UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/TESV

While I don't like over-protecting the wiki, I'm going to suggest that the following pages be semi-protected for at least the next week or so:

 

...along with their respective talk pages. It looks like we're in for some heavy traffic. rpeh  02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
:On this subject; would it be too early to make a Skyrim:Skyrim page? --    02:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::IMO, yes. We don't have enough information about the game for it to be able to warrant it's own namespace...yet.--             02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
:::   I definitely agree. These pages will be created over and over in the coming weeks, so we might as well make sure that we can address the contributors about it. I'm going to semi-protect the three of them now. --Krusty 02:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::   Yes! And forgive me for de-linking your previous post. You can't just create a page in a new namespace like that - Daveh must create the new namespace first, otherwise you get a weird situation in which there's a page called Skyrim:Skyrim but it's actually in the mainspace. We had this a while ago with Shadowkey:Potions, which showed as a wanted page even though it existed. Please, PLEASE don't do that yet! rpeh  02:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::: Ok, ok, that's why I'm here and not there. --    02:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
:::: It may be early for this also, but I suggest that when the game is released, new users and IP's be stopped from editing (or a similar system). Just throwing it out there :P - Emoboy64 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::::: Something will have to be done when the time comes, that is for sure. Looking at Recent Changes tonight proves that. Still, it is 11 months away and we have plnety of time to discuss a strategy. --Krusty 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  I would suggest editing would be restricted to Autoconfirmed users for a period of no less than 3 months.--             03:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
: There are various ways of restricting editing during the release of a new game. No decision needs to be taken just yet on which option is to be used. rpeh  03:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
:: These are troubled times. Let me know if any more pages should be protected, maybe even fully. Is it possible to block pages with the name "Skyrim" from being created? --Krusty 10:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::: Possibly semi protect General:Elder_Scrolls as well? Also a question, should edits to a talkpage be marked as minor? Mxk101 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::: (e/c)Yup. Add the following to :
 
::: It's a good idea to add that in the short term. rpeh  11:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:::: Added. Thanks a lot! :) --Krusty 11:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

::::: Yup, that's working, although I imagine admins will be able to get around the block. rpeh  11:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(o/d) I see that Lore:Places has gone on the semi-protection list too. Since the number of places where people are adding Skyrim-related information seems to be increasing, I thought I'd better explain my reasons for thinking this is inappropriate at this time so we can see what the consensus is.

Basically, if we start adding "Skyrim is where TES V will be set" (for now) or other Skyrim-related information (when it starts to appear) is that it's all going to have to be in the future tense and then we'll have to change it all again when the game comes out. We're also going to be constantly checking these rumors to make sure they're true. Wikipedia operates a similar policy, encapsulated by the WP:CRYSTAL policy - "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". UESP reports what has happened, not what's going to happen or is likely to happen. We've reported that the game has been announced, and that should be the extent of our reporting at the moment.

Obviously all this is just my opinion, and if enough people believe otherwise then obviously we'll have to change things. Until then, let's keep the Skyrim stuff on the news page where it belongs. rpeh  18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:I agree wholeheartedly. Having monitored the Diablo III page on Wikipedia, it seems quite likely the same phenomenon of adding speculative information will happen here as well. Let's just stick to, at most, information published on any official pages, and even then, as rpeh says, we'll have to think about whether we really want to word it in future tense, present tense, or just plain leave it off the site until the game is out.  &ndash; Robin Hood    19:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:: While I'm not completely comfortable with semi-protecting all these pages, it is only temporary and hopefully things will ease down a bit in a week or two. I agree with everything that's been said; no need for us to play Crystal Ball, without knowing what will happen or what the game will be about. Let's just take it easy, await news from Beth and see where it leads us. --Krusty 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:::I imagine in a week or so the pages can be unprotected - it's understandable that there's a bit of a buzz in the community right now, but it'll fade soon enough. It's easy to find the protected pages and review them anyway.
:::Thinking about this a bit more, I think we can ask Daveh to create the new namespace to avoid problems with any links that get made. A Skyrim:Skyrim page would also let us have a central page where all the relevant new information can be mentioned, along with a talk page for other stuff.
:::One minor point... I'm going to suggest SY as the prefix for the new game. We've already assigned SK to Shadowkey, and while we could change that, it'd be a big job for not much benefit. The other options would be SM or SR, I suppose. If we're going to create a new namespace we need to get this decided for the  page. rpeh  21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

::::I've created the Skyrim namespace on content1/2. I didn't see Rpeh's last comment so the current prefix is 'SR' which can be changed if needed (the sooner the better). If any other changes are desired just let me know as usual. -- Daveh 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm fine with SR, but please can an admin add the following line to :
 
:::::Thanks. rpeh  21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Done. Please check if everything is okay. --Krusty 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that SR is probably the right abbreviation here. It would fit with the method used for practically all namespaces (of which TR for Tribunal is the exception).

I also agree that a Skyrim:Skyrim article can already be created. I think there's enough content for one article, and all news from Bethesda about the game can be gathered there. There's even some concept art in the banner of the BethBlog at the moment, which I'm sure represents Skyrim (nick it for the article?). At some we are going to have create the article, so we might as well do it now. We don't have to adhere to Wikipedia's notability guideline for this, as the games (and extra) is the single thing the site's about.

Anyone else noticed how all links to elderscrolls.com site are no longer functional since it was redesigned for Skyrim? (It all ends in 404s). See the link to the official Oblivion website, for example. --Timenn-  08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

: Yeah they've pretty much borked all our links to their website now :/
: I tried writing a  page the other day (we can use the link now Dave has created the namespace) but got stuck because we know almost nothing. I was a post for the forums but may as well post it here because it's just as applicable:
 

:If we're going to create the page at this point, it's going to be incredible basic. Of course, it'll stop people asking us when we're going to create one so might be beneficial for that reason. It's an admin decision in any case, since nobody else can create a page called "Skyrim" at the moment. rpeh  21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 

I would sugest something like this.--  Ghurhak gro-Demril        23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

:For the moment, I've just redirected Skyrim:Skyrim to  .  All of the information we have is listed there, and that should satisfy any users who want a page up.  I figured I'd go ahead and do it, since it's easily changed/reversed.  Thoughts?  --GK  23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

:: Very good idea. What do you think about a link to the official forums? The residents of the asylum are going into overdrive digging out every piece of Lore even possibly related to the game, and coming up with enough wild speculation to fill up ten wikis. That might satisfy the strange desire many people have to talk about what might be happening without bothering us or our forums. rpeh  23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Makes sense to me.  Like so?  --GK  00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

:::: Perfect! Thanks, GK. rpeh  09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::Kay, I don't see any real reason not to give the game its own page at this point.  Check out my sandbox, let me know what y'all think, if it's ready to be moved to Skyrim:Skyrim.  --GK  02:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Alright, I've gathered more info from the magazine and updated my sandbox; was really hoping on some sort of feedback before I send it live...  --GK  22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

: Apologies, GK. With holidays and illness I don't even remember seeing your original post. Your sandbox is looking pretty good. There's a pair of (semi-)decent sources here and here for some of the details if you feel like working some of the GI stuff in. In any event, what you've got there looks good to go, and I think we definitely need something now. rpeh  22:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

:: Basically, I have the same apologies as rpeh - but the page is great and I like the fact that all information are backed up by sources; I think you should just launch it. :) --Krusty 17:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::The page looks good, well done. Only the setting "presumably in Skyrim" isn't right in my opinion. Yes, it's a fact there's no way we can really be sure at this point, however, we've seen the map for Skyrim that's going to be used in-game, and seeing the game's name being Skyrim, I believe it's safe to say for now it just IS going to take place in Skyrim. But that's just what I think of course :) ~ Dwarfmp 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Kay, we now have an article at Skyrim!  I've semi-protected it just as a precautionary measure, and I've also gone ahead and added Skyrim to the sidebar.  Let me know if anything goes screwy :)  --GK  19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::This book actually tells of the fall of Alduin, mentions Greybeards, and the 1000 steps of High Hrothgar. There is also a rumor from Oblivion: "There are foul tidings from Skyrim. The Greybeards speak of the end of all times." I think there has to be some relevant information in there. --    22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::Alduin is mentioned in two books - both referenced on our  article. Greybeards are mentioned in a few places: the Arcturian Heresy springs to mind - but our  article needs a lot of work. Yes, there's a rumor from Oblivion, but I think they were hedging their bets. It's not like Oddfrid's prophecy about Oblivion from Bloodmoon.
::::::Basically, I'm advising against reading too much into things from the past. I'm sure there's quite a lot of stuff that could be seen as a reference to Skyrim, but remember that while Oblivion was set just six years after Morrowind (and hence Bloodmoon), Skyrim is set 200 years after Oblivion. That means that vague rumors about the End of Days don't really have much weight. rpeh  22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::First things first, the new section is looking pretty nice (and it has certainly taken the pressure off the Future of TES games page). But I do have a question. The article mentions that there are 'were-yetis' in the game. While I have seen mention of were-yetis on certain websites, there are other websites that mention nothing of the sort. While I have not read the game informer issue myself, there has been talk on the forums that the were-yetis are a hoax.--Tovenam 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::I say we keep the mention of Were-yetis, though we should probably add a template or something of the like that says; "This is an article about an unreleased game and is likely to contain information that will be contradictory to the finished version.". What do you guys think? Alpha Kenny Buddy 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Sounds like a good plan, as we can't trust everything we read about the game at the moment. At the very least there should be some sort of warning tag.--Tovenam 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::That's the way we do it too at our Wiki. It's really the best :) --Deepfighter 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::The article already has a big warning at the bottom. We could always use  , but I don't like the idea of a sidebar article having such a template on it. rpeh  23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::: Can an Admin put move protection at ? Thanks. --Rigas Papadopoulos  22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  As for the Notice, we simply decided to put it at the bottom because it was really ugly if it was on top of the huge Skyrim sign. Better let some time pass and see how it goes... --Krusty 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:I already noticed the notice, we should at least expand it a little noting that the content already in the article could be inaccurate, as we have no way to truly confirm what might me taken out or added until it is in our hands. Alpha Kenny Buddy 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::Correct me if I am wrong, I am still pretty new here, but I just noticed that since we now have a Skyrim article shouldn't we move this discussion there? I mean most of this is about the article development itself, so it should belong there shouldn't it? Alpha Kenny Buddy 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::: I've stuck the   template on it. It's never made the slightest difference before, but let's try it again now. rpeh  23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)