| 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. |
General:UR
I am proposing a deletion review of General:UR. This is a page about a supposedly canceled sci-fi pirate game. The issue as I pointed out on the talk page is that this game has absolutely nothing to do with The Elder Scrolls, the subject of this wiki. In particular, I object to its inclusion on General:Canceled Games, which is specifically a listing of cancelled games in the TES series.
An unreleased science fiction game has as much place on UESP as an article about Fallout 3. We avoid hosting non-TES-related content by long-standing consensus as that is not the purpose of this wiki project.
From what I can tell, the main source for this game's brief existence seems to be the following quote from Michael Kirkbride, posted on the forums of his own monkeytruth.net website:
- "It's set on a gas planet named like UR for Jupiter but it's way in the future so everyone's forgotten that name plus we both love ancient cultures so we can play with the Etruscans and the Medes and BABYLONIAN BULL-PEOPLE, and TOTALLY with air-whales for ships, right, and metal is so scarce that each cannonball has its own name and people eat bone-meal, right, because meat is totally, totally scarce and therefore cannibalism is totally normal and--" and he's all, "Wait, back up the train. That sounds weird. What if we set it in Tamriel?"
I am not doubting the significance of this proposal's influence on Redguard and later titles, but the actual concept of UR as a game seems to have been a pitch that existed briefly before being immediately rejected. Interesting history and archival work, but not something UESP needs to document in its own right. Any relevant information relating to the development of Redguard or other TES games can be relocated elsewhere.
—Legoless (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or Userfy: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as is: As page author. There's zero harm or damaging effect to the wiki to just have this information hosted as a curiosity. If Arena itself were originally a space game before transitioning to fantasy epic, the fact that it was once a space game and that echoes of those ideas made it throughout the series would be entirely relevant to that game series. I'm baffled by such a hostile approach to archival work. Ideas lead into other ideas, things are carved away and changed throughout development, having this information documented helps inform the reader of how things ended up the way they did, and have a more comprehensive understanding of a topic. There's zero reason to delete the page other than your personal perception of archival information as being somehow untidy for a video game wiki. TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not personally hostile to archival work and I'm not sure where you're reading that from. I am an inclusionist and I have long been a strong proponent of expanding our General space. My reasoning for deletion is as stated above. —Legoless (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry if that was accusatory. It's just a pattern I've noticed, though it's not all you. General:Obscure Locations, Lore:Imperials, Lore:Talos Cult, and General:Ur have had archival work prodded at for removal or relocation due to some manner of perceived untidiness despite quality background information. I understand this is typical wiki housekeeping or whatever, but it does come across as hostile when these things are instantly upjumped into talk pages and debates instead of contacting me to discuss your issue when we've all known each other for a good while now. Fighting every step along the way to just have things documented is less than motivating. TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: It is just housekeeping, and you're right that it is demotivating to have your work moved/stripped/deleted. This is not at all meant as a knock on the great archival work you're doing, but rather an attempt to establish consensus on the scope of UESP as a project. Personally I think the expansion of General:Canceled Games has otherwise been fantastic. —Legoless (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry if that was accusatory. It's just a pattern I've noticed, though it's not all you. General:Obscure Locations, Lore:Imperials, Lore:Talos Cult, and General:Ur have had archival work prodded at for removal or relocation due to some manner of perceived untidiness despite quality background information. I understand this is typical wiki housekeeping or whatever, but it does come across as hostile when these things are instantly upjumped into talk pages and debates instead of contacting me to discuss your issue when we've all known each other for a good while now. Fighting every step along the way to just have things documented is less than motivating. TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not personally hostile to archival work and I'm not sure where you're reading that from. I am an inclusionist and I have long been a strong proponent of expanding our General space. My reasoning for deletion is as stated above. —Legoless (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm sorry but the 'long-standing' consensus you've linked to is just you stating it in both cases over 10 years ago. I really do not understand this deletion request when it's not actively hurting the UESP to host this information, and has been done by Rock in detail. I can maybe understand moving it from 'canceled games', but I do not get deleting this whatsoever, especially considering this is in General:, which is already full of loosely-linked stuff to TES such as the Uutak Mythos. I also think this is slightly hypocritical considering your stance on the Portal content being hosted in Lore:. No other website is really suitable for this information, and having unique information like this actively makes the UESP stand out more compared to Fandom due to actual research being done on unique parts of the development of the TES series. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Ad hominem and strawman arguments aside, the General namespace is not full of information which is totally unrelated to TES. The only page I can think of is General:References to The Elder Scrolls in Other Media, unless you can point to any others? It does no harm to UESP to host this content, which is why I'm also proposing moving the page to userspace as a potential option. —Legoless (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Please point out those two fallacies, the 'Ad hominem' I assume is referring to the Portal content, which is a totally valid point to bring up here considering we're talking about 'other games', and that page is in Lore: not even General: or User:. If this page is shoved into a userspace, it will barely be accessible to the average user without prior knowledge of its existence. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Ad hominem and strawman arguments aside, the General namespace is not full of information which is totally unrelated to TES. The only page I can think of is General:References to The Elder Scrolls in Other Media, unless you can point to any others? It does no harm to UESP to host this content, which is why I'm also proposing moving the page to userspace as a potential option. —Legoless (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: I can understand moving the article to Redguardspace, but not deleting it. It contributed to the development of Redguard just like pen&paper and Mournhold contributed to Daggerfall. Due to it being a separate game and not a version of Redguard, it being in Generalspace is fine. but it's still part of how Redguard came to be and therefore worth archiving.--ErfXploded (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: To clarify, what I was proposing was to move the information to a different page in Redguard space, perhaps as part of a broader article such as what was done recently with Books:Greg Keyes Novels/Development. If the full article is to remain as-is, I do think General space is most appropriate, as it is not directly relevant to Redguard (or TES). —Legoless (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Haven’t seen any convincing argument for removal, lots of pertinent connections to tes. Dcking20 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Although I was originally for deletion, I've been persuaded otherwise. I'm not opposed to a move to a broader developmental article in the Redguard space, but its place in General seems justified considering the above-mentioned easter eggs page. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or Move: As I stated before the information on the page is crucial. That "long-standing" consensus was from over a dozen years ago and is really just outdated, we've proven with pages like Minecraft mash-up pack that we can have info on other games, and thanks to the Fantasy Hero set and other shared Bethesda assets like animations a uesp page about Fallout is overdue anyways. I would support either moving all existing info to "Redguard:About" to make it clear what the page's relation to the series is, or just keep it as is altogether. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Consensus is to Keep. Closing now per snowball. Jeancey (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)