Help talk:Skyrim Content

stubs?

Should we label new skyrim articles as stubs for now? --Halfstache 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could. Unless there is a site-wide understanding that ALL the articles are new and thus lack a lot of information (which is unlikely to occur), then they would help make sure that this is understood. So my vote would be "yes".--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 01:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd been thinking that for now just the Pre-Release template was enough. That's already adding all the pages to Category:Skyrim_Pages_Needing_Verification, meaning that once the game is released, editors know which pages needs to be checked against in-game information. At that point, if the page is still a stub, it would probably make sense to replace {{Pre-Release}} with {{Stub}}. But until then, I'm not sure what advantage we gain from putting the pages into another needs-maintenance category. --Nephele^Talk 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nephele. The pre-release template implies that their are going to be gaps in our coverage, so it serves the same purpose as marking it as a stub would. Maybe a tiny tweak to the pre-release template to make it more explicit, but I don't see a reason to clutter our articles with both. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Tweaked, the pre-release template now essentially labels them as a stub now. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I actually didn't read that template thoroughly. :\ I'm going to have to agree with AKB and Nephele in light of that. And thanks for doing that AKB. That'll definately help. :) Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 02:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"

Please review this edit where I revised the "new pages" section. I did my best to make it reflect a little better what I think it should say. As I noted in hidden text in that section, I'm not sure if there is anyplace on the wiki where more detailed information is given about what editors can and can't put on the wiki with respect to "copyright" issues. If anyone has a problem with it, or a better idea, please revert/change and/or discuss here. I think that developing more comprehensive and detailed "copyright/intellectual property" policies await input from Daveh at this point. --JR (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

See Also Section

Psylocke: I appreciate your cleaning up my earlier redundancies in the "See Also" lists I (more hastily than carefully) added to the help pages awhile ago. I don't think I agree with your deletions here, however. It seems perfectly logical to include links to the layout guides for the major article types from a page with this title. Your edit summary says that the style guide is already linked to "above". I don't see any direct link to the layout pages or to the style guide. The primary reason I placed the additional See Also links on these pages is that I myself needed to dig around each time I wanted to find the layout pages. I don't think that a "style guide" will clearly and intuitively lead editors to these important pages because the term "style" has no single, clear meaning. With respect to writing, it can often mean tone, register, genre (e.g., encyclopedic). These links may not "need" to be here, as you wrote, but it's not apparent to me why they shouldn't be here, and I think they would serve to help some people navigate. Please consider my points here, or maybe others have some input. --JR (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2012 (GMT)

Yes. I can live with that. Thanks. --JR (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2012 (GMT)