Re: Creation Club Edit
Hi, I'm sympathetic to what you said on my talk page, but the way that we document Creation Club content is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Even disregarding canonicity, mods are somewhat outside our purview (there is a separate wiki for that). The only mod we have individual pages on is the Fall of the Space Core, Vol. 1, which is unique because it is a promotional collaboration between Bethesda and Valve. It's effectively a PC exclusive, and is more similar to, say, the Amiibo power on the Nintendo Switch version of Skyrim than to a typical mod. For this reasons, we would consider it more "significant" than CC content. Creation Club mods are also quite numerous, and it's really just not possible for us to maintain accurate content about all of its materials without a way to reliably cross-reference anything that people add about CC mods. I understand that it can be frustrating to have your work removed from the wiki, but this is where we've had to draw the line as far as mainspace content documentation is concerned.
If you want, you're more than welcome to write a blog post or forum post about individual creations as a personal guide for people to use. It would not be maintained by other editors, but you could basically do whatever you want in it. —Atvelonis (talk) 01:23, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
- I've also tried to sway the community in documenting CC content, considering they're just as official as anything else Bethesda made. But Staff won't have it.
- If you want information on Creation Club content, your best bet is going to be the UESP, since they at least cover the creations.
- Idk if it's laziness or just being unwilling to buy CC content is the real excuse, or if it's rather a personal bias against CC (hence why they're still referred to as "mods", in conflict with what Bethesda calls them).
- Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 01:50, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
- I happen to fundamentally disagree with the existence of the Creation Club, which you can call "bias" if you'd like, but this is not really the driving factor behind my opinion here. I also fundamentally disagree with the existence of DLC, but I do not have reservations about documenting it. There are many bigger issues involved with in-depth CC documentation; I don't think that my comment on the thread even scratched the surface of the logistical problems here. CC materials are expensive and their collective cost will continue to grow with future releases. When we determine policies, we try to do so with our own long-term interests in mind. Although it might conceivably be feasible now for any given staff member to buy all of the CC mods, this is definitely not sustainable in the long term. It is also not actually feasible to document this material in general. The UESP does document some of it, but their doing so does not magically solve the practical issues associated with the maintenance of this material, i.e. content about CC on there is definitely not being patrolled with the same level of scrutiny that base game content is.
- All current creations that we have documented (more might have been added since the page was updated, but I would have to check) collectively cost 17,950 credits when purchased individually. This figure may be lowered somewhat if users take advantage of bundle discounts, but these are not always active and don't decrease the price that much anyway. Using the conversion chart on that page, the cost of purchasing enough credits for that ranges from $134.96 to $191.76 in USD, depending on the quantity of credits purchased at once. This is an absurd amount of money to expect patrollers to spend just so that they can actually confirm the content that they're patrolling, and it will skyrocket if Bethesda implements a similar feature in TES VI, which I believe is very likely.
- Conceivably, the staff could parcel out the purchasing of creations such that one staff member buys a few and references them when needed, and other staff buy others, etc., but this would also be an extremely unsustainable practice. Not all staff are available at the same time, and there is of course a low but existent turnover rate. The amount of managerial overhead that this would require on the part of the administrators is also too high for what it's worth. There are occasions when we can rely on YouTube walkthroughs and other pseudo-primary sources to confirm information, but these are never comprehensive. Secondary sources that may be comprehensive are not typically valid for our purposes as an encyclopedia. I have in the past been able to acquire some products for staff members and other editors at no cost to them, but coordinating with Wikia to do this rarely works for in-game currencies, and coordinating with Bethesda is pretty challenging, and not very sustainable either (these things only work because I am a Wiki Manager, and relying on me to be highly active all the time is not a good idea).
- In order to properly document CC content, we would also have to implement a potentially complex tagging system denoting which content exists in the base game and which is from a mod. While virtually all players can be expected to have the DLCs to the games, as they are usually bundled post-release, this is not the case for CC materials, hence the necessity of such a system. This would be difficult and time-consuming to implement, and equally so to maintain. It is simply not an appropriate use of our resources to handle such things.
- Strategic planning and macro resource management is one of the things that staff (particularly bureaucrats!) worry about that regular users really just don't, so I recognize that a lot of this may seem easy to dismiss. Indeed, the argument for documenting CC creations is not a weak one. The creations are "official," which is why we have a page on them to begin with, and why we don't have a page on the Steam Workshop or Nexus Mods. However, this is nevertheless a calculated decision based on the systems that we use to maintain the overall quality of the site. By focusing resources into one area of the wiki that is 1) not used by that many people 2) more importantly, unduly difficult to maintain, we have to take resources from other areas. For patrollers, this means that comparatively less time will be spent reviewing content edits to, say, lore pages and more will be spent booting up Skyrim to hunt for the fix to an obscure CC mod.
Re: Layout Edit
Hi Dr Xenno, our general style and formatting policies can be found here. There are style guides for more specific articles linked on there, such as this one for book pages. If you have questions about any style guide/editing practice in particular, I would be happy to elaborate. —Atvelonis (talk) 20:08, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
Hei, I’m another admin here. Information on ingredients from the base game and its official DLC is already covered. However, if you want information on creation club mods or other fan created content, we make it a point not to cover that. If you want, you can create a personal blog post about the Rare Curios mod or go here to post information about it. There has been some debate about including CC mod articles on the main space, but no consensus has been reached yet. At this time we limit information about creation club mods to this page. The Cat Master (talk) 08:56, May 14, 2020 (UTC)
- Cat is correct here. The discussion about documenting Creation Club content on the wiki is an ongoing, albeit slow-moving discussion. It is not impossible that we will begin documenting this material in more depth in the future, but that is dependent on a number of factors, most notably the practical implementation of such information on the wiki. —Atvelonis (talk) 19:51, May 14, 2020 (UTC)