Open main menu

UESPWiki β

UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Oblivion:Glossary

< UESPWiki:Deletion Review
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Deletion Review discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Oblivion:Glossary

Page has little to do with Oblivion, redundant with Lore:Dictionary. Content should either be merged into the general dictionary or listed in General or UESPWiki namespace. It just doesn't belong in Oblivion space, as it is barely even Elder Scrolls-specific, let alone Oblivion-specific. --TheRealLurlock Talk 22:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

  • Delete: There aren't enough terms to justify this article and those that exist are more easily defined elsewhere. –RpehTCE 05:09, 5 March 2008 (EST)
    • Strong Delete: Time hasn't changed my mind on this, and the fact that no new items have been added in a month speaks volumes. The whole idea of a glossary is an outdated concept on a wiki where more powerful tools are available. Using hover text seems a much more sensible solution to me. –RpehTCE 04:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep possibly renamed. The information on the article is not redundant, in particular for terms such as LOD and HDR. If we can't point readers to another place where the information is provided, then the article shouldn't just be deleted. The information does not belong in the Tamriel dictionary, because it is gameplay-related, not part of the game lore. As admins on the site we should be working to try to find alternative places to provide missing information, instead of just insisting on deleting the information because it doesn't fit into our current organizational structure. --NepheleTalk 13:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
    • Neutral: Since the original discussion, the Tes4Mod articles Glossary and Acronyms have been created, which are probably more suitable articles for some of the terms that could otherwise have been added here. HDR and LOD have been added to the Tes4Mod Glossary. It would still be good to find a place for the remaining information (i.e., "vanilla"): if one reader couldn't immediately figure out what it meant, then probably other readers can't either. --NepheleTalk 22:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Keep: I agree with Nephele on this one. These general terms don't belong with the Tamriel Dictionary, and we can't just assume that all of our users will necessarily know what they mean. I do worry that the page may be too short, but I think something like this could be appropriate in the appropriate (General?) namespace. It won't break my heart if it's deleted, but I think we should see what can be done with it first. –Eshetalk16:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)
  • Neutral: I've not been here long enough to cast a vote one way or another, but since you seemed to be deadlocked, I will attempt to help you figure things out.
Your indecision is understandable, this page has raised the question, "What is the nature of this wiki?" Not an easy question to answer, nor one that should be taken lightly. You are all essentially correct in your views on this article, so I will break down the question into (hopefully) more manageable pieces:
The terms LOD and HDR are acronyms for the more technically minded, and should be defined on this wiki if you your target audience includes geeks, tech heads, anyone interested in game design/theory, et cetera. (I am quite tech savvy and it took me a long time to find out what LOD stood for. I didn't know what HDR stood for until I read the disputed page.)
NPC is a general role-playing game acronym and should probably be reserved for more generalized reference sources. HOWEVER, it would be extremely easy to make the term relevant to the Oblivion name space—simply mention their souls can only be captured in black soul gems. Other "general" terms come to mind as well. The possible camera modes: first person, third person chase, "vanity cam", and free-floating. Vanity cam in particular seems pretty unique to Oblivion...
Vanilla Oblivion is quite relevant to the TES4Mods name space. If there is a dictionary or glossary of some kind in the TES4Mod space containing terms used in the Oblivion modding community, then this should be on it. If not, perhaps one should be created?
So admins, it's time to make some hard decisions regarding the scope and desired users of the wiki.
I hope my thoughts helped and I didn't overstep my bounds. --Enterprise2001 20:47, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete: I'm sorry, but there is no just reason for keeping this article. The information is explained in much greater detail under the Tes4Mod namespace, and if we were to publicise this page, which would be necessary for it to be of any use, then no doubt it would be filled with edits from anonymous visitors unsure which terms deserve a place in a "Glossary". As mentioned by Rpeh, this page would also be redundant even if this did happen, as Tamriel:Dictionary covers all in-game terms. --HMSVictory 04:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Delete: The entries for HDR and LOD should probably go on Oblivion Mod:Acronyms, NPC is already defined on the NPCs page, and in fact a search on 'NPC' takes you directly there. Same for real time/game time - the definition is on the time page. The only term that isn't defined elsewhere for which there is no obvious home is 'vanilla', and I'm not entirely certain that this needs to be defined - surely it's a well-known term? Having said that, Wikipedia has a page giving a definition, so maybe it does. it should probably go somewhere on a Tes4Mod page, though. --Gaebrial 06:30, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Comment: There are many adjectives that describe something that has not been altered in anyway. Plain, off-the-shelf, stock, pure, and unmodified/unmodded are a few off the top of my head. The fact that the Oblivion community is nearly exclusive in its use of vanilla Oblivion to mean the official game with its official patches applied and and nothing more means it should probably be mentioned in the TES4Mod space somewhere. (Glad to see I got the discussion going again.) --Enterprise2001 11:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Comment: Are there any further comments? In particular, any thoughts from those in favour of keeping the article? At the moment this is heading for a deletion 4-2. –RpehTCE 06:51, 30 April 2008 (EDT)