Online talk:Cleric Arvina

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


I don't see anything wrong with the formatting or writing of the article. If a large amount of info is missing, that's a different issue, but all I can think of that could be missing would be a few generic dialogue lines. —Legoless (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What part of the formatting has ever been taken as acceptable on this wiki? If you're unsure of how things are done properly you can look over some of the featured NPC pages for examples. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Everything seems pretty standard for the Online namespace, so I've removed the tag pending some clarification on the supposed issues here. —Legoless (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The Online namespace is not immune to having proper standards. I don't know why you'd want to promote a format that has previously been deemed as poor as the standard for this namespace. I would like to think that an admin would want to promote high standards across the whole wiki, and not allow a whole namespace to wallow in the mud that this format represents. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Refusing the point out those "standards" will quickly devolve into edit warring, so I'm sure it would be appreciated if you could outline your specific concerns after cooling off a little. I can't spot a single typo or issue with the writing of this article, and the only formatting to speak of is the Quest Dialogue section. Including the player's dialogue lines in bold is something we've been doing with ESO since the start, so pointing out FAs from other namespaces isn't very helpful considering most of them use prose. Is it the indenting that has you peeved? It really shouldn't turn into a puzzle if there are such glaring oversights with this specific article. —Legoless (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

() Hm, why don't you just say how you want it, Silencer? Besides, the opening lines are written by you, and you copypasted the dialogue here. So you've contributed to the wallowing it seems...? Rofl! Tib (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The deficiencies are glaring, the current formatting is poor and has been deemed poor by those who formulated our style standards. As you were around with Skyrim I would have thought you might remember that it went through the same process of including player dialogue at the start just so it could be on the page rather than completely absent. Then as articles were properly written and attended to the dialogue was put into prose. There is no logical reason other than your personal feelings about me to oppose the natural movement from empty page > information present > properly written article. Once you realise your opposition is purely based on personal feelings I expect an apology from you.
Tib, I expect an apology from you for your ill-informed and ill-mannered response. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Tib's comment could be taken as flippant, which may not be entirely professional, but you yourself are pushing for a change without explaining your reasoning or giving examples of what is wrong. If past discussions are any indication, that doesn't typically work out well. Would you mind specifically stating what exactly is wrong with the format for those of us in the cheap seats? Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 00:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)