Talk:ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

message: Wikipedia is not censored. The front page needs an image. You know what must be done. ~ Anonymous; 24.174.111.197 (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but we do have restrictive fair-use policies. I don't believe we've had a fair-use image on the main page in some time now. I think there was a board decision on the issue. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a simple ESRB image, or the Oblivion logo. Something to that effect would really reduce the notable absence of any image. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Hpfreak26 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that both the ESRB logo and Oblivion's cover and associated logo are copyrighted works. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do feel that it would have been good to have an image, although of course respect to policy takes precedence. It feels empty without one.Sigma83 (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be kind of tangential: JT isn't mentioned in the lead text, and he forms sort of a postscript to the incident. You know, "I also condemn this." Personally, I don't find the absence of an image all that displeasing. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the wikipedia logoJackchen123 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no since AFIK Wikipedia was not in any way involved in the games' rerating. The image needes to be something that is relevent to the article. --76.69.166.253 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: How about making it a "reveal/hide" widget? Then people can choose wether they will see "artificial nudity" or not. --193.69.22.10 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not 

message: There are "too many" quotations "interspersed with the text", making this article "difficult to read". Using "loads of" quotes also "calls into question" whether this is really a "neutral article" or if it just recites what "people say about themselves".--Nydas(Talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I feel I should make two points. 1. You're welcome to improve the article if you are able to, this is Wikipedia. 2. Maybe the thought hadn't crossed your mind yet, but since this article deals with the re-rating of Bethesda Softworks' The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion by ESRB, it might be relevant to include the respective statements issued by either side. I agree that there is some room for improvement, but I think there is no need to question the neutrality of this article. All the quoted phrases seem well sourced. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing isn't the problem, it's the way they're selected and worded that's the problem. The quotes used in this article (and the rest of the wording as well) make it seem like ESRB are a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats over-reacting. For example, repeatedly quotifying the phrase 'pertinent content' makes it seem more outlandish than it actually is.--Nydas(Talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are a bunch of bumbling beurocrats. Seriously though, I agree less quotation marks could be used, but overall I think the article is NPOV. Bridies (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many quotes

message: A look at the page hits on each Wednesday of February 2008 as well as the ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion article which was featured on Wednesday March 5, 2008 using this Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool.
*Featured article hits:
:*Ronald Reagan -avg - 10k/day (est.)
::Featured article on Feb 6, 2008 --> 92k hits
:*Irish phonology -avg - 100/day (est.)
::Featured article on Feb 13, 2008 --> 28.5k hits
:*Tech_Tower -avg - 50/day (est.)
::Featured article on Feb 20, 2008 --> 26.7k hits
:*Axis naval activity in Australian waters -avg - 70?/day (really estimated)
::Featured article on Feb 27, 2008 --> 55.4k hits
:*ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion  -avg - 300/day (est.)
::Featured article on Mar 5, 2008 --> 81.9k hits
====My Observations:====
#Let me say that the "estimated" daily average is just a guess on my part by visually inspecting the month-long output of the graph generated by the statistics tool.
#Of the 5 articles looked at, the "ESRB re-. . ." article generates the 2nd most (Reagan is first) in average daily hits.  
#Although the "ESRB re-. . ." article came in second amongst the five (in number of hits generated) on featured article day, it did start out about 10k in the hole as compared to the general interest already present for the Reagan article.  Thus, the increase from 300/day to ~82k hits on featured article day is roughly equal to the increased interest generated by Reagan article a month prior.
#The interest generated in the "ESRB re-. . ." article, was much greater than the interest generated by 3 other articles (about which I noticed no complaints, but I'm certainly not a regular at WP:FAC).  I don't think that editor views (due to the controversy generated) would affect the results to the extent that this large difference is observed, but I'm sure that point is debatable (although, see #2).
#(edited to add) These numbers could be compared to the main page, which gets a little over 5 million hits/day on Wednesdays, during the month of February 2008 (link). 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're trying to imply that the wave of complaints isn't very important because the number of page views is high.  If so, I disagree; many of the complaints are legitimate.  Anyway, the inflated total is probably because of the nudie pic that was on the front page, anyway, implying a lower percentage of viewers who came to read the article (and possibly comment upon it).  Tempshill (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article traffic stats (a quick look) 

message: #Let me say that the "estimated" daily average is just a guess on my part by visually inspecting the month-long output of the graph generated by the statistics tool.
#Of the 5 articles looked at, the "ESRB re-. . ." article generates the 2nd most (Reagan is first) in average daily hits.  
#Although the "ESRB re-. . ." article came in second amongst the five (in number of hits generated) on featured article day, it did start out about 10k in the hole as compared to the general interest already present for the Reagan article.  Thus, the increase from 300/day to ~82k hits on featured article day is roughly equal to the increased interest generated by Reagan article a month prior.
#The interest generated in the "ESRB re-. . ." article, was much greater than the interest generated by 3 other articles (about which I noticed no complaints, but I'm certainly not a regular at WP:FAC).  I don't think that editor views (due to the controversy generated) would affect the results to the extent that this large difference is observed, but I'm sure that point is debatable (although, see #2).
#(edited to add) These numbers could be compared to the main page, which gets a little over 5 million hits/day on Wednesdays, during the month of February 2008 (link). 19:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're trying to imply that the wave of complaints isn't very important because the number of page views is high.  If so, I disagree; many of the complaints are legitimate.  Anyway, the inflated total is probably because of the nudie pic that was on the front page, anyway, implying a lower percentage of viewers who came to read the article (and possibly comment upon it).  Tempshill (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My Observations:

message: It doesn't matter. It's still about a video game, which is obviously only of interest to immature teenagers, or so the media would like to tell us. Clearly, no one liked the article at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion (if you like):

message: I think I remember hearing somewher thatthe mod was originaly some thing that was used to keep shirts from interfering with some armor, and somebody figured out how to activate it without the armorEmma Hordika (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible origen of mod 

message: "the presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party tool,"—the Oblivion Topless Mod, an independent modification available over the Internet,—"allows the user to play the game with topless versions of female characters.""
User:Krator (t c) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dequotified it and dropped some clarifying terminology. Is it better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit I removed that may have a place somewhere 

message: Why is the company being held responsible when they did not make the topless mod?--76.173.255.40 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "the [nude-breast texture] file was contained within the game disc itself", and because the ESRB also found that the game's portrayal of Lucien Lachance's corpse was more gruesome than early reviews had indicated. "What Bethesda had originally disclosed to us, as an example: In that section of the game, there is a hanging corpse. What they disclosed to us was a hanging corpse in the dark, pretty far away and without much detail. And yet, when you bring a torch up to the hanging corpse in the actual game, you can see that it's very mutilated with lots of blood and bones. That was a very different depiction, far more intense, far more extreme than what had been disclosed to us." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can thank modders for trying to make a really cliche political statement as well. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain to me...? 

message: I think the name itself is a spoiler for those who have not gone down the Dark Brotherhood quest line. Who knows that's what happens to that character in-game? 67.173.170.18 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming the .jpg file

message: This section is pretty much quoted twice, once in the intro and once in the Background Sub-Section "ESRB re-review and rating change":
"In response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review of Oblivion, showing to its reviewers the content originally submitted by the game's publisher along with the newly disclosed content. The new review resulted in an M rating. The ESRB reported that Bethesda Softworks, the game's developer and publisher, would promptly notify all retailers of the change, issue stickers for retailers and distributors to affix on the product, display the new rating in all following product shipments and marketing, and create a downloadable patch rendering the topless skin inaccessible.[3]"
Should this be removed in one of the places, or at least reworded to stop the waste of people reading what they just read earlier?
Jambobambo (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why duplicate section in the article?

message: The article included the following passage.
As a concluding question, Zenke asked whether Vance thought the ESRB was doing, on the whole, an effective job. To it, Vance responded, "[Ultimately] I think the answer to the question is an unquestionable yes, I think it's a very effective system."  This response was despite the obvious fact that mods are user-generated content, and, therefore, should – according to her statement, do – not fall under the purview of the ESRB.
These statements, as written, try to make it seem as though Vance was contradicted herself, when in fact, no such contradiction occurred. The actual interview made it clear that the mod itself was never in question. The only thing that was reviewed was the actual content that shipped on the disc. Article updated to match. 107.193.200.172 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Impact 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061208072149/http://www.gamesindustry.biz:80/content_page.php?aid=16600 to http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16600
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified