Lore talk:Fain

Notes section pointlessEdit

"Fain was featured in the Shivering Isles expansion for TES IV: Oblivion."

I don't see the point of creating a notes section just to spell this out; anyone who doesn't deduce this just from reading the page will certainly understand once they reach the "See Also" section. We could hypothetically have a note like this on every Shivering Isles page, and one just like for every page covering every other game, and it would help virtually no one. It adds nothing worth the time it takes to read it. Sorry I didn't send it to committee before trying to remove it, but I did not expect any dissent. Minor Edits 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It might not play a very important role here, but the "featured in" note becomes invaluable on lore articles for places which appeared in more than one game (Lore:Dawnstar and Lore:Crypt of Hearts being two examples). The notes section is meant as a place for game-specific or un-lore-like material, and without it, "Shivering Isles expansion" really would be spelled out in the article, which is what we're(I'm?) trying to avoid. See Lore:Dune for another example of the notes section being used in this manner. If we begin to exclude the "featured in" note from articles where it's not exactly helpful, it will become non-standard on the multiple-game articles and we'll be back to square one. The "See Also" section is reserved for linking to different articles which relate to the subject, so using that as a substitute isn't ideal. --Legoless 17:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

An alternative proposal, either remove the "See Also" section, and just make a note at the beginning of the article of the other article's on the subject. Or we could just make the note's section pull double duty for both the notes and the See Also sections. Either way, it is obviously quite redundant as it is. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposing the "featured in" note for every article; it was certainly appropriate in those articles Legoless pointed out. But to my knowledge, Fain does not appear in multiple games, making such a note unnecessary here (and on some other pages) because there's no ambiguity in that respect or behind-the-scenes info to report. I think that the fear of the "featured in" note becoming non-standard is over-blown; it's already established in many places, and there are plenty of section types and notes (Tips, Bugs, ect.) that haven't disappeared from use but which are only created when it's appropriate to do so. Including the note here just for the sake of having it is not persuasive to me. If we are really going to follow that route, there might as well be a "featured in" note on the Shivering Isles page, the Raven Rock page, and the list is nearly endless.

I don't think the "featured in" notes need to be or should be folded in the "See Also" section, merely that the "featured in" note should only appear when doing so may actually help the reader. That's what this is all about, right? The existence of a "See Also" section will often answer the same question for the reader as a "featured in" note would, and then goes a step further and provides a helpful link, making it preferable, thus its presence will often reduce or eliminate the need for a "featured in" note. Minor Edits 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In general I like the idea of listing the games in which locations appear, but I don't like having a big ol' note, especially in cases like this one. One use of the {{Lore Place Summary}} template was to put this information in a sidebar rather than in the main text, but various problems with that template make it impractical. Some kind of sidebar seems like the best idea to me, but I'm not sure what information should go in it. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I quite liked the idea of the Lore Place Summary tables. If it was less limiting, all sorts of stats could be added to it: affiliations, alt. names, founding date, type of place (ruin, city, etc.), Gods worshipped (for DF and OB cities), image(s), the current region/province/continent system, and of course games. I know next to nothing about templates, however, so I'm really just throwing out ideas. If something like this would be possible, I think it would be a great alternative (although I think the more important notes, e.g. on articles like Lore:Old Ebonheart, should remain). Should we bring this topic up on the community portal? --Legoless 11:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) Agreed, sounds like a great idea. Hope the problems associated with it are not insurmountable. Minor Edits 17:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)