Caractacus IV wrote: I once looked at a group of articles for Morrowind, not one of them had an image and most of them had sections with nothing in them.
Anyone can edit and add to articles.. all that have Morrowind and play can do it. I'm sorry but all I see here are users that hardly ever edit in the mainspace complaining about the lack of content in articles. And Caractacus, you complain about unfinished articles and other stuff in the post above.. have you ever edited in the mainspace? I can't see anything in your contributions.
We do have a new (moved month) nomination for MOTM, please go and vote here. Remember, anyone can also nominate a user.
AIdmeri wrote: In response to feature articles being locked: I have noticed a while back that an admin had unlocked the "sysop locked" featured articles and then a few days later a different admin "sysop locks" it back up. If there is no official policy written then why are they doing this? It seems to me that the admins don't even know what policies exist. Unlock those pages, no consensus needed, there has never been a policy on "sysop locking" featured articles, and if there is, please do point us to it.
That was a missunderstanding that is now cleared. That's why they got locked again. And Oops.. added a kudos by mistake on the post above.
Zippertrain85 wrote: Ebony, we shouldn't allow it even if it's rare, as Ghost said making it a Policy should do some good, for the times it DOES happen!
Ghost posted after me Zipper and I agree adding it to the policy is fine with me too. I was just making sure you understood that the default is to let the talk page be open.
SuperSajuuk wrote: Isn't the point of this thread meant to be changing some (or all) of our existing policies? O.O
You are right Spey.. let's move on from this now and continue with the bigger issues in the policies.
The trivia section is not for little tidbits and other such information. In the policy it says this:
On some articles I have found more trivia than an actual text about the object/character and that is not what articles should look like.
Bluesonic1 wrote: I really think speculative trivia could benefit from a similar template-tagging system that the Bug section is going to hopefully transition to- in that unconfirmed or speculative points get a {{unconf|<trivia>}} kind of thing next to them so people know that it's an interesting point to read but it's also speculative in nature. That way it can stay on the article's page without presenting itself as 100% factual.
Why should we even have speculation, no other wiki or even wikipedia have speculation. It needs to be confirmed until we add it to our articles. The trivia section is for facts and not speculation like this for example: this character is probably related to this character in another game. As Ghost say in his post.. it's removed for a good reason..
Zippertrain85 wrote: Than change it, if a user goes crazy and pulls a Skyrim90000, go ahead. But doing it by diffault does no good. All it does is make good users unable to posibly apologize or clear stuff up, and might make it go cross-Wiki. It also goes against Assume Good Faith
In addition, the Block Lengths should be discussed as well...
Zipper, the default is to leave the talk page open for the user and then we leave a message on the tp to let them know they still can post on it. We have to click in that box for locking it.
Zippertrain85 wrote: Okay, so for Blocking Policy. We agree users cannot be Talk Page blocked?
Zipper, that depense on the users behavior. I have had to block once or twice as the users has gone berserk on their talk page. That is not acceptable.
Just adding this before naptime.. Here is the section about Badgehunting. The unlocking of FA articles will also be looked at.
Yes you are right, I'll close it now.
Well, I didn't go back so long in the history of the page. So they all got removed...
But why have you come here to do this? Any specific reason for it? I mean it's never happened before that someone suddenly comes and talk about the design, it's been changed by the sysops before. I did see you have 2 other designs for 2 wikis on your wiki.. is that correct? Noone has ever even questioned the design before.. and even expressed a dislike for it either.
I'm not sure why you have come to this wiki to make the proposal of a change in our design. We have a history of design like the one we have now and before that we had something similar. Many are not up to a design change, we like it dark like it is and no landscape images. I am curious why you have suddenly decided we need a change.. and are trying to almost force it on to our wiki.
We have told you the pages where redundant as the info is on the respective page to find out. What is so important that you need to have so many links. You posted 4 external links and that is too many to start with. The Elder Scrolls Wiki is not a collection of external links, is says in the policies. There are many ways to learn about the ingredients and the best one is to mix them or to eat them. Or search on our wiki...
NinjaFatGuy wrote: Why would people randomly gaze at the upper right hand corner? If you're referring to the snow of the mountain, I see in now way how someone is going to gaze at that rather than looking at the content they came on there for, in all honesty, and not to mention that the side background are in close peripheral vision so it's not like your eyes will focus on them. Now, I can understand that if some people don't find it memorable enough to be a background, but the fact that you're saying somebody will attend their focus onto dim whiteness of snow in a corner just sounds like a way to repudiate.
As for the link colors, the official TES website pulls them off on a background, and I see now reason to why we shouldn't. It's easy to tell them from mellow blue to black and mellow blue to white. To me, and I'm sure others, will find that really distinguishable. I think you're just overthinking this.
You are missing the point I'm trying to say. This is something that is happening when you are looking at photos and websites and it's well known. I know people who have a website for a game and content and ads... and this was what they thought about when designing for a new design. As your eyes are by default drawn to the upper right hand corner, especially if it's brighter.
And adding... I'm not that fond of any of the images I'm afraid as a background. Otherwise they are nice images.