Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Bethesda/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

I've replied in a separate section, as it forms another discussion. It's quite hard to define notability of subjects in a fictional universe in common terms. I think of a such definition: A subject is notable if one can write a good article about it. For instance, Corprus is notable, with all the discussions about it, but a daedric longsword isn't, as there's not much to write about. Artifacts probably are on the edge. For creatures it's a common practice in some games to create a separate article for each, but merging related subjects, like "House Dagoth servants" or "Corprus beasts" makes sense.

Speaking about mods, rules have to be different: just an average review would form an article. I suggest the following:

A. If the mod has been published standalone or as the main feature on a *printed* CD (DVD), it's notable. Magazine disks count, as they already check notability. An good example is Wizards' Isles.
B. If the mod has a good quality and features a global storyline or is a total conversion, it fits. A good example is Sword of Perithia (almost another game) or The Black Mill.
C. If the mod is very famous among *players* (not only modders), it fits. An example is Giants. Real Signposts is actually also notable, but there's not much to say about it; it could form a section in a common article.

Other criteria or restrictions may apply as well, suggestions are welcome. CP/M 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess there's no controversy, so I'll copy it to the project page. CP/M 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

External work

I've set up a TES wiki over at http://teswiki.ws/ and would like to get some of you to help expand and improve it - it could be a much better resource for players and those interested in lore than wikipedia... _ℑilver§^ℑide 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there something different from UESP there? I don't mean to criticize, but it just seems a little redundant. Anyway, I guess it's a good place for articles that doesn't meet WP NPOV and notability criterias. BTW, what are the terms of use? CP/M 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Notice at the bottom, CC-SA-AT, as all our sites. What do you mean? We're not at all like UESP - we're oblivion only. Regardless of the name lol, because we originally intended to be all TES, then saw UESP. _ℑilver§^ℑide 21:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, clear. But both sites are very slow compared to Wikipedia, so dividing would reduce accessibility, it would be better to have all notable information both here and on specialized sites. CP/M 22:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

secrets on xbox

daedric armor: (if you are doing the storyline, don't do this unless you are done with him.) In Tel Fyr, Divayth Fyr has all but a helmet and shield. in one of the towers at ghostgate there is a daedric mask of terror. sakvild the raven at dagon fel has the masque of clavicus vile

Lords Armor: there is a hidden door at ebonheart in the imperial shrine area (lv 100 lock)to an area with a guy with the armor(the guy is a rebel).

lots of ebony and weapons+some: rob the vaults at vivec (dont worry about the price, join the thieves guild, drop your money and talk about price on head

talking statues:

|||sheogorath:st. delyn canalworks

|||molag bal:bal ur

|||malacanth:yassimidan

|||azura:azura's coast above tel branora

please comment on my work :(

It probably should go to Wikibooks, as a part of game hints.CP/M 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, the Lord's Mail is part of a quest, not a secret. --Niroht 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I never reiceved that quest.? Shadin

new info:

permanent constant effects:

2 weapons or more with constant effects keep switching weapons with right trigger.

i have to add more later i lost my paper Shadin

It is a quest, you get it doing work for the Imperial Legion. Anyway, all this stuff should go to Wikibooks. --Niroht 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

know now , but i think i am gonna keep the armor.Shadin

Userbox

I created a userbox for the project. Tell me what you think. (Note: The image is in the public domain, so it is allowed to use on userboxes. Click on the image for more info.)

This user is a member of the Bethesda task force of WP:VG.

--Evan Robidoux 00:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Black background doesn't look well; using a scroll for background would be better, as it's much more distinguishable than just text. I suggest to do it that way, to have a recognizeable picture. CP/M 14:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll get around to it by the 20th. Sorry for the wait. I've been very busy with school these past few weeks. --Evan Robidoux 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sorry about the slight delay. I will definitely have it finished by today. --Evan Robidoux 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Posted on the Project Page. CP/M 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

not bad Shadin

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Hobbies WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WP Template

The Template:WPTES should be used on WP-related articles reqiuiring attention. It might need some editing, though. CP/M 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Elder Scrolls series

This template is getting too big in my opinion. I would suggest replacing it with something like this:

The Elder Scrolls
Games \| Characters \| Major regions \| Races \| Creatures \| Organizations \| Artifacts \| Lore

Each of these topics would link to a summary page (or possibly a list) which would contain the appropriate sub template. Thoughts? --Dv82matt 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's needed. Other series of articles generally link everything related in the template. IMHO, it would be better to make it into series with a corresponding template (like Scientology, maybe). CP/M 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well something else to consider is that even as big as it is it isn't complete. Partly this is because it is not syncronized with the sub-templates as they get updated, but it's also missing two major categories "Characters" and "Lore" as well as the minor category "Weapons" which I've suggested be renamed "Artifacts". Should all these be added to the template?

A potential pitfall with a series template like the scientology one is that most of the game series articles already have an infobox at the top of the article, see The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall for example. --Dv82matt 21:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It would affect game articles appearance, but not very seriously. However, most of the articles don't have that infobox. In any case, template shouldn't be radically shortened, at least related games have to stay. As an alternative we can enlarge the template, in some articles like Canon T90 they are times larger. I would rather wait for other opinions. CP/M 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we already have Template:TES-series so I'm not sure I see what you mean exactly. I don't think that merging these two templates is a good idea despite their similar names as they perforn different functions. Template:Elder Scrolls series is an broad level TES navigation template that links to everything TES related whereas Template:TES-series only links to the games and related programs.

Having said all that I'm not married to the idea of slimming down the template. As you say simply expanding it is an option. Another possibility that would allow for flexible navigation could be to create an Elder Scrolls portal. --Dv82matt 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Scrolls-related articles

In case anyone isn't yet aware there are a whole raft of TES related articles being nominated for deletion. It looks like the consensus there is to merge many of the articles. --Dv82matt 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I knew it will happen someday. I'll post there, and inform people on main TES games talk pages so they can participate in discussion now. As the decision should be made quickly, I propose the following:

All animals will be merged.
Artifacts in question will be merged in The Elder Scrolls Artifacts. Daedric ones stay separated.
Emperors will be merged in Emperors of Tamriel, Septim Dynasty, or similar-named article.
Almalexia is notable enough and requires a separate article.
Daedric Princes will stay, as already encompassing multiple characters.
Other characters will be merged.

P.S. Well, and it resolves the template question. CP/M 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, but a couple of the articles in question seem to be a bit long for just a list. Oh well. --Niroht 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just make suggestions, this is only a rough overview of situation, not taking into account many details. CP/M 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Why are Daedric artifacts staying separated? They may be notable, but if there's going to be an artifacts list why not include them? --Niroht 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessary, but, looking from in-game point, daedric artifacts are somewhat different. Unlike others, they are artifacts not because of their history, but just because they were created by the daedra. The second reason is just that the article might become too long, if it lists all of them together - there's a lot of them. CP/M 18:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In support of the proposed policy. Perhaps one list of "normal" artifacts and one of daedric/legendary ones. Scoo 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Artifacts of The Elder Scrolls to get us started on this, so please be bold in improving it. In particular it currently lacks a lead section. --Dv82matt 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Official Plugins

I think a list and synopsis of the episodic content available for Oblivion would be a very good idea for an article. It would also be nice to document the reactions to the idea of Episodic content there too. I'd seperate this from the main Oblivion article myself as that is already way to long. - Hahnch e n 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi all. I've closed the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Scrolls-related articles). As it was so complex, I figured I'd summarise for you here. The verdict seemed to be merge all the groups (e.g. characters, items, animals) into their own articles, except Almalexia. But also to put everything on a subpage of this project first. There should also be a lot of GameFAQS stuff removed, as Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, etc, etc. Good luck! Proto||type 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-AfD cleanup

All right, I've removed all of the AfD tags and added notices to the corresponding talk pages. Here's where things are right now:

Animals

The general consensus seemed to be to merge animal articles into one large one; something along the lines of Animals of The Elder Scrolls. However, since all articles seem to be based out of one game, perhaps it would be better to choose a name along the lines of Animals of Morrowind. I've projectfied all of the animal articles, which can now be found at the following locations:

Characters

My impression was that Almalexia and Daedric Princes were fine how they were, so those remain untouched. One article, Ria Silmane, went through a prior AfD, where the consensus was that it should be merged to The Elder Scrolls: Arena. That leaves the characters listed below — keep in mind that these are only the characters listed on the AfD, not all that are related to the WP:TES project. I didn't move any just yet, as I'm waiting to see how the participants in this project (whose knowledge of the Elder Scrolls universe is far greater than mine) will determine the merging process. I would suggest moving all of these to an article such as Imperial lineage in The Elder Scrolls, or the like. If there are a few characters which the project agrees are of extreme importance (like Almalexia), then maintaining a separate article would be logical.

Items

Most have already been merged into Artifacts of The Elder Scrolls, and look good to me. Consensus seemed to hold that Daedric Artifacts was fine how it was; I didn't touch it. I did, however, projectfy the article Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls/Kagrenac's Tools; while it was merged into the general artifacts article as well; much of the content was removed and I wouldn't want it to get lost, should it be used in an TES-specific wiki.

Other

I would strongly suggest going over the list of locations and merging them as well; I have a small amount of experience with Morrowind and don't feel that, for example, a place like Molag Mar is the kind of encyclopedic content found at Wikipedia. Again, it would be wholly appropriate for a gaming wiki, which leads me to my final comment...

I realized that in creating this AfD that I wouldn't be gaining any friends from the WP:TES project. So goes the responsibilities of an admin; you'll often make someone unhappy. However, I hope that my interest in keeping Wikipedia content conform to certain standards was not misinterpreted as a criticism of the content of these articles in and of themselves. To the contrary, I'm very, very impressed with the quality of the articles that are a part of this project. This is wiki at its finest — a collection of collaborative, well-written articles pertaining to a certain interest. For that reason, I still strongly suggest that the editors who have devoted their time here into creating well-written and researched articles consider founding (or joining? not sure if one exists) a wiki for The Elder Scrolls series. These articles could be copied for use there, thanks to the GFDL, and serve an even greater audience who may not think to look them up on Wikipedia.

I'll keep an eye on things here and will remain at this group's disposal for admin duties related to improving these articles. Drop a line if you need my assistance. Tijuana Brass^E@ 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer article titles such as The Elder Scrolls creatures, The Elder Scrolls artifacts, etc. These seem to have better wording and I'm not sure if Flame Atronatches could be considered "animals." Also, I think that Flame Atronaches can also be found in TES Oblivion as well. --Evan Robidoux 00:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, speaking about the current articles, I can't call it merging, they are just collections of trivial one-line descriptions of creatures. While I don't think keeping separate articles is necessary, keeping the current state is jumping from one extremity to another.

2TB: Can something be done about that? Most CVG have some information about their setting, not limited to simple lists. CP/M 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify what you meant? I'm not sure what the question was. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The current articles Creatures of Morrowind and similar are plain lists, but expanding them by adding already existing info might produce quite long articles. An article about all TES creatures would be excessively large, so complete merging isn't the best solution. So some separation might be required, possibly later. CP/M 21:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I follow. I see what you mean, also. Well... personal opinion, the current Creatures of Morrowind should just be overwritten by a merge of the now-projectfied creature pages, which have much better writing (and don't try to touch on every creature in the game). The thing is, separating it would run into the same issues that brought us here — namely, that it would be something more suitable for a gaming wiki. I really don't see a need, for example, for an article on Ash Ghouls, Ash Vampires, Ash Slave, Ash Zombie, Ash Receptionist, Ash Valet Service Guy, Ash Landscaper, ~~Ash Wednesday~~, ~~Ashtray~~ whoops, etc. etc. etc., at least not on Wikipedia. But on a TES Wiki? Sure! And given the incredibly complex universe of the TES series, said wiki could be quite extensive.

Of course, my opinion on this is probably different than how a CVG contributor would see things. Perhaps looking at how other popular games are treated here would provide some guidelines. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean leaving an article for each, after all, that's what it was about. But some narrower subcategories might be required, like leaving Daedra, and not merging flame atronach among other creatures.

The problem with specialized gaming wikis is that editing process there mostly produces game guides rather than well-readable articles like here. They already have articles on creatures, but with just stats and short descriptions (compare [1] and Daedra. The things are unlikely to change, and it seems that developing encyclopedic-style series is much more effective on Wikipedia. I just don't want to lose what we have here, and attempt to prevent any complete deletions (except for game guide data). CP/M 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest projectifying the current Creatures of Morrowind article. That way we don't have to overwrite it and it may come in handy if we decided we wanted an article on daedra or a complete list or something. Dv82matt 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally agreed. The article has some interesting details, and, while mostly inconsistent, they might add to older articles. Currently I've copied it as is to projectspace and started merging, while deleting small sections. CP/M 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to leave me a message with some of the worst articles I may be able to do some expandage. --Niroht 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kwama

About Kwama - it just doesn't seem right to merge them with other creatures. Kwama in Morrowind are not just animals, but have important economic use, with egg mines all across the island. It's covered in the article. So, I suggest to make it a separate article, and merge scribs into them. This is more directed to TijuanaBrass. CP/M 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub renaming proposal

User:Caerwine has proposed to rename {{TES-stub}} to {{ElderScrolls-stub}}. Please share your opinion. --Koveras 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the current one. It's much easier to write "TES-stub" than "ElderScrolls-stub." --Evan Robidoux 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Regions of The Elder Scrolls

I've been working on merging several related articles at ~~User:Dv82matt/sandbox~~(now at Major regions of The Elder Scrolls. But they wern't part of the afd so I thought I'd check to see what everyone here thinks before creating it. Dv82matt 08:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And the old articles will be turned into redirects? --Koveras

08:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except for Nirn and Tamriel. Dv82matt 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Merge. As long as no information is deleted, I couldn't care less about the way to store it... :) --Koveras

09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But Battlespire also could be added, and I suggest placing cosmology sections above Nirn for better consistency.CP/M 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Dv82matt 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Septim bloodline

I've merged all the Septim articles but it still really needs work. I'd appreciate someone familiar with the lore going through it to make corrections and improvements. Dv82matt 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick edit of the Septim bloodline, but it was just a copyedit, not verification of the content. I have a couple of questions/concerns. First, many paragraphs seem (too?) similar to entries on the UESP. I don't mind doing another edit, but I'd like another opinion before I do it (e.g. if others think it's too similarly worded). Second, the count of the rulers/emperors has gotten off. For example, Kintyra II and Uriel III are both listed as the 8th ruler, then Cephorus is the 9th, ..., Katariah is the 12th, Cassynder is skipped, then Uriel IV is the 13th, and Cephorus II is 15th (no one is 14th). Should the rulers/emperors listed on that page indeed be incremental (i.e. Uriel III is 9th, Cephorus is 10th, ..., and Uriel VII ultimately is 21st)? Or are some of the people listed in the bloodline considered "rulers" but not "emperors(esses)" (and aren't part of the count)? CrystallinEntity 06:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding similarity to the UESP could you provide some examples. From what I could tell they seemed sufficiently different but I only looked at a couple of instances and may not have been looking in the right place to begin with. As to the numbering anomaly I'm not familiar with the lore but in the absence of an explanation I think it's pretty safe to "fix" it (good catch by the way). Dv82matt 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Entries here and on the UESP: In particular, I noticed that Antiochus' entry is similar to his entry on this page (and there are a few similarities with Pelagius III and Katariah). However, I just checked out the in-game book A Brief History of the Empire on The Imperial Library, and it seems that the entires here and on the UESP are both derived from that, so it's probably due to sparse source material. I added an External link to the page. Re: the count of rulers: I just updated that. CrystallinEntity 07:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay yeah, I see what you mean. It is pretty blatant. We're going to have to substantially reword or remove the copied parts. Even moreso since they were taken from an in game book which is certainly protected by copyright, rather than from another wiki. Dv82matt 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that Bethesda not only never said anything against fan sites that have fiction from TES games published, but even provided links to them, and currently publishes some material from TES, I feel that in this case copyright paranoia isn't necessary. The article mostly contains just short factual data on Septim dynasty, with no particularly detailed or artistic writing, and rewording won't have much sense. I don't mind if someone does that, just mentioning this isn't necessary. CP/M 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

banners

Please leave the WP:CVG banner on the talk pages. They automatically classify an article for the Wikipedia 1.0 project. If you could put {{cvgproj|class=|importance=}} back on any pages that they have been removed from, that would be appreciated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Races of The Elder Scrolls

Another article that merges several existing articles. Just thought I'd let everyone know before I start redirecting articles (mostly stubs) to it. Dv82matt 05:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: let's move all the race stats there, in form of a table. I think Dunmer should stay as a separate article, being a major subject in Morrowind. CP/M 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Dv82matt 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Hi everyone. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but given that it -- along with all the other video game WikiProjects -- is technically a subsidiary of the overall Computer and Video Games WikiProject, I thought I'd bring to your attention this proposal for the deletion of spoiler tags from all computer and video game articles. An in-depth explanation of the reasoning behind this can be found on the discussion page I've linked to (and a lot of additional discussion on the matter can be found in the places linked to from there, such as the spoiler warning talk page and this archive from it, in which a motion to contest the spoiler warning's Guideline status was successfully put forth), but to briefly summarize the reasoning behind this:

"In no way do [spoiler tags] actually contribute to the encyclopedia's purpose of being informative about subjects on a comprehensive level, and, in actuality, they're redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive source of information on a variety of subjects. This is...not a fansite or blog. Also, given that Wikipedia is not censored -- and, again, given that it is an encyclopedia -- what encyclopedic purpose are spoiler tags serving? The answer is 'not a single one.' We already have a spoiler warning accessible from the bottom of every page of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia need not constantly reiterate that it is an encyclopedia."

If all of you could drop by and weigh in on this, we'd all appreciate it. We really feel like we're working toward the betterment of video game articles on Wikipedia -- and the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole -- by pushing for the removal of this unencyclopedic content. Thanks for your time. Ryu Kaze 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: No complete removal of spoiler tags. One who already knows the info, doesn't need it; one who doesn't know, might prefer to learn it from game, and the proposed choice "Either spoil the fun or don't read Wikipedia" is much worse than the current alternative.

However, especially concerning TES universe, we shouldn't be paranoid about spoilers. TES is not just series, but a good fantasy setting as well. So, general information about the universe shouldn't be tagged, but storyline details and intentional secrets like ones concerning Dwemer should. Also, articles where the name suggests spoilers, like "History of ...", usually don't need additional tags.

CP/M 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the CVG discussion, sections marked "Plot" don't need a warning -- in smaller text, no less -- of "Spoiler warning: plot... details follow" either. People have the choice not to read these sections if they don't want to, and a spoiler tag isn't going to help them make that choice given that the much larger section header of "Plot" makes it clear what the following text reveals. The spoiler tags in this way become redundant of not just the fact Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not just the fact that there is a spoiler notice at the bottom of every page, but also of the sections they're placed in. And that's not even taking into account the fact that they contradict Wikipedia's neutrality and anti-censorship policies.

In any event, we're not here to decide for people what they read or presume them incapable of cognitively determining that a section marked "Plot" will contain details about the plot. We're just here to treat all relevant information equally and give it to the readers. It's up to them what they do with it.

By the way, for organization's sake, can we keep all discussion on the main CVG page or the spoiler warning talk page itself? Thanks in advance. Ryu Kaze 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warnings do not contradict the neutrality policy, because "neutral" doesn't mean "non-categorized". Spoiler tags don't remove information, they merely inform users what kind of information it is. They are not redundant, as not all Wikipedia is spoilers, and they allow to separate one from another.

In the previous post I've just written about how this suggestion might relate to TES articles. In any way, though, removal of widely used spoiler tag is not something to be decided by just twenty or so people. CP/M 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh they do. To use a spoiler warning in itself reflects the editor's decision to use the template on a subject that specific editor would deem a spoiler. I presume you are not aware of the premise people differ greatly in their capaciity of what would constitute a spoiler. I may think Rosebud's sled is spoiler, while my fellow across the street could think the old man dying would be a spoiler. They are redundant because they are placed directly underneath a header which says "Plot" and that tells you what is contained within. As a reader I would take serious offense because obviously that would mean I'm to stupid to navigate a TOC and a bolded header. Stupid people don't read encyclopedias. -Randall Brackett 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean that editor has to make a decision about what is a spoiler or not? Of course. But it happens all the time. The editor has to make hundreds of decisions, including what sources are useful and what are not, and most importantly what information is relevant and what is not. These decisions are much more controversial than ones about what is a spoiler.

And, again, see above - I'm not against removing tags from "Plot" sections, I'm only against removing them completely, so they can't be used even where they are needed. In scope of WP:TES, Corprus is an example of an article where spoiler tag is required. --CP/M 04:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely - for my rationale see below this section, as I essentially posted it before realising my views already had an advocate. I'm basically restating your reasoning, I think Divinedegenerate 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually one could just place an appropriate header over that section. I really don't think that's an need for a "spoiler" and I question if its really valid in the article with my experience in the game (For those curious, I'm a level 28 Argonian that uses claymores and dai-katanas and I slaughter entire populations. I'm currently raising my security skill and short blade skill). -Randall Brackett 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing. I really don't percieve it as a big deal in this project, as many of the related Elder Scroll articles don't have spoiler tags. -Randall Brackett 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - Rather than debate the finer points of what 'Spoiler' templates do or do not represent in the realm of free speech / neutrality / censorship - none of which I feel qualified nor inclined to wade in upon - surely the issue is much simpler. What real harm do they do? Very little if any. We're surely not attempting to conserve the little piece of bandwidth such notices represent. They also serve as a warning where, and this is the important thing from my point of view, one would not expect a spoiler to be - unlike a book or a film synopsis where one pretty much realises that you are ruining the plot by reading it, reading a character description of certain prominent characters in Morrowind, for example, may give information that the player has not yet discovered in-game and taint the experience from that point onwards. I don't know about you, but I'd be annoyed if that happened and I wasn't warned. When I first played Morrowind I had no idea what would happen to me. I had no idea of where the plot was going, let alone who I would eventually become. I was not aware there was even anything that could be spoiled for me by reading a little background (as so much is hidden for the player to find out for themselves - a unique feature of TES, I think) and it made the experience all that more rewarding. As an example, I wrote quite a bit of the Almalexia article's first drafts and stuck spoiler templates on it as most of her background and story would ruin the plot of Tribunal without any indication that this would be the case - If I wanted a biography of a character I would go to an encyclopedia, but not expect to have twists and turns laid bare for me without warning. The risk of leaving them on is minor aesthetic issues on a couple of articles. The risk of leaving them off is denying some of the beauty of TES to a player - and that would be a terrible price to pay... Just my 2c (or 2p, as I am British) - also, finally, a spoiler warning on the bottom of each Wikipedia page has always struck me as analogous to a "Poison" label stuck on the bottom of a bottle on the inside - by the time one reads it, the damage is pretty much done...Divinedegenerate 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional - that'll teach me not to forget to read things properly before wading in... I'm essentially re-iterating CP/M's points above - well, I heartily agree with them and hearby add my support to them... Remove where obvious spoiler (History of, clearly labeled plots) and most certainly leave on intentional and obvious secrets ie: Dwemer, destiny of main character in Morrowind, final battle in Tribunal etc. Divinedegenerate 18:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A editor against spoilers made this summary on the talkpage of the template:

I think all the spoiler warnings should be removed. An encyclopedia is where one turns for information, knowledge, facts. Why shouldn't it ruin the reader's fetish for ignorance? Art/films/books aren't sado-masochistic games where one hides from orgasm; this is learning, not le passage à l'acte. If this is the correct place to do it, I propose that all spoilers be abolished and readers be encouraged to believe that wikipedia is where one goes to learn, not to have ante-orgasmic near encounters with 'what happens'. The template is like a cigarette cancer warning "watch out you might learn something". At the very least they pollute the page lay-out. Why should the those who wish to remain ignorant have any say on the lay-out of an encylcopedia; it's like asking the catholic church for their opinion on the design of an abortion clinic. I also propose adding the following to what wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a babysitter for molly-coddled readers/viewers; let them jump up and down, fingers in ears, and screaming 'nah nah nah I didn't hear that' somewhere else.

I don't believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to shield its readers from knowledge. A book is not 'ruined' if its ending is revealed. Lay-out is not superfluous. Typography cannot be dismissed as 'nit-pick'. Wikipedia shouldn't nurture the consumerist restraint of orgasm in its readers. Arguing that spolier warnings somehow contribute to people reading more is far-fetched and ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the nanny-state protecting its readers from knowledge. Why should those who want to learn from an encyclopedia with considered typography be swept aside by a group of ignorant readers who need to be protected from knowledge. I would direct those readers to the great religious institutions set up for precisely that purpose.

That's my view on the subject. -Randall Brackett 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to get to the heart of the matter. The major concept beyond your post is an assumption that Wikipedia does promote, encourage, or nurture something. This might happen as a side-effect, but promotion of anything is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not teachers or professors selecting what to teach our readers. We can rather be compared to librarians, creating a database where one can get the information he wants. If one doesn't want to learn about something, it is his right not to, and we are here not to enforce him to learn, as well as we shouldn't send him away. It is especially so considering works of fiction, which are designed for entertainment.

Whether a book loses value for the reader once the ending is revealed, depends on the reader. It's he who should make the decision, not editors. It's not for us to decide whether he is a consumerist or not, whether he should know something or not, and whether he wants to learn the plot from the article or from the book itself. CP/M 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. So why the spoiler tags are there I don't know. Let the readers come and learn. I think the best we can do for our readers is to improve the quality of our articles and resources and leave it at that. The librarian analogy is loosely correct but its changed by the nature of this being an encyclopedia with policies in that such regulate which data can and cannot be introduced as apropriate. I really think its the stupidest idea to think our readers would depart because of the removal of templates and I've seen no evidence of this in practice. We are neutral editors and I strongly believe we should concentrate on the improvement of the encyclopedia and its direct quality than a hypothetical fear developed on social sites. The encyclopedia is at its finest when we elect to not introduce our bias into the encyclopedia in any form.

And CP\M, thank you for your summary. That essentially captured the essence of my thoughts on the matter. It was much appreciated. -Randall Brackett 08:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Creatures

Various ecology in Elder scrolls such as Netch are directed to the subheader of "Wikipedia:WikiProject" despite there's no other use for the term and is thus unneeded. Can anyone provide an explanation for these naming conventions?

I also edited out a derivation of some of the race's point bonuses (it's extremely unlikely to be used in a different context in my opinion, and this was unnecessary). I unwikilinked blight in many cases because neither is there a article on it and I think it would fare better in a "list of dieseases" write-up. -Randall Brackett 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think article on Blight might be written, as information is sufficient in the game. Possibly redirecting to a list of diseases would be better for the time, until the Blight section is expanded. CP/M 09:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See the title of Nix hound. That's very, very unhelpful. Using naming conventions such as that (especially given that the original title of "Nix hound" is empty, no diambiguation) is never, ever right. It causes minor, temporary damage to the encyclopedia. If there must be a sub name (and in most cases there is no need) the proper format should be "Nix hound (The Elder Scrolls)" or merely "Nix hound".

If there are no objections I'll request these pages be moved to apropriate titles. -Randall Brackett 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Those pages were renamed from article space as a temporary measure because of this complicated AfD. See above and following section.

Obviously we collectively forgot to finish merging content into Creatures of Morrowind and to edit the redirects left by the moves. Woops. I'll try to fix that article (and the redirects that should point to it) in a day or two, unless someone else steps in first.

Questions:

Should we put images such as Image:Mudcrab.jpg into Creatures of Morrowind? (See poll below.)
Are there any other articles we need to finish fixing?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment. As that AfD was related to an excessive number of articles and lacked attention to each, I suggest we make decisions based also on overlooked factors. Specifically, I'll move Kwama to the appropriate name, without merging, as the article has a wider scope than just creatures.

Such decision can also be considered in case of Netch, Silt Strider and possibly some other creatures, but only if (once) there is enough content about their economic use and quest appearances, to constitute an article like Kwama.

Considering Creatures of Morrowind, the article also needs deletions of trivial one-phrase definitions of unimportant creatures. I've done some now. Still needs expansion and internal merging, though. CP/M 09:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to finish off the merged "Creatures of Morrowind" article, but I'd really rather someone else did it. (First, I need to cut down on time spent on Wikipedia. Second: I haven't got far through Morrowind yet, so there's lots of info there that I'd much rather find out during gameplay.) Any volunteers? Please? (Oh, and CP/M's preceding comment is spot on, as usual.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -Randall Brackett 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Crude poll re images

Should we, as a general rule, put the images from the articles being merged into the new articles?

Weak Yes CWC(talk) 06:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I see no reason not to do that. Exception might be images related only to deleted game-guide content. CP/M 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes Per CP\M, though a possible exception for difficult to see images. --Niroht 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating

I suggest we add in a general catch all factions page. This will negate the need of an extensive amount of individual stub articles for things like the orders (such as those of Diagna), different guilds, knightly orders, etc. I think the Septim bloodline page was done excellently, and that and this page were the things that got me thinking about this. Just food for thought, if I get a second and third I'll start going at this, but I didn't want to just start reformating a major portion of the project.

Also, I think that the regions of Vvardenfell need to be deleted, as the actual article Vvardenfell has just copied what was in all of the original articles in the first place.

In general, I think the main problem we should fix now is not adding information, but instead it's better navigation. Galactor213 1:30, July 10 2006 (UTC)

If you mean merging all factions, I don't think it would be good. The guilds look just fine now, with general and game info, and this is surely the way they should be like (except lack of Daggerfall info). Great houses also deserve own articles. However, since TES4 introduced too shortly described and not really significant factions, they generally would look better merged. I'm not sure this is essential, though, as "Oblivion factions" (or different named) article would have to address full-size factions. CP/M 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just created Organizations of The Elder Scrolls, (I'd been working on it for awhile) which is probably pretty much what you had in mind. Dv82matt 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the regions of Vvardenfell articles I agree, although some may still have content that needs to be merged into Vvardenfell before being redirected. Dv82matt 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Settlements of Morrowind

I just created this article merging several related settlement articles. I'll start redirecting the affected articles to it soon. Dv82matt 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I'm thinking about adding an edit link to the templates, to make them easier to correct. There is a sub-template Template:Tnavbar, designed for that, and used in a number of templates. Specifically I think the best place would be in the heading, to avoid using page space for the extra line. Also, since discussions are likely to be held here, I'd prefer to customize it and add a link to the wikiproject. Any ideas about that or objections? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the edit link is a great idea. I don't think we should add a link to the wikiproject though. There are exceptions but cross-namespace links should mostly be avoided in articles. —dv82matt 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant to replace the general talk link to a link here, but, well, I agree; it isn't that needed.

However, I'm not sure where would it be better to put the links - into the heading aligned right (near to [Show/Hide]), or it in the lower right corner, or elsewhere? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How about like this?

v t e The Elder Scrolls lore
Artifacts \| Battle of Red Mountain \| Corprus \| Daedric Artifacts \| Lorkhan \| Major regions \| Nirn \| Pantheons of Tamriel \| Septim bloodline \| Tamriel \| The Third Era \| War of the First Council

or maybe on the left instead to balance the show/hide link in the main template. —dv82matt 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to work... I'll try it out to compare. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 07:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Contributions

Hello, dear members of the Elder Scrolls WikiProject! I've been editing the Black Marsh page for some time now, referencing some things, adding some information, linking it up to other pages and whatnot, and was wondering what you think of the page. Some helpful contributions would be nice. I'm always secretly suspecting that someone will lash out at me with a "ZOMG GAMECRUFT!!" and that would be alright too. 64.230.1.142 10:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work. Well written and well referenced. It may be up to good article standards by now. I hope you decide to stick around and improve other TES articles as well. :)

One suggestion I have is that large parts of the text seem barren of relevant links to other articles. It's not a big deal, and it may be somewhat unavoidable, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. —dv82matt 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite impressive. Well-going encyclopedic writing and complete referencing - this will show the cruft-fighters that it's possible to create a good article about what they consider fancruft. I can think of a few things to improve the article: first, a bit more diversity in references (out-game sources, other websites) would be nice, some wikilinks could be added, and text broken down into smaller paragraphs. Probably it's all, the article is already quite good. I suggest we collaborate a little about the article and then submit it for Good Article status. --CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some questions:

To help those with little knowledge of the TES universe but some handle on greater fantasy themes, would it be useful to note that Dunmer are types of Dark Elves; Bosmer, Wood Elves; Altmer, High Elves, and the like?
Should I repeat links to various articles in each section? Ex. If I've already linked Morrowind in History, should I link it in Geography?
Should the current sections be broken down into subsections? Should History be broken down by the various TES Eras, or some sort of different scheme, where the first paragraph is given a title along the lines of "Mythical Origins", the fourth "Black Marsh within the Empire"?
Is the phrasing suitable for a body of fictional material, compliant with the Style Guide's Guide to Writing about Fiction?

Some notes/petitions:

Some help with relevant external sources would be much appreciated.
The article would do well to have some screenshots. Relevant and helpful fair-use screenshots of Blackwood, Argonians in Morrowind, Argonians in Oblivion, and the Hist in Oblivion would be useful.

Much thanks for your help and comments! 64.230.1.142 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To your first question, in the case of Dunmer, I think probably not. But I think it would be useful to give brief descriptions of the races native to Black Marsh.
Repeating links in seperate sections is generally good but use judgement obviously. I try to leave at least one screen worth of space between repeated links. Of course screen resolutions vary so this is a rule of thumb at best.
As to breaking sections into subsections, if there is enough content to fill out each of the sections (say five or six lines at least) then I think it would be a good idea. I'm actually not all that familiar with the history of Black Marsh, so I'm not sure of the best scheme for subsections, but Eras seem best to me.
I'll quote your last question, "Is the phrasing suitable for a body of fictional material, compliant with the Style Guide's Guide to Writing about Fiction?" I was thinking about this earlier. I can tell you've made an effort to keep an out of game perspective and the references help with that, but it does still read somewhat like an in game perspective. Prehaps an out of game phrase such as "According to in game lore..." at the start of the History section, or "Within The Elder Scrolls universe, Black Marsh is..." at the beginning of the Geography section would help. Also any interesting out of game factiods (expansions, user created mods, trivia, background) about Black Marsh could be mentioned (if there is any).

I did a quick search for Black Marsh related stuff but didn't come up with anything significant that you don't already have as far as refs. As for pictures, well I can't help you there either, sorry, but hopefully someone will upload some screenshots. —dv82matt 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How does everyone think of the changes so far? I decided against any further subsections, as it doesn't necessarily fit with the flow of the sections themselves and would require some extensive reformatting and rephrasal of their content. The most difficult part of the work was to give an outside world perspective, which probably hasn't been completely achieved yet and has likely mangled the prose in a way which I am currently incapable of noticing. I was fortunate to stumble across a good resource of archived developer interviews, which has given some development content to the article. The amount of italicization required for this article has been truly incredible, and I'm sure I've still missed something. Some screenshots were added, I'm not sure if they should be kept, though, as they aren't of the region itself, but only of a region equated with the region. It's tenuous, but I think it's better than nothing. I changed TES to ES in most areas, as both are accepted abbreviations, and the The Elder Scrolls seems somewhat redundant. I can't believe I forgot to describe the Argonians and the Hist, even after mentioning them in the lead! Sorry about that. The description of the Argonians was something of a thick regurgitation of a lot of different material, so some prose editing might be necessary. I haven't started on the Hist, as they're likely to be important. There's a sentence in the article "parallels with Africa" which I haven't been able to source beyond the Pygmy native anecdote, which is itself something of a misrepresentation of the source. As with other things, though, WP:NOR, so the statement will have to be killed. Still need some more screenshots, though, plantations in Morrowind, the double leg joints in Morrowind, the single leg joints in Oblivion, the weird character designs for Arena and Daggerfall (the first's freeware now, BTW), Dreekius in Redguard, Murkwood in Arena, the Hist in Oblivion (apparently in the final quests for the Fighter's Guild, haven't checked it out yet), all would be helpful. (Though with all of them in the article it could become somewhat crowded. I'm not sure how Promotional Material fares in comparison to In-Game Screenshots in terms of "Fair Usability," but the Argonian sketch could be replaced with a more helpful body shot comparison of Argonians throughout the games) A screenshot of one of the plantations (Arvel, Dren, whatever) from Morrowind could be put in at the bottom of the History section, as an illustration of slavery, the Dreekius screenshot could be put beside any mention of Dreekius in the text (probably beside the "Role" section), and the Hist screenshot could be put in the Native Life section. Any further comments on the article so far? Any other possible in-world comments to be rewritten? Thanks for all your previous help, you caught some things I'd passed over. 207.35.41.4 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to actually log in now, so as to give my edits a consistent face. I do hope I didn't bother you by doing my edits without logging in, I believe that I'll log in in the future. Anyways, I think I've cleared up most of the issues I mentioned previously, gutting the original research sentence, adding information on the Hist and rounding out the information on the Argonians. As far as content goes, I think I've sucked every source dry. Which is probably a problem in and of itself.

Much of the information on Argonians or the Hist could probably be relocated to their own pages, and summarized here. The extended note on the unitentional falsehoods of Marobar Sul's account should be moved to the Dwemer page, and linked to from here. The story should itself be summarized, and maybe entirely removed and made a reference for some of the Hist information, perhaps even on the Argonian or Hist pages themselves, rather than Black Marsh's. I'm not sure any further screenshots would be needed, actually. So much fair use is dispiriting to review committees.

A question: The content has surely become "comprehensive", but is it "crufty"? Too much minutae and small detail becomes off-putting for review boards, but doesn't seem to be counter to anything in the Featured Article Criteria. Does anyone have any ideas on what should be cut? The direct quotes and textual criticism seem to be in need of a trimming, or at least a relegation to footnotes, as in the Final Fantasy series of pages. Since all verifiable, relevant information deserves to be on some related page the content shouldn't be killed, exactly, but I'm not sure if any further depth on such an obscure topic would be merited. Another page on the material contained in the article seems to be suggested by WP:SS, but cautioned against by WP:N.

A lot of the past few days of edits has been to bring a real-world perspective to the article, in terms of the development process and, to a lesser extent, the reviewer reaction. (A search through Gameranking's list of Morrowind and Oblivion reviews didn't do me much good. Reviewers didn't seem to notice the texture of the game in detail, which could be granted them based on what their audience expects.) Some reaction on how this looks would be helpful. Much of it comes in the form of sourced comments, speaking about where the piece appears, as per WP:WAF, but it seems to break up the flow in many places. I'm really torn in my approach to this particular part of the article. Perhaps much of this could be relegated to secondary footnotes. I'm not sure of policy standards in this particular situation.

The prose needs to be tightened up throughout, given a douse to bring out the clarity lying 'neath the surface, to break away the crufty fragments and frivolous content. This seems to be the most crucial part of cleaning up the article at the moment.

So, 1. (a) Second biggest problem, (b) Done, (c) Done, (d) Unsure, should be checked, but I believe it's done, 2. (a) Third biggest problem, (b) Done (I think), (c) Done (I think), 3. Done, 4. Biggest problem.

Any thoughts? I'd like to submit the article for some peer review, though if that's a bad idea I wont. If I were to do that, though, would CVGA Peer Review or standard Peer Review be better? Thank you for all your help, much love, Geuiwogbil 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuation from previous section

Previous section was getting long :-)

First of all, very nice work once again. And thanks for logging in. It helps give a consistent face to your edits and comments.

1a: I think that moving much of the information on the Argonians and the Hist to their own articles (as you suggested) is a good idea as the "Native life" section seems too long at present. 2a: I don't find the article particularily crufty. I haven't examined the article in detail but I don't see anything in particular that needs to be cut. 4: The prose is actually pretty good I think. Certainly there are a lot of minor things to fix but the overall structure and readability is quite good. I'm sure that a peer review will help to iron out the wrinkles.

I think submiting it for peer review at this point is an excellent idea. You ask whether CVGA Peer Review or standard Peer Review would be better, I'd suggest listing at the standard peer review and transcluding the entry as a template to the CVGA Peer Review for maximum feedback. —dv82matt 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The general peer review is mostly useless. The CVG is going to be more effective, though you might copy it to the general one.

I don't find the article crufty. In general, it is not a problem, as long as article isn't a stub and has references; there are only a few people with anti-game ideas, and most of the Wikipedia doesn't agree with them. Depth of detail is a good thing unless it is created artificially (by pure speculation), and here it is quite well done. So I don't think any trimming is needed.

CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, well done...I was thinking of improving Tamriel, d'you think you can help edit. It should be a lot broader than Black Marsh. :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know that my work is appreciated, and that, in editing a video game article, I'm not necessarily some form of wretched person. In response to Nobleeagle, I don't think Tamriel will be something I'll be editing in the near future. I'd like to go through the articles in a roundabout way, from the smallest on the way up through the somewhat more substantial and the immense to the gargantuan, building as I go. Tamriel's a pretty big place. I'll get to it eventually, hopefully. :P I think I'll do some copy-editing, some summarizing, and then submit it to the CVGA Peer Review. (Seems like I should be submitting it to both in either case.) Thanks for your comments. :) Geuiwogbil 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Did all the copy-editing I had the patience for. Submitting for peer review with the CVGA! Geuiwogbil 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I am traumatized. I was met with a "ZOMG GAMECRUFT!", as I so duly feared. I thought about going all crazy and shouting Spoo and Padme Amidala and Spira all over the place, but I thought better of it. The article probably is Fancruft as the patient contributor so duly noted. I'm going to go have a nap and some tea so I can quell the raging nausea that's arisen in my stomach. Goodnight, all. Geuiwogbil 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that one. Or, exactly, these two - A Man in Black and Nifboy (possibly a few more, but these are only ones highly active). They are "cruftfighters", aiming to remove all game-related information from Wikipedia, except for 1 article per game (and same to all movies, books, etc). Deletionists, as such are generally called. Just ignore them, most wikipedians don't share their positions. Deletionists may be annoying, but don't take them too seriously. It's just another "anticruft" splash, not a review from an actual CVG member. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. You and Dv82matt have both been so kind. I decided not to go to bed after all, although that tea would still be nice. The editor seemed active on the peer review board, so I didn't know what to think... I really do think I need that tea though. Oy. Geuiwogbil 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that he is not contributing, or that he isn't helping with some reviews... no, most people here have good faith. It's just that some people are obsessed with idea of making Wikipedia to be like a typical pape encyclopedia, and, if an article is unlikely to be present in a generic paper encyclopedia, they don't want to have it here as well. However, that goes in direct contradiction to the principles of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper), and to opinion of most people, as Wikipedia is not an ersatz for Britannica, but rather a new type of media (which is proven by many times more attention to Wikipedia than to all other encyclopedias combined). So it's just one POV of some people, which is pushed wherever they get a chance, but not the general POV, and surely not an actual objection. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What CP/M said. Don't let the deletionists get you down. Hopefully someone else will have constructive comments for improving the article. —dv82matt 01:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I unloaded some paragraphs regarding the Hist and the Argonians onto their respective pages. I've also begun the project of referencing the Races of The Elder Scrolls, if not for the purposes of aiding verification, at least for the purposes of aiding further research and article development. I'm thinking that one of the things I'd most like to do at this point is hop around like a gremlin and cite the various articles floating around. I've thought about beginning to work on the Tamriel page, too, in contradiction of my earlier position. I'm thinking the major articles, like Races of The Elder Scrolls, Major Regions of The Elder Scrolls, and so on, are the best to work on for the moment. Well-written, well-referenced, concise versions of these articles should be both helpful to the only fleetingly interested surveyors of the pop-culture landscape and excellent stepping stones to the more developed, more comprehensive ("crufty") individual articles. Any thoughts on what's most necessary in going forward at this point? Geuiwogbil 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashblight

I'd like a vote on how many people think there should be an article for the Ashblight. As a major part of Morrowind, I think it should be included and could probably make a good article of it, but what do you people think, and should the title Ashblight be sufficient? --Niroht 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer an article named Diseases of Morrowind (or somesuch) which would incorporate Corprus, Blight and regular diseases into one article. —dv82matt 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the ashblight as an entity, as in ashstorms and the decidedly different version of Blight that maddens and strengthens animals. --Niroht 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably it would look not very good if we mix up Corprus, Blight and other diseases, as they are quite different, though Blight could be, generally, merged with generic diseases. In any case, I suggest to be bold and create it - we can merge the text with other articles later if it becomes needed. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll se what I can do with it for now. --Niroht 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Boxes

I just added the project box that I found lurking around on the alk articles for the various games and compulsively added it to every talk page relating to the game. Given that this project seems to be involved with the minutiae of lore surrounding the games as much as the games themselves, I thought it appropriate. If anyone objects, I could undo it all. Just asking. Geuiwogbil 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the right thing to do. I didn't add it first to wait until the project becomes established enough, but now it's time. I'll add it to some more articles soon. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can that project box be fixed? It seems to be....something. Horizontally challenged or....somthing. --Niroht 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just edit the Template:WPTES page, or descibe what's specifically wrong. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know much (read:anything) about editing templates, so...basically it has two or three words to a line, maximum.--Niroht 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it. It just depends on browser, so seemed OK to me. I'll try to fix it now. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Template unification

I suggest we get rid of most templates and stay with only a few or just one. It causes some inconsistency and also complicates maintenance. The only ones acceptable, except the main, might be ones that give more detailed categorization. Any opinions? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vampires and Werewolves

I'm wondering if there were any articles or sections of articles yet for vampires and werewolves in the Elder Scrolls series. I was looking through the ES section and haven't found them. My reasoning is that if we don't have them yet, perhaps they can be included in the polphyric hemophilia and sanies lupinus articles. I've been working on the polphyric hemophilia article and there isn't that much more I can add about the disease itself, but it could be expanded to a good size if the vampire information was slotted in there.

If there was later a Diseases of Elder Scrolls article written they could be combined into there if needed, or at least linked. I don't agree with a Diseases of Morrowind article though, because most of them are repeated in Oblivion. Morgrim 12:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, no. Yes, it would be a nice idea to include them into Porphyric Hemophilia, pretty mucl like corprus beasts are included in Corprus. We considered a Diseases of Elder Scrolls article, but these diseases are too specific - in fact, Corprus and Hemophilia can hardly be called diseases at all. Blight and common diseases could be merged, but it would border on trivial information. So for now we keep separate articles for them. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Integration with {{cvgproj}}

A request has been made at WikiProject Computer and video games talk to intergrate the {{WPTES}} template into the CVG header itself. The newly integrated template can be seen here: User:Hbdragon88/Temp. Thoughts? Objections? --PresN 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on WPMILHIST template, I guess? I'm afraid this proposal would reduce usability of WP:CVG by cluttering its categories and lists. Adding several hundreds of articles would be significant. Also, not that it would be very bad, but I personally view respective Wikiprojects for each article as being primary, and the more generic one secondary, since Wikiprojects themselves are subdivisions of Wikipedia.

Considering this specific one, TES is a CRPG series (which is quite a specific genre), and WP:CVG seems to have almost no interest in them (for instance, not a single is mentioned in the infobox), so TES articles and editors probably won't benefit a bit. If everyone goes this way, I think we'll accept it, if not, I'd rather object with aforementioned reasons. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here really, partly because of CP\M's arguments and partly because it's confusing. In addition, if that's done, what makes the individual projects unique? It would make it seem like none of the more specific projects really have any articles anymore, just sections of CVG. --Niroht 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But CVG already encompasses everything that the sub-projects handle. The parent project of TES is the cvgproj. In my opinion, talk pages already feel cluttered with one essentially amounts to a parent cvgproj header and its sibling project. So far, FF and MK have raised some technical objections; Digimon and Arcade games have said yes; and the rest have not yet responded. Hbdragon88 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Games encompasses all that and more; that's why it fell apart. Wikipedia as a whole encompasses even more - the purpose ot the WikiProjects is subdivision so that articles and categories can be managed easier. I think it would be better for TES-related articles to be mostly discussed by people who at least are familiar with TES, FF-related by FF players, and so on. If we pass it all back to WP:CVG, it won't deal attention to them.

For instance, look at the official Wikipedia:Peer Review. It's useless. You get one bot response, and, if you're lucky, a one-line comment from someone concerned, usually arriving there from the article's talk page. Now compare it to well qualified and insightful peer review at WPMILHIST. There concerned people don't have to go through piles of bios they have no interest in, and comment on what they are familiar with.

The same with games. If people ask at WP:CVG, they will maybe get some response from some player, or even not a player. But, for instance, I must say the peer review of one of our articles had exactly one good and really on-topic comment, a suggestion that the lead might be broken up into two paragraphs. Good, but not much. If WP:CVG will try to work on categorizing articles inside other WPs scope, it will come up with just copying general guidelines with nothing to add. So I think it's better if people first address the most relevant project, then the others. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very familar with wikiprojects (this is the only one I'm really doing anything at all for) but I think that the proposed template is confusing and doesn't seem to mesh well with the articles themselves. Would people think that Elder Scrolls is somehow related to Digimon? I'm just looking at it from an outsiders view who has never seen the wikiprojects before and I think that it could be a real possiblity. Morgrim 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification to Morgrim and anyone else with similar concerns, the banner link as displayed above shows all of the options of what can be displayed on the project banner, but it is not excepted that they will all be visible in any particular instance or at any given time. There is a function in the template so that only those projects selected will be shown in any given instance. If only one particular project relates to a specific article, then that specific project will be the only one shown. The two major advantages to this sort of integration are (1) the banners take up less space, and (2) the article quality assessment, which is generally important to any involved projects, need only be done once. Each individual project can still indicate exactly how important a given article is to them separately. Personally, I think it's a good idea, and am probably going to propose the same sort of thing to the various Christianity-related projects as soon as I'm done with my current task. They have a history of disagreeing about just about everything, and if they might agree to it, I would hope that the majority of you can too. And, yes, I'm not a member of any of the video groups, so given anything I say the degree of importance you would to any outsider. Badbilltucker 16:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that just because one group with a history of disagreeing agrees on something means it's morally wrong for another group to disagree on the same thing. In this case it detracts from each subproject and leaves people that may have questions for that project looking in the wrong place for answers. Many people in subprojects don't even have CVG on their watchlist, so if someone sees that something is a part of CVG "supported by", let's just say TES for ease of explaining, they'll be more likely to go to CVG for questions or help, and then they'll be that much less likely to get a good or timely answer. --Niroht 17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not-so Anonymous Contributions

Black Marsh has been named a Good Article! Geuiwogbil 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Although not timely, congratulations! You did good work on this article and it has been recognized. Good luck in the future. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 00:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Categories