Daggerfall talk:Tutorial

Is this note appropriate?

Does the note "The fact that even the tutorial quest has a bug should be a warning for things to come." really belong in a UESP article? It has been present since the original 2008 creation of the article, and seems more like a joke or meme than a genuine piece of information. It has already been removed once in 2018, but was reintroduced the same day for being "factually correct". I understand that Daggerfall has bugs, but this just seems really out of place being put in the notes on the tutorial page. --Lantern (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, this just seems unprofessional for something that's on a UESP article for an official game. I see no use in this being noted on this page, since the only information it introduces is "Daggerfall is buggy" which I don't think is relevant to a tutorial page. Acynatic (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why there is such objection to this note. There is nothing "unprofessional" about it; Daggerfall is notoriously buggy, and the note is factually correct in warning new players of this. It seems to me that there is a lack of familiarity with UESP's usual style of walkthrough notes, which include everything from relevant hints to minor trivia. The wiki is supposed to be encyclopaedic, but walkthrough pages walk a fine line between being being an article and a user guide. The note in this case firmly falls into the latter category, but this does not make it invalid or unworthy of inclusion.

If we are really going to take a no-fun-allowed approach to this page, I must insist that the note remains on the page in substance if not in form. Reword as you wish, but please don't remove information which would be useful to new players from a tutorial walkthrough page. —Legoless (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed as well with its removal. If this note is appropriate for Daggerfall's page, then it's also appropriate for most other TES games, especially Skyrim's tutorial which is notoriously buggy. For the bug on this page specifically, it's not even game breaking and could be argued that the missing tutorial stages are in the realm of cut content. While the rest of Daggerfall may be buggy, I've been through this dungeon quite a few times and haven't ever had an issue. —Dillonn241 (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you seriously underestimate the amount of gamebreaking bugs in Daggerfall if you are sincerely comparing it to a game like Skyrim. As the note states, the minor bug in the tutorial "should be a warning of things to come". —Legoless (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Even if there are game-breaking bugs, the note itself is pretty much worded as commentary, which we haven't traditionally allowed. I think that the "Notes" section should be removed in its entirety and the note under "Bugs" should be reworded to only cover the bug(s) in question, along with a patch note much like we do in any other namespace. The fact that there are so many fixes attributed to DFQFIX will quickly become apparent. If there's a strong sentiment that we should mention something global for the game, then it should be under the "Bugs" section, and it should read more professionaly...something like "A number of bugs are present in the game. A fix is available here which addresses many of them." This avoids the judgmental tone of the current note. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(←) I agree with RH's suggestion. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 08:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The note is perfectly appropriate. The tutorial quest isn't just bugged, it's broken. In the absence of third-party support, you simply will not see over one third of the quest. And this is far from being the most serious bug in the game.

Being one of the first things a new player sees, they're going to wonder where it went if they're playing a vanilla game. That's how it went for me, at least. Wording aside, new players deserve a heads-up. Echo (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I keep seeing the term "unprofessional" being thrown around, and I strongly disagree with the argument that factual commentary is unprofessional in any way. —Legoless (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)