Talk:Oblivion Wiki

Remember to only put stuff related to the Main Page on here :)

We need a logo
How about this one? 11:44, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * Haha, I was just thinking about that after looking at the GuildWiki one. Looks good to me, though I think the thickness of the brackets should be slightly less, and maybe softened to match the logo and background. --TheSpectator 12:25, 27 February 2006 (CST)

Here's a quickie I created, to try to match the default gray color GuildWiki uses. If we want to go with a more complicated background, like the Oblivion Box-Art, I much prefer the style Stabber posted above. Imperialist 14:38, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * I like yours imperialist, it should be kept simple like the gwiki one imo  19:02, 27 February 2006 (CST)


 * I'd prefer a solid background, just to match the simplicity of the site. I really dig the first one, though, just lose the background. - Gravewit

OK, here's my second try. The background is transparent. I don't have the Oblivion font (Calligraphic 421 BT Bold), unfortunately. 05:37, 28 February 2006 (CST)


 * I'll check if we have it here. I might whip up a version later today, time permitting. Thanks! Gravewit 23:28, 28 February 2006 (CST)


 * That ones nice, yeh it needs better text though 19:02, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * I agree, and looks good overall. --TheSpectator 12:30, 3 March 2006 (CST)

My Try, How's this? -- 12:59, 4 March 2006 (CST)
 * I like the idea of using the actual "oblivio" text, but the picture looks a bit...uneven. How would it look if the "oblivio" font was the same, just without the tan background it was from? --TheSpectator 01:33, 5 March 2006 (CST)

Maybe the text isn't really necessary. Just the oblivion logo, with brackets on either side, should be good. It's gotta look clean, like the GuildWiki logo. Gravewit 02:00, 5 March 2006 (CST)

Another option, tis a mod of Imperialist's -- 22:11, 5 March 2006 (CST)

Main Page Appearance
I haven't figured out how to make those box-type things, like those of GuildWiki's main page. Do we want the main page to organized like that (though different colors, etc.), or should we try something new? --TheSpectator 17:01, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * Okay, put up some major topics for editing. Yeah, everything is kinda crude and stuff, but we gotta start somewhere :-D --TheSpectator 17:28, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * Uploaded the editing help from wikipedia, you can find it at Help:Editing --Raynejarre 12:38, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Site Content
Seeing as how the game isn't out yet, how do we go about filling out articles? For example, regarding the article for The Apprentice birthsign or the article for the skill Acrobatics, do we just fill in the information from the official Elder Scrolls site, which is very short and would pretty much be verbatim? Should we include information from recent developer interviews or website previews, some of which information is simply wrong (i.e. dual wielding mentioned in some previews) or outdated? --TheSpectator 13:22, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * Just get as much info as we know in there, and grow it up when the game actually hits. Forums are a good resource for this, interviews, etc. Getting structure down is important this early in the site. Gravewit 02:53, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Races
Finished Filling out the rest of the races, just grabbed the main entries from the codex and linked them up, took dwemers from wikipedia. Feel free to expand...I am pre-ordering too, so hopefully when I get the pocket guide I can help fill out more of the lore and such. ---Raynejarre
 * Added in a potential template to the Dark Elf page, any suggestions for possible changes/additions to the template? ---Raynejarre


 * Looks good and neat. --TheSpectator 12:30, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * When it comes out, would you like me to try and get screenshots of the diffrent races, or just stick with the artwork? ---Raynejarre


 * We can certainly include both the artwork and a screenshot of both male and female models. --TheSpectator 11:01, 4 March 2006 (CST)

Release Date
That is a must have. But the colors should get changed to colors like the other mainpage boxes, or just something less ugly.--Wes R 10:10, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Suggested new colors for release date. Matching Wiki scheme. --Wes R 00:37, 9 March 2006 (CST)

Elder Scrolls vs. Oblivion
First of all, I was wondering if we are going to have a lore section. Which brings me to my second question. Why Oblivion Wiki? Why not Elder Scrolls Wiki? I'm not sure if all the in-game books and lore should be part of this site if this Wiki is based on Oblivion only. So, could we make this Wiki for everything Elder Scrolls? I'm not sure how Wiki is set up, but I could see how it would be better keeping each individual game on a separate Wiki database. Thoughts? --Wes R 18:19, 9 March 2006 (CST)


 * Basically, if something from a past game is important to Oblivion, story-wise or what have you, then it belongs here. Characters, books, Morrowind, Daggerfall, etc. Gravewit 00:03, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * I agree; sure we can add anything from a past game related to, supporting, and generally involving Oblivion (i.e. Lore). But expanding the wiki to include everything Elder Scrolls would be a massive undertaking. --TheSpectator 13:31, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, one Wiki containing all Elder Scrolls information would make it harder to find specific info for a specific game. So basically - I think this is what you're saying - knock ourselves out with lore and background info, as long as we don't start adding walkthroughs for Daggerfall and such, sound good? --Wes R 14:22, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * Sounds like a good plan. --TheSpectator 15:10, 10 March 2006 (CST)

"OblivioWiki"?
"OblivioWiki" wiki is a terrible name, the parallel to GuildWiki that you're trying to achieve is not happening. Guild Wars is two words, Oblivio and n are not. Keep the subdomain and get a logo that says "OblivionWiki" or even better, something to the effect "Oblivion at GameWikis.org" which will reinforce the gamewikis brand.


 * I'm for Obwikion. OblivioWiki does sound kind of whack. --Wes R 01:56, 11 March 2006 (CST)
 * HAH! Wes, you have out-punned me. Gravewit 02:14, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * Nice, Wes. I like that "ObWikion". --TheSpectator 06:56, 11 March 2006 (CST)


 * It's a good play on words, but I would shorten it even further to just ObWiki. 128.2.206.194 00:29, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Okay, here's my try at the ObWikion Logo. --TheSpectator 04:30, 12 March 2006 (CST)
 * Oops, forgot the brackets and transparent background. Here again with it: New ObWikion Logo Feel free to comment, suggest, etc. --TheSpectator 05:04, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Transparent background a requirement? I may have to give a shot at a logo. --Wes R 05:20, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Not sure if it's a req, but I think that's how the rest of them are. Here's yet another new one, this time with the Oblivion letter O thing like they have it on the website. New ObWikion Logo No. 2 --TheSpectator 06:26, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Okay, I wasn't satisfied with the last one. Final change on this one is making the second 'I' part of the 'Wiki' word; it's a subtle difference. Link: New ObWikion Logo No. 2A --TheSpectator 06:38, 12 March 2006 (CST)

While I agree OblivioWiki is a bit odd, I also think ObWikion isn't much better, and a bit corny to be honest, but that's only my opinion. --06:41, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Already done...
Hehe, just so you guys know, somebody else already started a rather larger and less-wikipedia-clone-like TESwiki over at TESwiki.com ^^/


 * If by "large", you mean "11 more articles than us" and by "less-wikipedia-clone-like" you mean "hard to navigate", then you are totally right. Gravewit 05:13, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * It is just as Wiki-clone as this one, just another skin. Also, there are almost no pictures and still the loading times of the site are longer than this one. -- Mercurius0 22:23, 13 March 2006 (GMT+1)


 * Yeah, I think the "already done" post needs to be going over there, not here. -- 05:31, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * The content is exactly the same as what is here, with some of the articles that others and myself have written for here, so that site is definitely a copy over. --TheSpectator 06:23, 14 March 2006 (CST)