Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Bethesda/Archive Pre

Deletions!

Resolved

Two AFDs headed our way!

Feel free to comment or vote! Geuiwogbil 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both keeps. Thanks to everyone who commented! Geuiwogbil 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bethesda Softworks stubs

I have proposed the renaming of the {{ElderScrolls-stub}} and Category:The Elder Scrolls stubs to {{Bethesda-Softworks-stub}} and Category:Bethesda-Softworks-stubs. I don't think this stub type was proposed, but I think it is useful. I just think it'd be slightly more useful for all Bethesda articles (which doesn't include much else right now, but it is likely to be more helpful when Fallout 3 comes out). To see the proposal, and a couple others, go here.

Also, I have proposed new game stub categories here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 08:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the change to BS games isn't needed. Games are grouped by the title, not developer; Fallout 3 would be a part of Fallout series, just as barely related FT:BoS is. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Topic

I suggest an Elder Scrolls IV Featured Topic nomination as a goal for this project. You have so many great articles, all seemingly GA status in the case of ES IV, if you get two Featured articles, you'd have a featured topic. Judgesurreal777 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Judgesurreal777. I'd already had it in mind, but having it suggested by another makes it seem so much closer to happening. I suppose I'd have to get Kot9 and SI up to GA as well. Shouldn't be too difficult. Geuiwogbil 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, have a progress report. Geuiwogbil 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more, now! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the mobile game oblivion? Judgesurreal777 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That one...that one might bear some merging, possibly into a greater "Mobile games" list, perhaps? GameRankings lists "3" relevant articles for that one. And one of those consists merely of "screenshots". It would seem difficult, near-impossible, to get a good article (or even a mere Good Article) out of that one. Hmm. Thanks for bringing that up, though. I'd completely forgotten about it. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could even put it into the main Oblivion article, as it is a mobile adaptation of the main game? Judgesurreal777 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the more sensible suggestion, yes. Silly me! It would help if there was a good preview or work containing development-related information, so that it could be tied to the Oblivion article in its manufacture/distribution/conceptualization/marketing/development in a literal and citeable way. Is there something to directly tie the two together? (I'm at a somewhat restricted computer now, so I can't look at the sources.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nom for ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Resolved

Won't be able to get a FT without a good helping of Featured Articles! I've nominated the ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article for Featured Article Candidacy. Feel free to comment, criticize, support or oppose! Geuiwogbil 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now a Featured Article! W00t! Geuiwogbil 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, UESP?

Resolved

You all realize that the UESP already is a Wiki on Elder Scrolls, don't you? A very comprehensive one, at that?

...You came to the WikiProject for the Elder Scrolls and you ask if we know about the Elder Scrolls wiki.... Man, I know you're new, but I have no choice but to look at you crazy when you ask people who's expertise is Elder Scrolls about the Elder Scrolls wiki. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created article index

Here it is Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls/index, it lists all the articles I saw that are under your jurisdiction. Over at the Final Fantasy Project, we've found keeping one is very useful, see how everything is going... :) Judgesurreal777 01:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add the 6 articles that are part of the topic? I think they got lost... Judgesurreal777 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purges

Resolved

I've taken it upon myself to redirect 76 of the articles covered by this project, deleting their content, deleting their talk pages, removing them from all categories, and removing them from our recently created master index. For each deletion/redirection, I used the edit summary "Insufficient coverage in Reliable Sources independent of the games themselves; no chance for comprehensive coverage. WP:NOT a Game Guide."

If I may, I'll quote something I said back in May:

I'm really confused by what you mean by "unverifiable". Nothing in
{{TES-characters}} {{TES-lore}}

is any more verifiable than anything else. The fictional information can only be verified by reference to the fiction. Now, of course, it's not a WP:V issue, it's a WP:WAF issue, it's a WP:RS issue. We're focusing too much on fiction, against WAF, and we can only use primary sources, which is a RS issue. Now, while I'd like to believe that TIL counts as a reliable source, being a well-vetted independently-hosted resource independent of the fiction that comments on its themes and subjects without indulging too far in its fictional world, material that a WAF minded article should contain, I, and you, have been advised that it isn't. Thus we are in a conundrum. We really can't have any of the above articles. Our entire project, basically, separate from the articles on the series games, is focused on fiction. You could just merge up every article under our purview into a few, limited articles. In fact, this is what policy advises us we do. Do you want this? Then, kindly, do so, but please take what you can (following copyleft concerns) and put it up on UESP. The truth is, it's all cruft. Geuiwogbil 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the pages I redirected had the slimmest chance of ever becoming comprehensive, of being written with an OoU perspective, of passing NOTE. I don't like to use the term "cruft". Its nasty, derogatory, and doesn't sit well with me. It never has. I don't have the feelings others have regarding such content, I don't feel the same repulsion. In the place of intemperate, vague and subjective feelings, I have rules. I am baffled, absolutely baffled, when someone develops feelings beyond the rules, feelings of article selection that go above and beyond what is already there. But the rules that there are already, must be followed. I've read every developer interview, every early preview, every review, sidenote and supplementary article. Nothing could support the mass of articles that have, until now, survived. There is nothing to cite them to. Therefore, they cannot live. In regards to this project, "The truth is, it's all cruft."

Those whose material has been cut, please, do not feel angry; do not feel hurt. I have nothing against your content, indeed, I wish we could keep it, citing it to the material of the games itself. Recent times, though, have seen Wikipedia take a stronger and stronger stand against such things. If you would, take what you've made (it's still in the edit histories), and bring it over to UESP and OblivioWiki. That's where it should be. I'm sorry for having had to do this, but it would have been done eventually. aMiB or another Cruft-Warrior would have dropped by and gutted the project. There would have been deletions, recriminations, edit wars, revert wars and addled article substituted as compromise. It would have injured the project and poisoned everyone's attitudes. It had to be done. I'm sorry it had to be me. Geuiwogbil 06:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just shocked that its all gone. Hell the only sources worth a damn that could be put where the games themselves. TheUltimate3 11:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's not how things are done (I think you know the proper procedure). And not what should be done. To begin with, almost all have agreed in the WP:ATT discussion that games are primary sources and are acceptable as such. So agrees the sourcing policy. Virtually any article on detail of movies or games relies on the primary source, which is not perfect, but OK.

There is disagreement and conflict about in which direction Wikipedia should steer. Multiple positions and ways. It's not the role of this project to join the crowd steering the rudder in opposite directions. And especially not in this way, whether it is reaction to some excessively harsh comments/actions, WP:POINT, or actual change of mind. I won't try to be an internet psychologist, but whatever the reason, first, you have to understand that Wikipedia is a project intended to be created and regulated by the same people, and they have disagreement. We shouldn't jump on any of the bandwagons, especially that AMIB's one. When there's consensus on the decision, which will first be indicated by other games' articles removals, then we should follow; while there's a fight about that, let's not take sides. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits reverted, because GA's shouldn't be redirected, and we can merge the minor stuff into one article, rather than redirecting it to an article which covers nothing on it. The sunder king 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwama has been redirected to creatures of Morrowind. I thought it was decided in an AFD that it should be kept as it is significant to the series? --Niroht | Smoke signals 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was decided, so I restored it now. Of course, it's a bit close to the line, but if there is one article which has wrong material, it's Creatures of Morrowind - most sections are too trivial. So, if Kwama is going to be merged, it should be merged from the material it has and not the stub in the common article. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I did a great deal of work on that article, and while I do know about the disclaimer about material being edited mercilessly, it would still be a pity to see it all vanish into a trivial stub. --Niroht | Smoke signals 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Makes sense. ^_^ Geuiwogbil 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to avoid edit wars

Resolved

Hi, I have a proposal to avoid any difficulties or grievances that may arise from the mass redirection of the unencyclopedic articles. Perhaps this would be a good time to start looking for developer/creator interviews and start constructing a few well sourced articles on, perhaps, "Characters of Elder Scrolls", and get concept/creation info and reception stuff, so that real encyclopedic content can be created. Or perhaps some other articles that seem appropriate based on the available information. Judgesurreal777 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. It isn't there. Unlike, say, Console RPGs, Computer RPGs focus far less on story and plot than on gameplay, scale, and graphics in their development and marketing. I've read an awful lot of developer/creator interviews over here, and I can't find anything of the likes of which you're talking. -_- Geuiwogbil 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I have reverted a mass redirect game by another editor on the elder scrolls articles, because it had no concensus and shouldn't have happened, plus the redirects were directed to an article with no coverage on the topic, plus even a reviewed quality GA! was redirected which is out of order, and could be clased as vandalism. Please merge all minor characters and places to one article

Cities in Vvardenfall,

Characters in the elder scrolls.

Like that. The sunder king 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal merger proposal

Resolved

The two expansions to Oblivion should be merged into the Elder Scrolls Oblivion article, along with the mobile game article (unless it can be expanded on its own to GA status). That way, once the development of oblivion becomes an FA, you can start a featured topic nomination for esIV oblivion! Judgesurreal777 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the Dev. article is finished, I'll check to see if those pages can be sourced and developed to an adequate level. As an intermediate stage, we might consider an "Expansions" article, covering the two major content releases in addition to the minor content releases currently covered in the Dev. article. I wouldn't want to merge the articles as they stand, having not yet attempted to find sources for them. I'm sure potential "Reception", "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections could be filled out without too much difficulty; I suppose the real question is whether there is the potential for a "Development" section to round it off. It's a reasonable consideration. There isn't that much Dev. info on Tribunal or Bloodmoon either, so those could potentially be merged into their parent Morrowind, but I suppose one could also finesse the detail out of the sources currently used for the Dev. information in the main article. I was painting in broad strokes for the expansions' Development information in the main Morrowind article, so I left out the detail afforded in the interviews to more particular details regarding lycanthropy, travel, and minor gameplay fixes; all those features could be elaborated in an article on those games in particular. I'd imagine it will be the same with Oblivion's expansions.

Another thought: given the OoU info already contained in the "Setting" section, the potential for specific "Reception" regarding Oblivion's gameworld, and the rich and easily cited literature regarding the fiction of the place, it shouldn't be too difficult to make a World of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in the style of the FF "World" article. Alternatively, we could just fatten up the Cyrodiil and Oblivion (dimension) articles with Dev. info; but I think they'd be better covered as a whole, in respect to the OoU info available for Oblivion. Ummm... I'm conflicted on this one. I don't much like the "World of" title, the two don't have one overarching fictional name, and covering them in separate articles would prevent a good coverage of both of them. Hmn. Ah well. Perhaps "Setting of"? Or would that be too clumsy? I guess I'd be fine with whatever. Geuiwogbil 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a tradition of keeping expansions separate. Due to new release format, of course, they may be considered just another plugs and merged into "Expansions", though I'm indifferent on that. But not into the main article, it would bloat otherwise. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we should see, because if they can't stand on their own, that's probably the best option. Judgesurreal777 01:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just a prelim. check, but GameRankings provides 12 reviews, 2 previews and 3 news items for Knights, and 6 previews, 7 news items, and 40 reviews for Shivering Isles. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now I've gotten Knights of the Nine to GA, so it really shouldn't matter. End count: thirty references. Shouldn't be too much more difficult to create an article for Shivering Isles, excepting the unfortunate fact that I don't own the game, I've never played the game, and I've never even seen the game. Oh well! Someone else who has can write the Plot section, and I'll just work on the rest... Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting Request for "Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion"

Resolved

Hello, all! Would anyone mind copyediting the Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article? It's currently at FAC opposed by Tony1, and I've been asked to ask for outside help. I'd be much obliged if you someone could do it, but I'd accept it if you none were willing. Thanks for taking the time to read this message! TTFN. Geuiwogbil 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting together good articles

A string of Good Articles could probably be made out of the 101 articles in the projects jurisdiction, such as a "locations of the elder scrolls series", and "characters of...", etc...if we synthesize them, they may be really good. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial Library has moved!

The Imperial Library has moved from til.gamingsource.net due to gamingsource going down. The new adress is:

http://www.imperial-library.info/

I've updated a few pages but I'm not skilled enough in wikipedia to find all the links and I figure there are faster ways then checking each article by hand. So if somebody would be so kind to update all the links it'd be much obliged.

Also took me some time to track down this page so you'll run into a few more comments like these on other talk pages.

86.80.122.213 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Proweler[reply]

Black Marsh

I have nominated Black Marsh for Good article reassessment. hbdragon88 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Nine Featured Article Candidacy

I'm encountering some odd opposition on this FAC. I would appreciate any commentary or criticism regarding certain novel presumptions regarding "FA notability"; scope of topic and substance of topic have no bearing on the FA-ability, so long as reliable sources covering the subject in all its major details are there, correct? I am, as ever, confused: individuals demanding something beyond the possible on the basis of personal laws instead of policy always frustrate me. Please, any commentary would be welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Many AFDs

Just a heads up. Artifacts of The Elder Scrolls, Septim bloodline and Organizations of The Elder Scrolls have been nominated for deletion. —dv82matt 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There's actually several more Elder Scrolls related AFDs. See here. Scroll down the page a bit to see them all. —dv82matt 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There seems to be a pretty systematic effort to get rid of them all; the articles on the provinces that I wrote a while ago have all been nominated. -Senori (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's more here. Again scroll down to see them all. Judgesurreal777 should really make a list of all his recent Elderscrolls related AFDs and post it here so none inadvertently get missed by the project. —dv82matt 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every non-game article except for Argonian, which I just successfully nominated for Good Article status. And really, who needs them? Make a "World of Elder Scrolls" article, and if possible a "Characters of Elder Scrolls". Better to have two Good or Featured articles than 70+ stubby plot repetitions. Judgesurreal777 05:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, if we're saving one because of Good Article status, then why couldn't we have just improved the improvable articles instead of this mass deletion? To me that doesn't make any sense. Crap, why the hell would we delete 95% of the Elder Scrolls articles and merge them and leave one out because its a GA? To me, that makes no damn sense. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the only one, out of 95%, that has any real referencing that aren't just "the game". And besides, why save all these articles, and spend huge amounts of time trimming when you could write a vastly shorter article without that crutch? Judgesurreal777 16:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question: why couldn't have we just improved the improvable ones, i.e. the ones that weren't about menial stuff, such as the Morag Tong? We could have coordinated a better course of action than this, which I actually tried to do a while back but no one did jack crap about it. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have answered your own question, unfortunately. And the other answer is, we did with the one article with secondary references, which was Argonian, the rest have had no demonstration of hope, at least thus far in the AFD process. Judgesurreal777 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed many of these sources in the Argonian article come from the Imperial Library. You're telling me that the IL only had sources for Argonian?? C'mon now man. I agree that some of these should have been deleted but I stand by my original decision that that mass AfD nomination shouldn't have been carried out. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think as you like, Argonian has an actual reference to the developers of the games discussing their creation, not one other Elder Scrolls fiction article has even one. Judgesurreal777 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it, if links exist about developers talking about their Argonian creation, then WHY IN THE NAME OF GOD are you trying to delete other articles that are twice as notable as an article you didn't try to delete? Notability is a common sense thing, its not like you always need proof of it. Think about this logically OK, Argonian is notable, yet the page that contains all of the TES races including Argonian isn't? Incredible how anybody could think that way, you know that doesn't make any sense. The only reason you accepted the Argonian article is a link, and since the articles you tried to delete are just as notable as that article (they are, it isn't subject to debate) why would you try to delete them when you know that being just as notable would also have links with developers talking about their creation? Also if there are links about the developers talking about their creation, then they are also talking about Races of The Elder Scrolls and therefore it is notable. TostitosAreGross (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indent) Eh, I suppose. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another of what I have heard described as "notability purges". They seem to particularly target the entertainment media, including games, TV shows, actors and so forth. Personally I think the solution is to have a separate wiki that focuses on all forms of entertainment and that doesn't require independent sources for satisfying notability. A published book with an ISBN number should be sufficient, for example. — RJH (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they already have topic-specific Wikias about. Plus, such a site could be filled with loads of bullshit and loads of untrue statements. I agree with the idea that some of these articles should be deleted since some are really just plain not notable, such as the Akulakhan. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas

So... all of the articles up for AfD are basically going to be deleted. Most of them are crap, honestly, so I'm not bothered, despite the time I spent merging them, but there are some salvageable ideas from them. One: We should make a "World of The Elder Scrolls" article. This would be a merged together version of all of the provinces, as they related to the game/real world, a la Universe of Kingdom Hearts (a GA). Each province on it's own isn't notable enough for an article, but the world as a whole is, I think. Second: Possibly a "Characters of The Elder Scrolls" or split up as "Characters of Morrowind/Oblivion" and such. I say maybe because, unlike Characters of Kingdom Hearts or Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series or Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, most of the characters in the elder scrolls are, well, shallow and non-notable. The current character lists are long lists of minor characters, with no distinction of what the major characters are. I'm not sure that we can make a good Characters article, but it's possible. Third- Races of the Elder scrolls- Argonian just got GA'd (though I disagree, I think it's too in-universe), so no matter what the result of the AfD of Races of the Elder Scrolls is, the article should be remade/fixed to be much more focused on out-of-universe response. Other than that, not much else is notable. Any thoughts? --PresN 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there seems to be such a vast Elder Scrolls universe, having one Featured "World of Elder Scrolls" would be a great replacement. Judgesurreal777 05:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion: Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls)

Resolved

Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiber Septim (Elder Scrolls) (27 November 2007 – 8 December 2007) No consensus

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion: Dark Brotherhood

Resolved

Dark Brotherhood at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Brotherhood (2nd nomination) (27 November 2007 – 8 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamriel is spared

Tamriel has miraculously survived deletion thanks to heavy opposition from me and a few others. The result wasn't keep, it was no-consensus. This is mainly because it is written in an in-universe style that would be unfamiliar to people who don't know anything about TES. Therefore I think we should make it our job to take the articles that haven't been deleted by user:Judgesurreal777 and make it more clear that they are fictional.

Also if you see any links that establish notability to our remaining articles, please use them. Organizations of The Elder Scrolls could go either way and you should add some input in the deletion discussion to let admins know that we have the intention to improve the article. Thank you. 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)(I didn't think I forgot to sign this)TostitosAreGross (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Fresh start

I say that we assemble in a sandbox a beginning for World of the Elder Scrolls series article, which will we can build into perhaps a featured article at some point, and can have most of the remaining 5 fiction articles put into it. If we could perhaps assemble some references here, we can start building it up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be nice, or any sort of progress. I haven't heard from anybody on this wikiproject in a while. TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've taken a small break from being a lazy bastard for a second I propose we first accumulate as many secondary sources that we can for as many subjects as we can. Basically I'm suggesting we figure out what we can source before adding information into the article so we don't put up unnecessary BS, but this is merely my suggestion. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also gonna start work in a sandbox before I begin the work on the actual article to prevent preemptive AfD nominations. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time. My problem is that while a lot of poor articles got deleted, some good ones went too. Black Marsh was a GA and now it's gone, if only I'd known that Judgesurreal was serious about sourcing them earlier I could of stopped the afd. I think we could get that article going again, and establish notability to satisfy everyones standards. We should also get the ball rolling on the ones that didn't get deleted because they were no consensus. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About recreating Black Marsh, you should probably request a recreation instead of recreating it the old fashion way. I don't wan't any overzealous editor coming up and knocking it back down due to the AfD. At the same time, that's less than likely so I guess you can do what you want in that department. As for the articles still up, yeah we should probably go ahead and salvage whatever info we can on them. I haven't looked at them in a while but when I can I will. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's critical that sources are found for Black Marsh, that way there is nothing to complain about. By sources I just mean one or two interviews or something that establish notability, the rest was already sourced but not in any way that established notability. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls

I have recently rewritten this article, which was unsourced and written from an entirely in-universe point of view. I see that this project has a lot of high quality articles, so I was wondering if I could get a little help from some members. The article could still do with a few more sources and some information about organisations in games other than Morrowind and Oblivion. Any help would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity

WikiProject Video games is looking to clean up both inactive and limited-scope WikiProjects dealing with video games and move these into task forces of WikiProject Video games, as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. This message is being posted to this project to first see if this project is currently active, and if there is consensus to move this project into a task force. We ask that if this project is still active, that you determine as a project if this project should remain separate from WikiProject Video games, and let us know your intentions. Please let us know within the month; those projects that do not respond within that time will be assumed to be inactive and will be cleaned up automatically. This is not a mandatory process; we will not attempt to do anything to your project if there is no consensus or consensus against moving it. However, we do urge you to consider if your project needs to remain separate from WikiProject Video games. Please let us know if you have any questions on this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If individuals involved in the project will wake up, I'm against this merger. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I ask why? Only one response in a week doesn't speak much activity, and it may attract more activity as a task force. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think that's fair... *if* people in this project wake up and say they're against it, then we should let it keep going. But right now, it looks pretty inactive. As a task force, they'd have to spend less time evaluating and assessing articles, and they could focus on the good stuff: writing articles related to the Elder Scrolls series. So until I see otherwise, making this into a task force makes the most sense. Randomran (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support making this a task force. It's basically dead- the "big 2" articles (Morrowind and Oblivion) are maintained, but no one's trying to build an "Elder Scrolls" array of articles anymore. You might try asking User:Geuiwogbil about his thoughts- he and Klptyzm are pretty much the only active members left, as I stopped a while ago after getting Oblivion to GA. --Pres N 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no other input, then I'm going to move the project in a couple of days to a subpage of the VG project as a task force. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have no objection to the move. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update- The project has been moved. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]