UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Tamriel:Bestiary

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Deletion Review discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Lore:Bestiary

The result of this discussion is keep: the page has been improved and it's purpose clarified. --Nephele 13:10, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

The purpose of this page is not clear: what needs to be said about creatures that is not game-specific? See also my comments at Tamriel Bestiary --Nephele 13:05, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

• Depends. I'd say delete unless its purpose is more clarified. However, if the page were to include all creatures from all games, perhaps with side-notes indicating which game(s) they were seen in, (similar to Tamriel/Books), I could support keeping it. --TheRealLurlock 14:12, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

• It's main purpose when it was created was, I assume, to be a central monster database in which all Tamrielic monsters are listed in the bestiary/monsters page format as shown in other namespaces. Some options on the way to do it would be to either make it:
  • Like the other Tamriel pages with their A-Z lists, and make a column next to each monster indicating what game(s) they belong to.
  • Its own page where it can be set up by creature type like the Morrowind:Monsters page.
  • A new page, with an efficient categorization style that would be able to handle all TES monsters in an organized manner. This may take longer, but in order to handle all the monsters, it would be necessary to have it in a standard format.

Anyway, I am unable to work on it (I'm in the process of moving and switching schools.) So, someone who has decent knowledge of tables and organizational skills should take over. It would probably be best not left to the entire editing community to make this from scratch. If someone or a group of editors were to work hard on it, keep it. If nobody will bother with improving it, delete it.--Werdnanoslen 18:48, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

• Too early to tell, so keep. It's a stub, and stubs aren't supposed to be deleted just because they're stubs. It should be marked as a stub, and if no one wants to work on it in a month or so, then it probably should be proposed for deletion. I would be happy to work on it some, but I'm afraid I only know the creatures from Oblivion and Morrowind. --Aristeo 01:45, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

• What happened to the content of the Tamriel Monsters pages? The purpose of the page was to list all monsters/creatures found in the world of the Elder Scrolls. Game specific statistics would be in the appropriate game namespace and would be linked to. If the content has been moved elsewhere that is fine and its a matter of whether to include a global list or not (I would say yes). -- DaveH 09:18, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

Those pages have a bias for some of the older games, but since most of the editors here have a bias for Morrowind and Oblivion, it should work out well. ;) --Aristeo 09:57, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

Most of the Tamriel pages were created well before Morrowind was released. I did update some of them with Morrowind information but that is why it seems to favor the older games. -- DaveH 10:45, 19 September 2006 (EDT)

• I threw a list up on the talk page. I'll leave it up to somebody else who knows the earlier games better than I do to decide what to do with it. --TheRealLurlock 15:14, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Okay, since nobody else was doing it, I decided to go ahead and create a more complete bestiary, similar to the other Tamriel pages. Take a look. It's still sparse on descriptions, since I don't know the earlier games at all, but I think at the least we can probably close this deletion review. All in favor, say "Aye". --TheRealLurlock 10:12, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

• The deletion review seems to have provoked a good discussion on what should be on this page, so my first concern of not knowing what belongs here has been addressed. And now with Lurlock filling an initial template for the pages, I think that also puts enough structure in place for editors to start to usefully build on. So my concerns have been addressed. And reading through the other responses, they seem to generally say "if the page can be improved, keep". So I've gone ahead and said that the result of the discussion is keep.
• Also, I'm experimenting with a new system for "completed" discussions on the Deletion Review page, which is to hide most of the discussion from the main page. It's not to discourage anyone from continuing to chime in: if you'd like to, still add any comments here (preferably inside the noinclude tag). But I think it's more useful to have the Deletion Review page primarily show the active discussions. --Nephele 13:10, 22 September 2006 (EDT)