Talk:Unique weapons

Info Box
Is it possible to create an information box more compact than the one used for every item description? I would like this page to be similar to the UESP wiki "Unique Weapons" pages in terms of formatting. Also, do you think it's better to have different pages for melee and ranged weapons? --Fedexist (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Ok, I think it would be better looking with a table for each weapon type --Fedexist (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Damage Stats vary
User:ShieTar edited the stats, but some of these numbers don't match mine. For example, Lead Spitter's damage was previously 9-13, edited to 8-12. In my inventory it's 9-14. I've noticed that sometimes these stats change depending on whether it's equipped. We may want to be cautious about making more changes until we figure out what's going on. --Tungsticgp (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we know what's going on, and you already described it. If your character has a might that is not equal to 10, the damage range of all weapons in his inventory will be modified. I considered this on my own check, and moved all Weapons to a character with 10 Might and no special weapon talents. The 8-12 Damage range does match that of other exceptional Blunderbusses, and it makes sense coming from the base damage range of 6-9 and an x1.3 damage bonus. --ShieTar (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Order of listed Weapons
How are the weapons ordered on this page? Seems to me it is neither a name, nor a value or base damage. It would be nice to choose one of these attributes as an ordering key. FurloSK (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. By name would probably be the best choice. --Ineth2 (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * or by damage and after that (if the damage is same) by weapon name. Looks to me that this was the original ordering, before it started to be ignored (maybe when {wm2}} came out) FurloSK (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Will there be no ambiguous cases where minimum and maximum damage disagree? In any case, feel free to do it how you see fit. It's a wiki; things tend to get improved by trial and error, not by copious planning... :P --Ineth2 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to split page
When comparing different weapons against each others, player usually takes into account only weapons of the same kind (melee/ranged). Besides, this page is now too long to be conveniently usable, so I suggest splitting it into Unique melee weapons and Unique ranged weapons.

Third reason is I have completely finished all weapon-items into semantically-aware pages, so this whole page is now generated dynamically. Therefore there shouldn't be any reasons for much more editing. But any change in page forces parser to re-fetch all dynamically loaded data from these pages, which is now taking almost 15 seconds of server CPU time. Splitting this page would be good also for this reason.

After splitting, the pages would look like these two I have prepared in my user namespace: Unique melee weapons and Unique ranged weapons.

—FurloSK (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think, anything speaks against this decision. We could go one step beyond and take the implements to their own page – I don't know of many people who would equip their mages with an arbalest, and those probably don't even consider comparing.
 * For a real comparison though, all weapons would have to be in one table, generic and non-uniques together. Perhaps the weapon's overview could be expanded, but that needs some time of thinking about the "what" and "how". Oh, not to understand me wrong: I'm not thinking about adding such a table to that page. ;o) -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You like to talk to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Real comparison including generic weapons is, I think, not needed. You can always make your own generic magical weapon in any time and any place, so that's not so important for players. Uniques are interesting exactly because they have enchantments not available for creation by player.
 * OK, I will wait a week and then do a split, if no-one will say anything against it.
 * —FurloSK (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any problem with splitting this page, we can only benefit from this. You did a very good job in making this page dinamically generated. —Fedexist (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)