The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to The Elder Scrolls in lieu of deletion. If anyone is still interested in Transwikiing, please go ahead and use the history tool. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:27Z

The Elder Scrolls skills[edit]

Delete and/or Transwiki No known place to merge; I'm part of the ES project, and I hate to see such a page go, but this is gamecruft; belongs in a Wikia, rather than Wikipedia, with which, if all possible, I will gladly help with ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe UESPWiki could make use of it. Eluchil404 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge any relevant info to main article on The Elder Scrolls. Walton monarchist89 10:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The wiki I linked earlier uses the Creative Commons by-sa license rather than GFDL so a transwiki is probably no possible. Eluchil404
Comment: It is my understanding that GFDL content, (which includes Wikipedia,) can only be transwiki'd to wikis that use GFDL. UESPWiki uses CC-by-sa. (I am however open to correction/further clarification on this point, over at my Talk page) -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm amazed that didn't trigger an edit conflict... -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that transwikiing to UESP wiki is fairly useless since similar information is already available there. (information is mostly distributed throughout subpages) note that the only skills considered on this page are those in TES:Oblivion, so the information on this page or subpages is consistent with that on this page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the above being said, my vote is weak keep since I am not entirely sure this qualifies as useless gamecruft, but then again, i seem significantly more tolerant of cruft than other editors. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.