Oblivion talk:Emer Dareloth

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Round One[edit]

I don't think this should be deleted because it is saying all the information available on the subject.--Joshie164 08:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, but the page contains much redundant information. We already have the necessary information on Dareloth here, plus we have information on the gray cowl's curse here and here. I'm afraid the page may have to go.--Willyhead 06:23, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Yes but none of them explain all three in one.--Joshie164 08:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Having another page grouping three already explained topics uses up more wiki space so we tend to avoid doing it.--Willyhead 06:28, 9 February 2008 (EST)

So you delete the other 3 instead because 3 topics must take up more than one.

No, because the other three pages have more important info on them- Such as the Ultimate Heist page only has a small section added in on the gray cowl- the majority of the page provides a quest walkthrough. Secondly we wouldn't delete the Corvus Umbranox page since it is an important NPC page containing extra info on the NPC rather than just info on the curse. Putting all three of the articles together would be very messy.--Willyhead 06:36, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Not neccesarily, if it was done right...--Joshie164 08:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)

You are duplicating information. The only correct place for the information on Corvux Umbranox is on his page; Willyhead has already explained the correct places for other information. You obviously want to help improve the site but this is not the way to go about doing it. Please stop removing the prod tag from this article. –RpehTCE 06:56, 9 February 2008 (EST)

I haven't duplicated anything.

The only time I even looked at other pages was to get pictures.--Joshie164 08:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)

But the info you put on here is already covered on other pages, just in different words. Volanaro 10:47, 9 February 2008 (EST)
And a bit of advice, don't pick a fight with an administrator, I've seen people getting indefinit blocks from the wiki for trying that! Volanaro 10:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Long and short of it is this character is only mentioned by name and never appears in the game. If we were to have a page for every character who was ever mentioned only by name, they would outnumber the pages for people who DO exist in the game. (Think of every character mentioned by name in a book, for example.) The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the only objective way to do it is to only create pages for people you can actually meet in the game, not least because we have very little information for those that don't actually exist. (Notice all the (?)'s in the NPC summary - you'll never be able to fill those in because the information doesn't exist.) --TheRealLurlock Talk 10:58, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Even if you don't get too meet him, he is an important part of the Thieves Guild questline, which is why I did this. Oh, and about the comment saying people have been blocked for arguing with Admins, don't you think that's a bit childish? I mean, someone raises a good argumentitive point and gets blocked for it. Anyway, I think we should just stop this, it's getting stupid. Maybe we should just start afresh.--Joshie164 04:12, 10 February 2008 (EST)

It's not that people were arguing, i'm just advising you before your comments escalate any further, the people i'm talking about were sending direct insults. Back to the point the point, normally we do not bother with pages for non-exsistent characters no matter how significant they are to the storyline. Volanaro 05:40, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I haven't insulted anyone, Have I? I hope not anyway..

I made this as a sort of practice really because I've only been here 3 days... I haven't, and am not going too, insult anyone.

I just disagree with the fact that this should be deleted.

Anyway, how long is it/what do I wait for before I know it's been deleted?

I mean, what's the procedure?--Joshie164 08:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)

The full deletion policy is here, but the basic answer is that the page will be deleted in a week unless there's a clear decision against it. You haven't insulted anybody - the problem has been the repeated removal of the deletion tag despite several requests to stop. Let me give you a bit more detail about why several users think this page should be deleted:
  1. There's already a page called Dareloth that contains most of the known information about Emer Dareloth.
  2. Corvus Umbranox has his own page, as does the Gray Fox and the Gray Cowl of Nocturnal. Creating a further page that duplicated information contained on those pages is not a good idea.
  3. Emer Dareloth does not appear in the game and not even in the Construction Set so trying to treat him like a typical NPC isn't going to work - as Lurlock pointed out, look at all the ? characters that will never get values.
I'd agree that the name of this article is probably better than just "Dareloth" so I'm going to suggest that once this one is deleted we move the other over here. –RpehTCE 06:43, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Yh i didn't say you had insulted anyone, just worried that you might, by the way, i see you have the welcome message on your talk page, it does say that if you want to practice then you should use the sandbox, a lot of users on here do that as it saves us all alot of hassle clearing up pointless test pages on the wiki. Volanaro 07:01, 10 February 2008 (EST)
I agree this article needs to be deleted. There is no reason to have two articles both describing a single NPC who doesn't even exist in the game. As for the name of the article, since the character never appears in game, there is no objective way to determine whether "Emer Dareloth" or "Dareloth" is the better name for the article. However, I'm inclined to vote for "Dareloth" as the article for two reasons. First, it's the article that already exists and there is no reason to replace a perfectly good article with a new article just because a new editor comes along who has no interest in collaborating and improving what's already on the site. Second, in most of the places where a player is going to encounter Dareloth's name (his garden, his house, etc.), he is only referred to as "Dareloth". Therefore most readers are likely to search simply on "Dareloth" and will not know that his full name is "Emer Dareloth".
It may be worth creating a redirect from "Emer Dareloth" to "Dareloth". In most cases I'm in favour of just changing the existing article into a redirect so that the page history is preserved. However, in this case I don't see anything valuable in the page history and I don't think it's worth in any way rewarding an editor for a pointless edit war. I'd rather just delete the entire history and then create a new redirect after the fact. --NepheleTalk 17:25, 10 February 2008 (EST)

What's your problem?

If most people don't know he is called "Emer", then why does everyone I have spoken to know it?--Joshie164 05:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Nephele's point is that most people who play the game won't know that. Almost all the dialogue and references in the game are to the Garden of Dareloth. There are only two instances where "Emer" is mentioned - both in speeches by Corvus right at the end of the Thieves Guild quests. Anybody looking for more information is more likely to search for "Dareloth" than "Emer Dareloth". That's why the page should be there. If there is a redirect on this page, then both searches will work. –RpehTCE 08:05, 11 February 2008 (EST)

(Following this discussion, the article and this talk page were deleted. Until the subject was brought up again...)

Round Two[edit]

Why are we going through this again? This page was already deleted one, it is for a non-existent character, and the Oblivion:Dareloth article was doing fine, now i see that has been turned into a redirect to here, what exactly is going on? --Volanaro 09:04, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I've restored the previous discussion so that we don't need to repeat it all. And I've restored the articles to the original (and in my mind preferable) arrangement: an article at Dareloth, and a redirect from Emer Dareloth to Dareloth. If anyone thinks this needs to be changed, I strongly recommend first reading the entire previous discussion and then explaining on the talk page why a change is necessary. --NepheleTalk 12:56, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Personally I think it should be just Dareloth, for the reasons pointed out in the previous discussion. Volanaro 04:30, 19 April 2008 (EDT)