a "As a follower" subsection of "Occupation and activities" - only those which are unique to Charon, of course (a lot of the stuff in there applies to all NPCs, like firing at corpses). Just my opinion though. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:03, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

"Background" vs "Occupation and activities"
It seems to me that this part of the guideline is not working out in practice, mostly because there's usually an overlap between a character's occupation and background. This results in content which could feasibly be put in both.

What do you think about revising the guideline and merging occupation with the "Background" section while only leaving the daily schedule in a renamed "Occupation and activities" called "Daily schedule"? The difference between the sections seems more clear to me this way. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:46, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea of merging them may be a good idea for some NPC's but not others. An example of a bad NPC to combine the two on would be Dave. He has a rich background and that should be separate. His occupation as "Mr. President Daddy" should be laid out separate. Dead NPC's should not have an "occupation and activities" due to the fact that they are dead. Daily schedule is vague and could open the article to being filled with stuff like "Mr Crowley spend exactly 3 hours a day in the Ninth Circle" or silly info like that. That's just an example, I doubt someone would add that but I'm using it to make a point. Kinda.--Kingclyde 17:32, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think that where you can find a NPC is interesting info, and describing their wanderings during the day does just that. If you take UESPWiki, every of their Oblivion NPCs has his or her daily schedule described and I don't think it's detrimental to the articles.


 * The simple fact is that most people do not use the "Occupation and activities" section at all, even if there is applicable info for it. This is caused by the fact you can put some stuff in both and in a lot of cases splitting it interrupts the flow of an article. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:28, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well dog gone it! If it looks ok on the other site then is should work here. It's up to you in the end. I can't access that site from work, but if it works and looks decent then by all means lets go with it.--Kingclyde 18:59, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I was talking about the daily schedules only (not the section structure). Their character articles do not have many sections at all. An example for a schedule paragraph I pulled from one of their articles:


 * "He spends most of his time in the private quarters of Anvil Castle, only venturing outside from 2pm to 5pm each day when he heads to the Anvil Mages Guild. Between 8pm and midnight he attends the Countess' formal dinner. He then retires to his room, where he spends most of the night mixing potions and researching necromancy, finally sleeping from 6am to midday."


 * If you have ideas on how to arrange the content in sections, by all means voice them. I don't have to come up with everything :) I just think the current one is less than optimal. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:39, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we weren't UESP. ;) Anyway, this sounds like a good idea, especially when we're talking about the Family and the kids in Lamplight, who both have very odd schedules. Nitty 21:45, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we aren't UESP. That doesn't mean everything they do is bad, far from it. I'm just not a fan of the namespace-wiki concept (and some other stuff). -- Porter21 (talk) 21:57, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namespace? What kind of regulations are those?! Nitty 22:00, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namespaces are something you'll find at every wiki. For example, "Talk", "Image", "Portal" or "Forum" are namespaces at our wiki (see Help:Namespace). The difference between a so-called namespace wiki and a "standard" wiki is that the first has multiple namespaces for articles, while the latter has only one (the one without prefixes). For example, at UESP all Oblivion-related articles are prefixed with "Oblivion:", all Morrowind articles with "Morrowind:" etc. But, enough off-topic stuff now. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:07, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * "Occupation" can be listed in a word or two, e.g. "Megaton Doctor," so it could be added to the infobox. "Activities" is pretty broad and vague, overlapping not only with Background but also with Interactions w/Lone Wanderer. "Daily Schedule" is conceivably a useful category when it comes to locating npcs.--Gothemasticator 22:19, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a field in the infobox for that ("role") but that doesn't mean the occupation shouldn't be mentioned in the article text - it's important information about the character. Infobox and article content are not mutually exclusive; infoboxes summarize an article and contain numerical and technical data that's awkward to express in written text, they do not replace the articles. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:30, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but another place occupation info can easily go is in the topic sentence of the article. "Pagename is the Megaton doctor." I'm just trying to point out that Occupation is best listed in a word or two and so doesn't seem to me to benefit from being coupled with Activities. Coupling the two doesn't exactly encourage clear and concise listing of the npc's occupation.--Gothemasticator 22:43, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant - I agree with your point regarding occupation in the lead sentence. So, in summary:
 * "Occupation and activities" gets renamed to "Daily schedule" and becomes a non-mandatory section.
 * "Background" becomes mandatory and now includes detail information about the occupation/profession if there is any to be given.
 * Everybody fine with that? -- Porter21 (talk) 09:23, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first of everybody to agree. :)--24.145.220.146 09:39, September 22, 2009 (UTC)Forgot to log in.--Gothemasticator 09:43, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ausir(talk) 12:02, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. HOLD! RELEASETIME! 12:04, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Project guideline modified. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:48, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - Ordering and Alignment
How important is consistency in the order of infobox entries? Right now there is wide variation. Should we be paying closer attention to this?--Gothemasticator 01:59, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

The project page lists Alignment as a necessary entry in the infobox. I notice this is missing from many pages. Is there a resource aside from GECK for finding this info? Related: Shouldn't it be called "Karma?"--Gothemasticator 01:59, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * It was added recently and alot of the NPC's infoboxes have not been redone yet. It's listed as alignment in the GECK. Plus if it is karma, then we would have to change the entry. So currently when you look at alignment, you think "ok they are good alignment which means an ear" or "they are evil which will net a finger". If the alignment of a person is good, and we change it to karma, we would have to change the box to bad dur to the fact that you would incur bad karma. That would just confuse the people.--Kingclyde 02:04, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * So, my confusion seems to stem from the fact that "alignment" in the infobox code presents as "karma" in the infobox on the article page. See Moira Brown.--Gothemasticator 02:59, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now. Hmm, Porter, can you do anything about this?--Kingclyde 05:24, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can change the infobox label to "alignment" if you think that's better. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:20, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I started this question with my own confusion. I think it's fine if the label reads "Karma" in the infobox. Kingclyde has some reasoning for it reading as "Alignment," but I don't think we actually use that term anywhere in the wiki.--Gothemasticator 09:01, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Mezzing?
Might we want to add on the table a a mezzability section?

Question
If I were to edit a page on the project, but that's already been edited by another, do I erase the old users check and replace it with mine, simply add mine or wait for a and see if the edit is deemed ok by another user? For example, the recent edits I did on Ramsey. --SSDGFCTCT9 20:04, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Fingers and Ears
I am noticing an inconsistent approach across the wiki toward listing fingers and ears in Inventory boxes under "On Death." Seems to me that those items are perk-specific and so shouldn't be included in the Inventory. If people agree, perhaps we could update the project guidelines page to mention that? It would also be good for us project participants to be on the same page for consistency's sake. What does everybody think? Thanks.--Gothemasticator 20:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to add a section about it, like a heading saying Finger or Ear, with the answers being either Finger, Ear or neither, it's not great but it would be good to have something similar. - RASICTalk 20:37, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review/Finished Status not going so well
I've been going over the status of the npc pages, and I notice that our checklists are not very accurate. Check out Amata, for example. (EDIT: You'll have to check the "History," because I have made some recent progress on the page.) Sections are not titles correctly, nor are they in the correct order. Much of the "Background" section should be in the non-existant "Interactions with the player character" section, as should the "Trouble on the Homefront" section. We should be using in the "Interactions" section along with appropriately titled subsections for characters who are involved with multiple quests. Extra pics should go in a "Gallery" section at the bottom.

Also, I notice that fingers/ears and mezzability are handled inconsistently across the wiki. I propose we adopt a standard of listing both as the top two entries under "Notes" for completeness and consistency.

What do y'all think?--Gothemasticator 21:06, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish to add that what has been done so far is great improvement! The above is not so much a complaint as it is a mid-game rally. Let's push on strong.--Gothemasticator 21:18, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is an exceptionaly good idea as it will make the wiki: A. easier to use for non-editors and editors. B. Cleaning a page up will be made a bit simpler.   :)--Vault4 21:09, December 7, 2009 (UTC):)


 * Well, I'm glad someone else noticed the section naming/ordering problems as well as the issues of putting stuff in the proper sections. I completely agree with your assessment; after all, the main goal of this project is to make the pages more streamlined and consistent. In addition to what you already mentioned, in a lot of cases the "Notes" section contains content which should be in other standard sections (usually "Interactions" or "Background"). I already felt a bit like a broken record since I kept mentioning it and people kept ignoring it ;)


 * Regarding fingers/ears, I honestly think we do not need to list them at all for two reasons: They are 1) dependent on the player having certain perks and 2) a direct function of a character's alignment (which should be listed in the infobox anyway), i.e. all "evil"/"very evil" NPCs drop a finger, all "good"/"very good" NPCs drop an ear. I think if this mechanic is described on the perk pages (and/or the item pages for Ear and Finger), the alignment info is sufficient for people being able to see whether the NPC drops a finger or ear.


 * Concerning mezzability, I understand your point but I think it belongs in the "Interactions" section and not in "Notes". -- Porter21 (talk) 21:37, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add, it's good to see the project is going places :) I'll try to pull my weight a bit more, unfortunately I have a tendency to get sidetracked by my bazillion personal projects ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 21:48, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So, I will begin removing fingers/ears mentions and moving mezzability into Interactions when I see them. (Maybe someday I'll have the energy to systematically go through the Bugs sections... Nah, probably not.)--Gothemasticator 22:53, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Generic NPC pages
I've made a showcase for articles about generic NPCs (i.e. NPCs without a real name). In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to have different pages for e.g. all 50+ "Raider" NPCs or all equally numerous "Wastelander" variants. I'm also not fond of having multiple infoboxes in articles, it doesn't look very professional and usually causes a lot of whitespace. Instead, I've opted for a table-based layout listing all variants of the NPCs in question with its core stats and inventory. Feedback appreciated :) -- Porter21 (talk) 20:08, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly an improvement!--Gothemasticator 20:12, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "race" column in the table since it's redundant with the infobox field. If the setup is ok with everyone, I'll see about making a template for the table and start changing the generic NPC pages accordingly. -- Porter21 (talk) 13:31, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved showcase to The Vault:Fallout 3 NPC overhaul project/generic NPC sample and updated project guidelines. I'm still undecided whether I should use a template for the stat table; while it ensures a consistent look across all generic NPC pages, it's probably more complicated to use than a simple table. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:16, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Just a suggestion: Perhaps if an NPC offers services to the player, a category for that could be added which contains a list of all NPCs who offer that service to the player. For example, Category:Merchant (or maybe Vendor). -Benjamin Malin 22:21, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Through A-C
I got through all the As, Bs, and Cs today. Layout; Inventory; Gallery; culling bugs and notes (except bugs on Cross's page is still a huge mess - ran out of steam).

I know that they are already checked off on the progress table, but there were only maybe three npcs from A-C that did not require some substantial edit.

Will pick up again soon where I left off.--Gothemasticator 03:12, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Project leader
Just FYI, Gothemasticator will take over project leadership. He's doing more project leadership work than me anyway, so I figured we might as well make it official :) -- Porter21 (talk) 20:27, December 21, 2009 (UTC)