Template talk:The Elder Scrolls

Edit war
Please stop reverting, it's blatantly obvious they need to be separated. There is no purpose just to link to the titles, most likely they are already linked to in the article text. These boxes act as summaries of available articles on the matter, and if I come across one with cryptic words like Oblivion, Morrowind and what's-not, I'd expect them to at least be annotated in some fashion. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the titles offend Wikipedia's original research policy. Original research, for the forgetful, is Wikipedia jargon for "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Now, since the bearer of these titles has failed to provide sources for the categorization scheme he propounds, he is violating the NOR policy's very specific clause against an edit "[defining] new terms". "Main" and "minor" are terms I have never seen used in relation to these titles as such. I do not see how Hexagon1 can argue against this. I, for one, have never seen any source which even hints at the system he uses. This is a non-negotiable point until proper sources are provided. The burden of proof lies on he who seeks to bring new "facts" to the table.


 * Hexagon1 asserts that it is "blatantly obvious they [the "main" links, the "minor" links, and the mechanics and development links] need to be separated". I argue against this assertion, stating that it is either blatantly obvious that they are separated, or do not need to be separated. I argue that it is obvious enough that "Development history" and "Gameplay" are different from the titles in nature. It is possible, I have said for any passer-by to distinguish between the italicized text of the game links, and the non-italicized text of the Gameplay and Development links. It is a common typographical rule that "works" are always italicized, or set off by quotation marks if part of a greater work instead of a stand-alone, and that the non-italicized, by the simple virtue of not being in either of the two former categories, thus are not, and can never be, works. Furthermore, the title proposed by the plaintiff for the lower category is distinctly unhelpful: It is obvious that "Development history" and "Gameplay" are "Mechanics and Development". Any cursory familiarity with the English language could tell one that. It is thus terribly redundant to have such groupings. Also, it is bad form to have a title as long as the list of entries following it.


 * Secondly, the titles offend my aesthetic sensibilities. To have their light thin black font preceding the heavier and deeper blue of the sectional links offends my taste. It breaks the template balance, and the general rule that headings be larger than their contents. If the first objection were fulfilled, I would let these titles remain only under the condition that they were to be aligned to the left of the template, in boxes without borders—boxes shaded a slightly deeper hue of blue than the template in general—and in a larger, bolder font. Geuiwogbil 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Edited for clarity and crudity Geuiwogbil 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Elder Scrolls series? And how exactly will that explain it's a game and not a brand of tissue paper? (Wipe away the evils of your Oblivion!) Main titles are obviously the ones decreed so by Beth, the ones that are carrying the main sequence numbering. The minor ones don't carry the numbering, basic. The phrase 'Major titles' would be OR, but 'main titles' isn't. I'm going to implement the left thing you suggested when I get back home today, I hope this will resolve the issue. +Hexagon1 (t) 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then "minor titles" would be OR, if "major titles" wasn't. It's a leap to call them "main". Why don't we just call them numbered titles? That doesn't have the whiff of OR about it, and it's the only fact you really know. I'd love to be able to cite that decree, if you could produce it: July 15, 2007 (Rockville, MD) "Bethesda Softworks®, a ZeniMax Media company, and 2K today announced that The Elder Scrolls®: Arena, The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall®, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind®, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion® are the only main series titles in The Elder Scrolls series. The remaining titles are minor. We apologize for any confusion caused by not reporting this earlier." You know, we could avoid this whole mess if we gave them their full titles, like in this revision. :P They aren't reading the template in some mysterious nether-world, lost in a fog. They're appended to the bottom of articles. That's the only place people are going to be reading this thing. Certain facts can be inferred, ex. that these are video games, and not tissue paper. Sorry for being so abrasive about this issue. Geuiwogbil 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon my bluntness but are you insane? I would honestly seek professional help were I in your position. Yes, why not crucify me for attempting to clarify this template? I'm not going to be making changes, with an ego like that floating around you'd find something new to dislike on a daily basis. Have you thought that maybe I'm attempting to improve the page and my stance doesn't mean I despise you? Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, people have lives. Wikipedia isn't the centrepiece of mine. There was a close death in the family, but pardon me for daring not to rush here and reply to your crudely-phrased opinions regarding a bunch of elves running around a bunch of 1's and 0's. Have fun with your conquered footer template. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know. I'm sorry for my crudely phrased opinions. I'm sorry for having pushed so hard. I don't want to hurt you. I'll leave you in peace now. Geuiwogbil 03:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope to have reduced to some extent the improprieties of my earlier responses to your comments, Hexagon1. I am still young; I have not learnt the easy style of the aged and experienced. I should have thought the content could be parsed from my statements, but I see that they were, in some respects, too confused to explain, and too slurred to seem coherent. The content should be more structured and more complete now. I know it will not mean much, as you mean not to read it, but as an act against my own crudity, and to return my path to that of the righteous and humble, I believe it marks the first steps towards reconciliation, and the first attempts at goodness. On my honour, and with great respect for the travails and good works of the first iteration of the six figured shape, I pledge this to you. I am sorry for what I have done, what I have failed to do, and what I have counter-acted. I will leave you in peace following this revision. Thank you for your time. Geuiwogbil 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe my good-will has been sufficiently proven. I'm now removing the titles. I simply cannot stand having them there. If you would like to argue, so be it, but I loathe and detest those titles. I believe there are enough policy and guideline violations to warrant their removal, but my main personal objections—viz., that they are hideous and serve no constructive purpose—are not covered by any page. I do not mean this as any kind of affront, and have, I believe, paid sufficient respect to Hexagon1's wishes by leaving them as they were for twelve (12) days, and I apologize for any hard feelings felt as a result of this revert. It has nothing to do with Hexagon1, it has nothing to do with The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It has everything to do with the terrible scourge that is these section titles. I do thus revert. Geuiwogbil 08:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this page and come back to see... I've WON! Mwuahahaha! I'm kidding, I am somewhat put off by Geuiwogbil's willingness to leave my page up. It shows much kindness, and I thank Geuiwogbil for that, but I'd have reverted it to whatever you believe is the correct version, just as Geuiwogbil had eventually. But now we have the template divided again, by someone other then me. I think it's just easier to use that way, and this entire template's purpose it to make navigating the TES articles easier. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fanon
Nehrim: At Fate's Edge and Skywind are both fan-made versions of The Elder Scrolls games. I suppose they're relevant enough to have their own articles (it is noteworthy to independently remaster a game), however there is no real reason they should be listed on this template. Considering that apart from these two things, it is filled with legitimate links to canonical articles, they feel extremely out of place. If these mods are to remain here (which I certainly do not believe they should), there absolutely must be some sort of indication that they are fanon and not canon. Perhaps instead of, "Related," a more adequate section would be titled, "Fanon" or "Unofficial additions," or something along those lines. I really don't think they should be listed at all, however. —Atvelonis (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey ,


 * I would say yes, unofficial games should also be mentioned. Like Project M is mentioned on or The Nameless Mod is mentioned on, they might be fanmade, they're based upon a certain game series. --Soetermans. T / C 07:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)