Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
> Wikimedia Discussion > Articles
Derktar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-ratin...ls_IV:_Oblivion

Those idiots at Britannica could never cook up a masterpiece like this!
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 5th March 2008, 12:28am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-ratin...ls_IV:_Oblivion

Those idiots at Britannica could never cook up a masterpiece like this!


ohmy.gif WikiCritic Seth Finkelstein once commented that the documentation of pop culture is the single thing that Wikipedia does best of all. Oooooh, that stung! Editors were angry. But of course he was correct. The rest of us have been trying to bring the other parts up to some reasonable quality, but we'll never do this good a job on the non-cruft part. Look at that reference list!!

-- Milt
everyking
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 5th March 2008, 1:28am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-ratin...ls_IV:_Oblivion

Those idiots at Britannica could never cook up a masterpiece like this!


Do you feel this information should not be recorded? What's your position?
The Joy
A friend of mine thought it would be best to merge that article into the main Oblivion article. I told him that he knew not what kind of anger that FA writers could unleash! Though I do agree that a merge would have been better.

Now go, and close shut the jaws... of Oblivion!
Derktar
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th March 2008, 10:46pm) *

QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 5th March 2008, 1:28am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-ratin...ls_IV:_Oblivion

Those idiots at Britannica could never cook up a masterpiece like this!


Do you feel this information should not be recorded? What's your position?

Perhaps in subsection in a main article somewhere...just not a featured article. I mean, do you think this is important enough/well-written for the front page, an example of the fine work of Wikipedia?

It seems to me that people were asleep when this was brought up as a candidate.
everyking
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 5th March 2008, 11:58pm) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 4th March 2008, 10:46pm) *

QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 5th March 2008, 1:28am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB_re-ratin...ls_IV:_Oblivion

Those idiots at Britannica could never cook up a masterpiece like this!


Do you feel this information should not be recorded? What's your position?

Perhaps in subsection in a main article somewhere...just not a featured article. I mean, do you think this is important enough/well-written for the front page, an example of the fine work of Wikipedia?

It seems to me that people were asleep when this was brought up as a candidate.


Personally, I probably wouldn't put something on such a minor topic on the front page, but I do think it should be a featured article. It's quality work and there's enough to say that the content can fill an independent article.
Derktar
QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 5th March 2008, 3:38pm) *

Personally, I probably wouldn't put something on such a minor topic on the front page, but I do think it should be a featured article. It's quality work and there's enough to say that the content can fill an independent article.

Well, would you say it's on par with these featured articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_hist..._Roman_military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

Odd coincidence, didn't even know this would be on the front page today
The Joy
The entire article talkpage is full of outrage. Strangely, the detractors are being accused of censorship which makes no sense to me. They're just saying this minor topic should not have been on the front page.
Robster
What's wrong with one MMORPG celebrating another? smile.gif
The Joy
QUOTE(Robster @ Wed 5th March 2008, 7:16pm) *

What's wrong with one MMORPG celebrating another? smile.gif


One is fun and making money and the other is losing money while its leader is being loose with what money it has!

Oblivion is not an MMORPG, by the way. It is single player.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.