UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations

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

This is an archive of past nominations for Featured Articles.

Page Archives
Archive 1: 2006-2007
Archive 2: 2008
Archive 3: 2009
Archive 4: 2010
Archive 5: 2011
Archive 6: 2012-2013
Archive 7: 2013-2014
Archive 8: 2015-2016
Archive 9: 2016-2021

Lore:Three Banners War[edit]

Incredible article update, what was once a stub redirect is now, imo, one of the most well formatted articles on this website.

  • Support: As nominator CoolBlast3 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Very thorough article. Deserves the nomination.Tyrvarion (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like this article quite a bit, I think some of the design elements are quite pleasing. I would point out however, that not all of those elements work properly on the mobile site. I particularly noticed the triplet of sigils just before the Notes section appears incorrectly on the mobile site. Theolaa (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks, I have fixed the triplet of sigils so it should be fine now. The problem is the mobile site has UI code that is overiding my elements to some degree, so sometimes its tricky to cover all the bases. --Jimeee (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Good sectioning. I have thought about the layout of such a page for many years, and the solution here is great and very thorough. It's an extensive topic and there is undoubtedly still more to add, but that's to be expected when the war is part of an ongoing MMO. As a snapshot in time I think this is FA-worthy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with the other sentiments, and I especially appreciate the thought that went into the design elements of the page. The military campaigns triple-image showcase and the coloured alliance sigils are of particular note. —⁠Theolaa (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Coulda sworn I already voted for this, but anyways, fantastic article. My only feedback would be maybe having an infobox but the article itself is perfect. Excellent use of formatting and images. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Unanimous —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


A fairly recent and comprehensive lore page. It really deserved its own page rather than mention in lore: magic. One of the very staple elements of the franchise. I am surprised it was expanded into a lore page that late. Really making it a valuable addition to the wiki.

  • Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm really satisfied with how the page turned out. It was sad to see such a core subject in the series only had a redirect to a small section for itself. Some more of the small enchantments from ESO contrabands could be added for completion's sake but otherwise I believe it's pretty comprehensive about the topic, especially compared to what it used to be. Thanks for the nomination! Vinovin15 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I could see this article very soon being a very good one, it has a lot of the essential framework for what I think this article should be as of now. However, at this time, entire paragraphs from this article were taken directly from lore books without using quotation to indicate this. Wikipedia's policy, which is often used as a guide by us for gaps in our own, forbids this practice. Although their reasoning does include the legal concern that this is plagiarism that will likely not be an issue in this situation, we should still strive for our articles to be in our own words, not the sources. Other sections are almost direct copies of the source material, with one or two word added, this should also be avoided.
Beyond that, I can see some very clear areas where the article can be heavily expanded. We know a lot about the history of enchanting, and yet major figures in its history like Raven Direnni are limited to a single sentence of content. Ahzidal only gets mentioned as a book that discusses the subject of enchanting. I was happy to note that the article discussed the Second Era fear of an enchanting market collapse. It should be very possible to form a compelling look at the history of enchanting, from its foundations, spread to other cultures, challenges to the art such as during the Second Era or sacking of the Imperial City, to where it currently stands in the Fourth Era. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not sure I understand the parts about "copying from the source", as I couldn't find anything regarding that in UESP's own guidelines (unless I'm mistaken), and the Wikipedia rule is, as you said, due to plagiarism. Either way I'm not sure how modifying the text of the source just to use synonyms or rearrange the order of things for the sake of it would help, personally (Though some of the sections did, already, go through rephrasing and rewrites after I originally posted it, anyways). As for your other points, I'm not sure how it could be expanded on, either. Raven Direnni has only one sentence here because...she only has one sentence of lore related to Enchanting. Anything else like her, I don't know, birthplace or cousins, are obviously more suited for her own lore page which already exists. As for things like Enchanting's "foundations and spread to other cultures", I do not believe there is any lore about things like that, so it would be impossible to expand there without making things up. Vinovin15 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: To clarify, Wikipedia's concern also includes the very real possibility the website could face litigation for plagiarism. While that is likely not a concern in this case, by definition, directly copying the sourced material without quotation is still plagiarism. It's not a good look for the UESP. As for "modifying the text of the source just to use synonyms or rearrange the order of things", that is still plagiarism. What we are looking to achieve is summarize the sourced material in our own words.
A basic example of this can be found on Lore:Hadolid. Instead of just copy pasting the text, I summarized the entirety of their initial encounter with the Hadolids in one paragraph. I also used it as a reference for the introductory paragraph where I provided a basic description of Hadolids, in which I used information provided by two different sources to creating a unique paragraph that is information dense on what the Hadolids are, something that is not provided by any of these sources.
As for your claim there is not more lore out there on enchanting, I need to disagree. See Lore:Ahzidal's Descent, a book going into detail about who could very well be the first known human enchanter. While the Enchanter's Primer mention of the decline in enchanting knowledge is currently on the article, it could be much better served than it currently is tacked onto a paragraph that it is mostly unrelated to. Or as Raven Direnni demonstrates, there is a lot more out there about Raven Direnni's history with enchanting than a single sentence. I think it would be very cool and interesting to present the first enchanter's early work, with things like her inflammable rug being very interesting topics. The article does not use Feyfolken as a reference, a text which talks about the creation of the standard tools of enchanting, their inventor, and "robotic enchanters".
Beyond that, there are also many cool stories of enchanting that could absolutely be talked about here. For example, the story of Tarshea, who enchanted his own skeleton so he could live after death. There's the fact that the Amulet of Kings was enchanted to alert the Elder Council if the Emperor dies. There's the College of Winterhold providing enchanting services to the people of Skyrim. There's the Origin of the Mages Guild which discusses how it was illegal to provide enchanting services (among other things) to the general public of the Summerset Isles. While this is not an exhaustive exploration of everything that can still be explored, I hope this is a satisfactory exploration of some of the various things that can be done. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Minor Oppose: Formatting needs work. There is without a doubt, a lot more information out there on Enchanting that's missing on this page considering how it's been in every game in some form or another. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment: I must say, I searched every nook and cranny for every crumb of information I could find on Enchanting (which was surprisingly little, given, as you said, it's been in every game). I noted down everything from the basics of enchanting and soul gems and glyphs to the most obscure mentions like binding words to cold iron, to the Telvanni's use of tantos to sigil stones. That is all to say, if there is something obvious the page is missing, please let me know so it can be added, because I looked through every piece of dialogue and book I could find about Enchanting, and I believe this should be most if not all of the lore about the specifics of it. Vinovin15 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Could do with some few more additions like Feyfolken but this page should've existed 20 years ago already. It's comprehensive and well made.CoolBlast3 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As much as I appreciate this page's existence, I don't think this article has reached its full potential yet. Featured Articles are supposed to be "deemed to be of the highest quality": pages that set an example for how other pages of its kind should look and be written/formatted. Criteria that's up for consideration includes formatting, aesthetic qualities like image placement, grammar, the clarity of the information being presented, and completeness of the content presented (in other words, does it cover most or all of the information that exists about a given subject).
I've noticed a trend where articles are being nominated for FA status on the basis that they're "necessary", contain a lot of information, or otherwise "deserve" to be Featured because a lot of work was put into it: not just this past week or month, but on several occasions in the past few years. I can understand wanting to prop up new articles and encourage more people to make pages for important subjects that don't have one (or elaborate on existing bare bones topics), but featuring an incomplete article doesn't seem like the way to go about that.
Like I said for Lore:Sex: I'm glad this page exists, and am immensely pleased that there are people willing to trawl the archives looking for every scrap of information out there about this subject, but the mere fact that this page exists now when it didn't 3 months ago, or that it's a subject that's needed its own page for years doesn't make it worthy of Featured status. Merely containing a lot of information doesn't make an article stand out above the rest: Featured Articles are supposed to be presented as examples of what a page should look like. This page covers the subject enough to not be considered a stub, but it's not one that I would show to new editors when they ask me for examples of lore pages to emulate in terms of style, writing, and depth of content.
While this page has its merits, it needs proofreading. Like AKB said, this article needs to go a lot heavier on the paraphrasing, and there's also a lot more out there that could be added. It has a lot of information, but what it has only scratches the surface of the depths of enchanting. Instead of listing every item that's been enchanted in a unique way, the examples cited could be used in broader statements describing the utilities of enchanting. With that said, there are also some statements in this article that are so broad, they inch over the line into inaccuracy.
For example: "Enchanted objects can be used to to summon benevolent spirits." This statement doesn't specify under what circumstances an enchantment can summon the spirits in question, and leaves enough ambiguity for one to reasonably assume the article is trying to claim that any enchanted object can be used to summon a benevolent spirit.
The formatting and general aesthetics in this article could also use some work: I'm glad people are using the beautiful images Legends has provided us, but it can be harder to make images that are taller than they are wide fit neatly into an article. Table of Contents placement is also a factor in aesthetic appeal: there was a large space between the first paragraphs and the next section due to the default TOC alignment which was a detriment to the page's aesthetic quality. This is easily remedied by adding {{TOCright}} wherever the table of contents is desired to be placed, and I've gone and remedied it: I could at least fix some of the small things while I'm waxing about the bigger leaks, but I felt it was important to bring up because image and TOC placement is a huge part of formatting on the aesthetic side of things. At least where my vote is concerned, image placement can make or break an article. It's important that an article not only delivers a wealth of information in detail with paragraphs that progress logically into more distinct topics, but for the reading experience to not be cumbersome.
The long and short of it is this page needs more time. Time for proofreading, adjustments to formatting, and additional sources to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Enchanting is a subject with many facets and numerous applications: writers have had over two decades to pile on the lore like Mauna Kea. At 39 references, there's no way this page does more than scratch the surface of what we know about enchanting (not that "long page = good", but I refute the notion that this page is comprehensive enough to warrant a Feature as it currently stands). Weapons, armor, and items aren't the only things capable of being enchanted, and ESO has many quests and collectibles, few of which have been mentioned. -MolagBallet (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Overall pretty good. Could maybe use a history section, but the rest gives all the needed info. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: None. 4 Support, 3 Oppose —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

General:Obscure Locations[edit]

Not the most orthodox page, but very useful when it comes to documentation of all the locations. Gives more perspective on Tamiel's size as well.

  • Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a list page, not an article. The information on it is also a little dubious, which is why it's in General namespace. A useful page but not FA-worthy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Same reasons as above. Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Ditto to the above: this article is useful but lists aren't the kind of page that set an example for other articles to follow. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I like it but yea the whole list thing is the only issue The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose. 3 Oppose, 1 Support —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


That is a really detailed article on the topic that I'd not expect such a serious page to be made.

  • Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not sure what the policy on supporting pages made by oneself is, so I'll change if needed. But for now, I definitely agree with the support as well. Really proud of how the page turned out. Thanks for the nomination! CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though there are a few things that could use reorganized and perhaps a few missing details (I will be sure to add if I find anything), I think this article is the GOLD STANDARD for references with all the groups it has. I only go with comment, not support, as I'm not sure if an article with the mature tag should be featured. I don't necessarily have a stance one way or the other, but I think it bears discussion. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Nice and comprehensive page on a topic previously untouched by the wiki. Vinovin15 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Very well done article although I would hazard to guess the article topic is far from exhaustively covered yet, also just to throw my two cents in I very much dislike the citation categories and am unsure why we ever implemented them on certain lore pages in the first place. The one thing they set out to accomplish is seemingly enhanced aesthetic but for me personally I just prefer the long list of total citations under one block that way you know how many citations an article contains and I don’t like how blocky the citations appear in the actual article text itself because of these. Dcking20 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment: Lore:Molag Bal's ref list is formatted that way because it has well over 300 citations, and I had a hard time reading them while overhauling the page (I also haven't gotten around to undoing the sorted references yet: too much other stuff to do!). I don't think this page needs its references organized that way. -— Unsigned comment by MolagBallet (talkcontribs) at 17:10 on 22 April 2023‎
      • Comment: I took your suggestions to mind and restored the sources/references to the regular style CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's good that this page exists, and I'm glad it does, but I think it's a little too early for it to be nominated. Like Dcking mentioned, I feel like this topic hasn't been covered to the fullest extent, and I think the priority of certain bits of information could be reevaluated.

    At the moment, the racial sections of the page mostly rely on rumors / the derogatory opinions of other Tamrielic races and ESO contraband items to talk about sex and courtship. When they don't, they're laser-focused on one specific thing that probably shouldn't be representative of an entire race's cultural views/practices relating to sex: Crassius Curio certainly shouldn't be the sole defining feature of Imperial cultural views on sex (we know there's more out there!), and the section detailing Argonian courtship and mating rituals only covers the bare minimum. The paragraph structure on Bosmer cultural views on sex feels disjointed: every other line, a new subject is being brought up, as if the Notes section on a page were taken out of bullet-point format and constructed into a paragraph. This issue is persistent throughout the page.

    Very important article, excellent that it's being worked on: the amount of work that's already been done is commendable, and I appreciate all the effort that's going into the subject! It's about time we had it all in one place... but this nomination feels like taking a cake out of the oven before it's done. -— Unsigned comment by MolagBallet (talkcontribs) at 17:10 on 22 April 2023‎
    • Comment: Thanks for the feedback! I tried sprucing up the Bosmer section to sound less...robotic. And I get the issue with it sounding like a "notes" section the entire article, but when so much lore is from one-liners like ESO contraband it's difficult. Would appreciate any suggestions on rephrasing things though! CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'll be honest... this just doesn't seem to be that great of an article in terms of featured articles. Like it's mostly just a list of small things, and it doesn't really seem to look as good as the other featured articles. Not that the content isn't good, it just isn't really in the same vein as other articles that have achieved featured status, and I'm not sure it ever will be. I'm also worried that the featured status is being pushed mainly for meme reasons, rather than due to the actual article itself.... Jeancey (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment:Not that I have an issue with you opposing, I do just find it sort of rude that you consider this a "meme article" when it's something I and others have put plenty of effort into. Calling it "just a list" is also a gross simplification, especially in its current state. It's disheartening to see UESP adminship outright call out an article as a meme (assumingly because they don't like the content of it), but thanks for the feedback I guess? CoolBlast3 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment:I also take umbrage with the "meme page" remark. Feels rather immature to say over a topic as broad and culturally notable as reproduction and its associated rituals. Especially with it being such a comprehensive page. Stating it probably "never will" be worthy of feature status is rather disrepectful to work done on it, even if you aren't a fan of its current state. Tarponpet (talk) 4:46 AM, June 15th 2023 (EST)
  • Weak Oppose: This is a broad topic and is understandably difficult to tackle. I think it does a great job attempting this, but I don't believe it's FA-worthy based on length alone. As noted above, much of it reads like a list of disparate sex-related information. Some of these concerns have been brought up on the talk page, specifically around certain miscellaneous lines not being directly relevant to the subject matter. I also noticed there is a lot of detail around hybrid/interracial people, which is certainly sex-related but strikes me as somewhat out of place and probably deserves its own article. For example, the Imperials section of the page doesn't really mention intercourse at all. Overall I think this is a great article but personally I'd like to see some of our many shorter, more focused lore articles nominated for FA. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I did a lot of work on it myself but I think its a legitimately valuable page to have, especially with its information on racial compatibility. There isn't much I would change about it except adding more information. Tarponpet (talk) 4:41 PM, June 15th 2023 (EST)
  • Support: Given the super broad scope a topic like this will cover it will likely constantly see more additions over time, especially when new eso content is released, so while it may not be fully exhaustive yet, I think the coverage now is more than adequate now to ease my prior concerns with that, the mature subject matter aside, this is a job well done and worthy of featured status. Dcking20 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: I agree with the comments by MolagBallet & Legoless. I don't feel the mature tag is really an issue. After all, the material isn't really unsuitable for anyone old enough to be playing the games in the first place. The tag exists mainly to allow mature readers to exercise their discretion.--Draugluin (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Could use a few changes to how its sections work/divide up info, but with a bit of improvement I could see it becoming featured. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: None. 5 Support, 4 Oppose —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Lore:Mehrunes Dagon[edit]

A well developed article describing the Daedric Prince of Destruction, which includes information from all games

  • Support: As nominator. Zebendal (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Great article with a lot of info. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Really good article. Deserves the nomination.Tyrvarion (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic article, every section looks great The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Very comprehensive and well-sourced article. Vinovin15 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Unanimous —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Online:Juste Nin[edit]

A simple but complete NPC article for ESO. This guy only appears during a limited time event and can only be encountered randomly. The various outcomes of this meeting depends on the player completing other event-specific random encounters. Experiencing all the outcomes requires quite a time investment (or good luck). This article already has all the dialogue, imagery, and item links, after just two weeks of the inaugural event. This is stellar work in terms of capturing time-limited info, a lot of which was actually gathered on the PTS in advance of the event even going live. This is the gold standard of ESO NPC documentation.

  • Support: As nominator. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Far too short, whole thing can be read in under 2 minutes. Yet another example of why uesp needs a Good/Comprehensive Articles system, to distinguish pages such as this one which are well-written but not feature worthy. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment: We don't have a Good Article system, and length has not generally been a factor in determining Featured Articles. See previous gamespace nominations such as Skyrim:Chillrend and Legends:Cloudy Dregs Inn. —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: Though the article is concise and details what it needs to, I feel like it's organized a bit... oddly? It feels obvious now, reading it a second time, that each offering is a separate choice, but the structure somewhat makes each choice sound sequential. Either sub-headers for each choice, or using the standardized "choice" layout, would make it feel less confusing— maybe a combination of both, since it's an event encounter. Despite that, it's not needlessly bloated, and even has pictures for each outcome. —- Ingura (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I believe this is a close-to-perfect article, but there just isn't much here. Not its fault, though. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: A good article, but it feels like its too short, but it's not its fault.--Zebendal (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I concur that this article is too sparse and wouldn’t feel right to display as a standout Imo. Dcking20 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: None. 3 Support, 3 Oppose —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


I normally don't consider the lore pages I create myself as nomination worthy per say, but this project wasn't done by me alone, but another great editor WriterS who really made this page possible, and this allowed the page to be made in such a great manner. Only reason why I'm upping it for a nomination status, as it goes into great details on Ghosts and how they function and what they are, and the unique lore they provide. Plus I always like to hear good feedback on what can be improved with it. So its a win for me either way.

  • Support: As nominator.TheVampKnight (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: There are some grammatical inconsistencies here and there— namely, run-on sentences, and misplaced punctuation— but the information seems well thought-out, if not a bit sparse in some areas. Using em-dashes and colons can help with the run-ons. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The article is long and well-formatted, but it falls below standard in terms of grammar and contents. From a quick reading, I see a lot of irrelevant lines about ghosts appearing during the events of certain games, which is not notable or lore-relevant. The page requires a lot of cleanup before I would consider it FA-worthy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The history section is quite extensive, I'm not sure what should be in it but mainly just the super important stuff involving larger scale subjects like Lysandus' ghost army. The rest of the article is rather good. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Mostly same points as above. History has unnecessary info. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It needs to be cleaned up.--Zebendal (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: For a subject as broad as "ghosts" this isn’t a bad attempt at documenting at all, could use some spicing up imo maybe some more images in the actual body of the article. Dcking20 (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: None. 2 Support, 3 Oppose —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


Really detailed and comprehensive page with a lot of detail regarding fairly new content.

  • Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Really nice and in-depth page on the Druids. It's nice to see how far it came due to High Isle and Firesong. CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: One of the great world building pieces to come out of this recent content cycle by eso. Dcking20 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: As the main contributor of this page, I appreciate the nomination. I think I was able to add what I could to the page, but if anyone else has anything else to add, please feel free to do so.Zebendal (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Great expansive article. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Not sure why this article was still tagged as a stub. It's expansive, well detailed, and tackles a difficult and wide subject. In particular, I think the opening paragraphs do a good job providing a general and up-to-date overview of druidism in TES. My only complaint is the reliance on UOL YouTube and Twitch references - these need to be archived on-site as a matter of priority. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: After I created the article with the limited lore Daggerfall gave us its nice that Zeb has been able to constantly update with information from each new DLC, so that its never outdated. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


Volendrung only spawns 4-5 times per day, and thus learning its behavior for documentation purposes is put on a strict time table. There's also the fact that the artifact has about 30 minutes that it will be up, and you are competing with other players over obtaining the artifact. Even if you pick up Volendrung, it will eventually kill you and someone is likely to take it away before you are able to grab it. The things I documented in the page are primarily from my own personal testing in PVP scenarios, and I also consulted with patch notes to fill in any gaps that we know of. I believe the top section can be spruced a bit, but this is the best we are going to get the page. We probably have the most informative page on the artifact on the internet. The only thing I can think of that we are missing is the sound effects for the hammer spawning, being revealed, and despawning, which would require someone to be on and recording when those three events happen, which makes it unlikely to obtain.

  • Support: As nominator. - Zebendal (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: One thing that I am unsure of changing is the sentence
"first of many artifacts stolen by Sheogorath. He unleashed the artifacts upon Cyrodiil for the purpose of putting an end to his boredom surrounding the lack of chaos in the Three Banners War, and for the fun of keeping his Daedric siblings on their guard."
Reason why I worded it like that is because the Devs stated that they planned to add multiple artifacts, and Sheogorath worded it like he plans to do so as well. Should I reword that bit?- Zebendal (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well rounded ESO article, good use of imagery Imperialbattlespire (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment:I have added subsections to the page, and we now have 2/3 of the audio for volendrung, specifically spawning and despawning. All we need is the Volendrung reveal audio. -Zebendal (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: The information is thorough, even if it's missing a single audio clip; it seems to have all the information you really need about the artifact. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Sure, this article is of high enough quality. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I’m more of a lore page guy myself but this is nicely done. Dcking20 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported. Robin Hood(talk) 02:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Skyrim:Fishing (activity)[edit]

Very comprehensive page with almost any detail you might want to find about the topic. It would also give some attention to our Creation Club project. --Ilaro (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: As nominator. --Ilaro (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Probably the most detailed fishing overview on the internet. --Zebendal (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: It is very well done page that covers the topic extensively.Tyrvarion (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Looking at this article gives me Wiki-envy. Incredibly thorough: the icing on the cake, for me, was the black-bordered section breaks between each fishing zone type. It's subtle, but very much appreciated. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: A fantastically informative article on the subject. Could possibly use some more image considering how many sections it has, but it's fine as it is. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported. Robin Hood(talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lore:Sea of Ghosts[edit]

A very expansive article covering every aspect of Tamriel's northern waters. There is a lot of information to cover on this topic, and the article is neatly divided into history, society, and geographic sections. It also makes excellent use of imagery from the games and provinces this body of water has appeared in.

  • Support: As nominator. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support:This has my support, looks good. TheVampKnight (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Croaker (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: A very thorough article. The islands section is very useful at summarizing the places mentioned from across each game. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: The landmass sections could benefit from having more paragraph breaks, but besides that, a well-rounded article. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported.Robin Hood(talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


Nominating mostly my own page here, I think the dramatic difference between what the page used to look like before the massive overhaul is pretty evident if you look at https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Blades&diff=2181994&oldid=2180708 what the page used to look like compared to now.

  • Support: As nominator. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Excellent page, covers every nook and cranny that exists on the Blades. Obviously I have to support this. However, I believe that the Dragonguard section is big enough that it should be moved into its own page, with a brief section explaining about it before it is featured.Zebendal (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: This page has everything I, or another reader could want to know on this subject, great use of imagery, just a solid page. Support.Dcking20 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Solid page, well seasoned with images. I only have two problems that prevent me from supporting. Firstly, I think the Dragonguard stuff should be moved to its own article. Secondly, I don't like the use of certain images that aren't necessarily in-universe depictions. The Oblivion icon from the UI and the Blades logo may not conform with the Tamrielic perspective laid out in the lore guidelines. -Dcsg (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Reply: I had similar concerns about the Blades icon until I recalled the Emblem decoration from that game, the description of which makes the in-universe connection clear. This isn't the first time we've seen game icons appear in-universe (e.g., Moon-and-Star, Oht, the Ouroboros), so I don't have any issues with the use of this one in lorespace. —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Dcsg on the matter of Dragonguard information being moved to its own page. The Dragonguard part can be mentioned, and a navigation link should be provided after such a mention. Other than that, the page is great. -MolagBallet (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment: Amending my comment to add: the section on Sai Sahan's Dragonguard is gratuitously long, to the point where it warrants the Dragonguard stuff going on a different page. I felt like I should clarify that. The Blades and the Dragonguard are intertwined, one comes from the other, etc. But a lot of the "just Dragonguard" stuff doesn't have anything to do with the Blades themselves, secret service of the Emperor. I think the information can be removed and replaced with a summary on how the Dragonguard came to be the Blades. -MolagBallet (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose:I tried to split them up but I should have done a talk page, but like the others said these are two different factions and need to be treated as such so I oppose the nomination based on those grounds. All the Dragonguard stuff should be on the Dragonguard lore page, and the Blades page must, focus mainly on the actual Blades faction, which means its should give a brief description of what came before maybe a small paragraph with the Dragonguard but the Dragonguard must not be the main focus like it is. If its seperated, and we get two separate lore pages, then I'll happily change my vote. I am however impressed by the work you put into it so not downing it at all just, it needs to be two lore pages.TheVampKnight (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Going to have to agree with the above opposition. Using Wikipedia as an example, articles with related, but distinct, information in large amounts— preceding or succeeding— are often given a redirect in a separate section. Usually, you only detail tangential information if it's brief, but this page in particular has three sections for preceding information. It's fairly excessive, so that alone warrants a separation into its own page. What's listed in the introductory paragraph suffices, and "before the Blades" should have its own section with a redirect to the Dragonguard page. If you feel the need to go in depth about the Dragonguard, detail the last leadership (Sai Sahan), then immediately go into Blades. Besides that, it looks to be a well-rounded article. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: None. Not enough votes after over a year and no consensus (2-2). Robin Hood(talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)