Skyrim talk:Thieves Guild (place)

Possible Merge?

Merge with the Ragged Flagon? DunmerHistorian 07:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. the "thieves guild" has a little ole page with nothing on it.

• Agreed, there is a Thieves Guild (faction) page too. The Ragged Flagon page is much more relevant to the building. --Guitaristanime 01:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think this should be merged. There's no such thing in Skyrim as a place called the Thieves Guild. The information at Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction) should be replaced with a redirect to Skyrim:Thieves Guild, where the content should replace the disambig page. Minor Edits 10:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. You can fast-travel to the "Thieves Guild", a map marker that takes you to the secret entrance within Riften. As far as merging the articles, I think it's a good idea, but there needs to be some note of the "Thieves Guild" map marker. ?• JA^Talk 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is another one that has been suggested for merging with no dissenters for a long time, can some one complee this or give me advice what I need to do to complete. Cheers. Biffa (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2014 (GMT)

Name of page to "The Thieves Guild"?

Clearly, "the" would be part of the "official" name of both place and faction/organization. Re-naming this page and Skyrim:Thieves_Guild_(faction) accordingly makes sense to me, if it doesn't conflict with an important standard.

It would also deal with the awkward description for the page: Thieves Guild is a/the.... Jreynolds2 16:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge and Renaming

I think the proposed merge is a good idea. The current disambiguation scheme is probably needlessly complex. We could have the page Skyrim:The Ragged Flagon to deal with the place and "Skyrim:Thieves Guild" for the faction, mentioning the map marker with the same name. Most people searching for "Thieves Guild" will look for the faction, taking them through an additional disambiguation page is unnecessary.

So basically the proposal would be:

• merge the current content into "Skyrim:The Ragged Flagon" and "Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)"
• get rid of this article
• move "Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)" to "Skyrim:Thieves Guild"

--Alfwyn 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I've never seen this disambig before, but it is definitely not necessary. --Krusty 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... as the person who originally requested the disambiguation page, at a point when I was very new to the game, I completely support the merge as well. The following is probably unnecessary to those who will work on it, but just in case I can lend anything to the re-design, I would like to point out is that the merge should address the fact that players will think about the Thieves Guild sometimes as a place and sometimes as a faction, and the game seems to communicate that as well, ("Talk to/return to x at the Thieves Guild"). At the time I was first interested in learning about the faction, I think "(the) thieves guild" simply directed to the Ragged Flagon, and at that time--if I recall correctly--it was not fast and intuitive to get from that formerly-simple page ("It's a bar in Riften") to a basic overview of the Thieves Guild as a faction/organization. Now, there are cross-references that render the disambiguation page unnecessary. I think that technically, the guild is actually not a place at all. It is an organization that has a headquarters. The headquarters encompass both zones of the Ragged Flagon. However the Ragged Flagon itself is a few things. It is a bar. It is PART of the headquarters, and it is a place that encompasses an additional zone, the Ragged Flagon - Cistern which is related both geographically and conceptually. The RF is initially accessible only through the ratway, and later has a more convenient access point, through the "secret entrance" > Cistern. Not that it will take a team of rocket scientists to effect a useful merge, but there is a fair amount of data that can be organized in many different ways, and tracking or thoughtfully considering the goals and thought processes of a few players of different degrees of naivety/sophistication seems important for such a vital component of Skyrim. I'm happy to try to contribute to a project in any way that I can. I'm still not that knowledgeable like many of you with tons of experience that lets you understand the best ways to guide users, and I'm especially deficient in understanding the wiki system technically, but as I've seen recognized throughout the wiki, that's not always an entirely bad thing, right? --Jreynolds2^{Talk Contrib E-mail} 09:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to get rid of this page in order to get rid of the disambiguation. Delete the disambiguation and provide a note on this page. Plus, we need a separate page for this because it is a separate place. elliot (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It’s all about avoiding unnecessary disambig pages, and this is a prime example. Simply set up the faction page and provide a note on top of the page linking to the place page. Exactly what should be done with Winterhold and a few other pages where 99% of users knows what they’re searching for. --Krusty 08:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I don't know if I'm helping, or getting in the way here. How about deleting the disambiguation page now? Direct go searches to the faction page, to which I've added a first line as I think Krusty advises: It links to the Ragged Flagon place page, which, in turn links (at least for now) to the "secret entrance" place page. --JR^{Talk E-mail} 15:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the TG one should go right away. It is merely a map marker added for convenience, without much to say about it. A link to the "Thieves Guild" place would look much better on the faction page. -- Krusty 09:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But Elliot is right, the question whether to keep this page is largely independent of whether to move "Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)" to "Skyrim:Thieves Guild". I think we should do that move now. --Alfwyn 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)