Hi Jeancy! I am an editor over at Nukapedia (Fandom) and hold the position of content moderator there. I haven't been active on this site for quite some time, but have recently gotten very much re-interested in Elder Scrolls. One of the things I wanted to kick around with you is a Notable Loot section for all locations in the Elder scrolls games, particularly Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and ESO. We have such a section over at the Fallout wiki and it is extremely useful to our users, particularly the ones who have played the game and know the ins and outs, but don't want to spend a large amount of time reading a whole article in order to find that one Nuka-Cola Quantum that they forgot exactly where it was located. I think a section like this would be of great benefit and I would be glad to undertake such a project.
The new section would not be anything large, and would only contain notable fixed item loot (unique, rare, and/or massive amounts of common items gathered in one place) within a given location and/or the immediate exterior area surrounding it. What it would not describe are chests with random loot, non-unique fixed items (Imperial Bow of Frost), or level dependent loot...that would be where the detailed sections of the articles come in.
The question is, How would I go about starting this? Would I have to get permission? Would it have to pass a community vote? Or is it something I can just do as long as it's within policy guidelines? Thanks in advance, and I'm open to any questions, comments or observations you might have. Yowboy (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- We actually do have this, if people fill it out :). This can be seen as "Important Treasure" in the infobox for locations like Cradle Stone Tower or Largashbur for Skyrim and Bloodcrust Cavern for Oblivion. Morrowind never seemed to utilize this parameter for the infobox, but there's no reason you couldn't edit articles to include it. As for ESO, there aren't really ever set items to be found at locations that aren't from boss drops. For bosses, we do have a drops section for the infobox which lists unique loot they drop (such as Odilon). For random set drops that can drop from any NPC in the zone, those already have sections on the delve pages (such as Fungal Grotto II).
- Is that the sort of thing you are thinking of? Jeancey (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Very similar, thanks! To be honest, I'm so used to seeing the page layout over at Fandom that I totally missed the info box on the right! Now that I see it, I think it's a better layout than having a whole section dedicated to it. I feel like smacking myself for missing the obvious! Yowboy (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- No worries! There are always differences between processes on different wikis. Asking a question is never a bad thing! Jeancey (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Jeancey. Recently I did some contribution into the Lore:Jel article. And I understand your concern about it. Frankly speaking the article asks of being well structured. On top of that pervious variant of Jel vocabulary was more chaotic and even less structured. However answering on your concerns I should state that it was not only me that tried to restore original meanings of the words on the basis of known ones. Anyway, I believe we should harmonize our approach to the article but I would wnat some constructive criticism or suggestions aside from simple content removal.
For example if you really want all those suggested word meanings to be deleted I'd suggest to organize them in a separate article instead. Where there will be clearly stated that all the work is a suggestion zone and a work of a community. I would also suggest to involve another two significant contributors User:MolagBallet User:Talyyn in this discussion. Thank you for being reasonable in advance.Listens-to-Air (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- The main issue is that Original Research is typically prohibited in lore. Simply taking a two syllable word that has a two word meaning and assigning the first syllable to the first word and the second syllable to the second word is Original Research, and whether it is on that page, or on another page, we just shouldn't be doing it. We've had issues in the past where something that wasn't entirely accurate appeared on the wiki, and then it later gets added to a game because a developer saw it here and thought it was established fact. This is the situation I want to avoid. My preferred option would be to move all the uncertain translations to the talk page, so that the work isn't lost, and if new translations are found in future updates, they can be added to the page at that point. Jeancey (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Protection of Arena:ServicesEdit
Why did you locked the article on the vandalized version? (https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Arena:Services&diff=2195240&oldid=1912949) KShrimp (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- First off, it's not vandalized. The two other people involved are patrollers, and there are questions as to the accuracy of the statement. Whomever is right doesn't particularly matter, in that it isn't vandalism, there is a reason for them removing it, same as a reason for you adding it.
- Second, per policy, I locked the page after the 3RR (three revert rule) was broken, as it had turned into edit warring. I thought it best to remove the offending line and discuss on the talk page of the article. At that point, once a consensus is established, we can add it back or keep it removed, depending on the result. Also, the page in these instances is typically set at what it was before the three reverts, which is where it is now. Jeancey (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Removing the text without any comment is not "question of the accuracy of the statement", it is vandalism. If they had any questions, they could ask a question on the talk page. Why do you take the side of people not contributing to the Arena namespace over mine? I like to see the motivation of your choice. KShrimp (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- In any edit war, there's always going to be one side that thinks you've locked the page on the wrong version. In this case, with 10 days between the removal and the reversion, it really could've gone either way. But the point of protecting a page isn't to take sides in an edit war, it's to stop the edit war in its tracks. That's literally the only point.