Oblivion talk:Council of Mages

Explaining Deletion Proposal

There are several reasons why I've proposed this page for deletion.

1. A lot of the content is copied directly from Oblivion:Mages Guild,
2. Most of the rest summarises the Mages Guild quest line, which is better done by the individual quest pages,
3. There's still supposition in here. I still think the full "council" is made of arch-mages, not the people listed here, but there's no actual evidence either way.

I appreciate Robed Dawnbringer's desire to see more information on the council added to the site, but I think it would be better done on the Mages Guild page rather than this one. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:49, 20 February 2008 (EST)

None of the content is copied from the Guild page, I have taken care to summarise only the council's history and the background necessary, and if you wish to add more detail on the controversy re the members you are welcome to do so. While I take an interest in the council as you've noted, my reason for the creation of the page was: Black Hand. If this page goes, so does that, logically. Robed Dawnbringer 16:29, 20 February 2008 (EST)

You make a good point with The Black Hand page but there's more information to put on there than on here. The only information that should really be on here is the first paragraph, the list of members and the note, which is so little that it might as well go on the Mages Guild page. It's not that this is a bad page, just that it's unnecessary. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 02:48, 22 February 2008 (EST)

If you believe it's too small then move it to its own section on the Guild page if you wish. There's no point in arguing over a triviality. Robed Dawnbringer 04:02, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I'd like to see if anybody else wants to chip in first. It's not an argument, more a discussion about whether or not the article improves the site by being here or whether it would be better somewhere else. The deletion proposal process lets both sides present their opinions so it's always worth doing. In the case of this article, is there any more information you can see that could be added? I'd have no problem with this page if it was a bit longer and had more to offer. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:42, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I didn't mean argument in the sense of row. I want to be civil, I certainly don't regard this as personal conflict, unlike some editors I've seen on Wikipedia. On the other hand, what is wrong with a short article if it contains all necessary information? The only data I could really add is NPC schedules and behaviours etc., which belongs on their individual pages. Robed Dawnbringer 15:28, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I don't have strong opinions in this case one way or another, but I do have some thoughts. Robed Dawnbringer makes a good point about the Black Hand page, since this is essentially the same idea. Sure some of the information there could be considered redundant, but it seems like a concise little version of what you'd learn by reading through the whole Dark Brotherhood questline. However, if there isn't enough information to make a separate Council of Mages page work, the information on this page could be incorporated onto the Mages Guild page. I suppose in my opinion it comes down to how much information could be put on this separate page without it looking like a paraphrased version of other Mages Guild pages (not that I'm suggesting that's the way it looks now--it would just be nice to avoid it!). So...those are my thoughts. Carry on :). —Eshe^talk15:38, 22 February 2008 (EST)

So - is this page too short, or can the notice go down? Robed Dawnbringer 12:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I just reread it for the nth time and still can't see that it's going to be a useful page. It's a difficult case. I can see the argument for retention but on the other hand I still can't see that there's anything worth retaining! Still... there are a couple more days before it's eligible for deletion and it can't be me that does it. Let's see if anybody else chips in. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)

This is a very close situation here. There are plenty of reasons and arguements on both sides, and I can see exactly where they're coming from. My point is that all of this information could easily be transferred as it is now, to a new section in the Mages Guild article. Surely that would be better than having two seperate articles? And plus, the detail here, which would otherwised be concised and paraphrased, can remain. --HMSVictory 13:25, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Overall, the article strikes me as a Tamriel-style article. The history overview in particular is from the point of view of someone who is interested in the general lore of the Elder Scrolls universe, not necessarily from the point of view of someone who is trying to figure out how to play the game (see also UESPWiki:Style Guide#Perspective). So one reaction is that perhaps it would fit better at Tamriel:Council_of_Mages

On the other hand, the history is really the history of the Mages Guild. I can see that it tries to emphasize what the councilmembers did during events, but nevertheless the exact same paragraphs would not look at all out of place on an article about the Mages Guild. And I'm reluctant to encourage two separate articles that cover the same basic history. You get the same problems with redundancy as in any other case: you ultimately force readers to read both the Mages Guild article and the Council of Mages article to get the complete facts. Even if you start out with two identical or compatible articles, over time edits will inevitably be made to one article but not the other one. For example, editor X decides to add extra links to one. And then editor Y adds related books to the other. In cases where the information content is so similar, I'd rather not have the information split or duplicated between two articles.

And if the history section on this page gets merged in somewhere else, then you're really not left with much of an article.

So ultimately my opinion is that most of the article should probably be merged into Lore:Mages Guild, in particular the Oblivion section. Amd make sure that any clearly game-specific bits are covered on the Oblivion:Mages Guild article. This article could then be changed into a redirect to Oblivion:Mages Guild, or perhaps even Oblivion:Mages Guild#Council of Mages (either by splitting out the existing paragraph into a subsection, or adding a Linkable Entry).

As for the Black Hand article, if a similar discussion is needed for that article, then it should be made on that article's talk page. If that article is setting a bad precedent, then it should be changed. But I don't think one article's example should be the deciding factor in what gets done with other articles, especially if there are independent arguments that can be used to make the decision. --Nephele^Talk 19:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Very well, though this page is Oblivion-specific and thus doesn't work under the Tamriel namespace. I can see that the information would perhaps be better put on other pages. Feel free to move the data. Robed Dawnbringer 12:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I strongly agree with Nephele. This could either become a Tamriel article, which would make a lot more sense, or it could join the Tamriel:Mages Guild page, which would also work. However, as mentioned, the information here is very Oblivion-specific, so general information would have to be included. I think the information here would best be placed in the mages Guild article, maybe in a section of its own, or in the Oblivion area. However, this article is now both confusiing (In terms of its namespace) and, as I see it, misplaced. --HMSVictory 12:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Are we moving it then, and where to? Robed Dawnbringer 14:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

In an effort to resolve this page's status, I've gone ahead and implemented my suggestions. Most of the article's content has been incorporated into Lore:Mages Guild#Oblivion. Some details have been added to Oblivion:Mages Guild#The Council of Mages. And instead of deleting the page, I've turned it into a redirect so that readers looking for the Council of Mages will be directed to an appropriate article. There are probably more tweaks and improvements possible on each of the articles, but at least the basics of reorganization are now done. --Nephele^Talk 01:42, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. I appreciate your help. Robed Dawnbringer 05:03, 30 March 2008 (EDT)