User talk:TheRealLurlock/Sandbox XIV

Article Tone

Hey TRL, just noticed you were working on this page. Might I recommend a more lore-appropriate tone? I've been writing the individual mineral pages from the usual lore perspective, with game-specific information restricted to the usual sections. If this page is to act as a nexus for those articles, I don't think it should have references to what games the minerals have appeared in. —Legoless (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (GMT)

The descriptions are just bare-bones at this point, to serve as a reference so that when somebody expands on them later, they'll know where more information can be found. Ideally, I'd like to have in-game descriptions where available. I don't think we should completely avoid referencing the games - it is notable to watch the evolution of things, like the whole Malachite=Glass thing, which is new to Skyrim, even though both Malachite and Glass have appeared separately in previous games, or the naming of the mineral used to make Orcish gear (which almost seems like a joke - just because "Orichalcum" kind of sounds like "Orc".) Also noting where things can be found - like the fact that Stalhrim is found on Solstheim, but not in Skyrim, or that we now know for the first time the natural source of soul gems. Anyhow, I'll leave this up to others to expand upon. I think of this as an analog to the Lore:Flora and Lore:Bestiary pages. We have animal and vegetable, but not mineral. So leaving out the information of which games they are featured in seems like a serious oversight. I would like to vary things up a bit - I've reused the same phrases on a lot of these and it seems a bit repetitive. TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2012 (GMT)

Information on the games and the mineral's evolution throughout the series could be added to some sort of "Notes" section. For individual pages, this could be easily done, but keeping the information visible on this page might end up looking odd. We could follow the examples of Lore:People and Lore:Places, and only include small snippets for each mineral on this page, with a link to go to a full article with images, game-specific info, references, a rounder background, etc. This could result in some very small pages (I can't imagine Lore:Ruby being fleshed out much more than its snippet), but that hasn't been an issue in lorespace before. Making a separate article would also allow the entries of certain minerals in Lore:Alchemy to serve as "redirects", or to have a small transclusion. —Legoless (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2012 (GMT)

I'm not opposed to that. Though Ruby actually has some significance, since rubies in some form have appeared in every game in the series. Where it's really going to be skimpy is articles like Lead, Platinum, and Tin, which were only in Daggerfall. (It's possible references to them appear in books though - consider Brass as an example of a metal that hasn't had much game-play significance, but considerably more lore significance.) TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2012 (GMT)