Jump to content

Talk:The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Elder Scrolls 5

I just found out that Elder Scrolls 5 is being released in 2010. It says so when you google it. The website is wired.com , and it is a legitimate article. I tried to edit the Elder scrolls 4 page and adding a sequel section but I have no experience in putting references in a page. Can someone do this for me please . If you could I would appreciate it. (User talk:DavidEGonzalez) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

What's the address of the reference? nneonneo talk 22:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The appropriate location for such information (should it prove verifiable by reliable sources) would be the Elder Scrolls series page, over here. For an example of how to do this, see Kingdom Hearts (series), under Future of the series. If you have a significant amount of information, then you produce an entirely new page. In any case, it does not go here. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(As you can see, there is already this brief note over at The Elder Scrolls: "In late October 2008, Bethesda has indicated that the series' fifth installment will be released in 2010", sourced to GamesIndustry.Biz, which is quite a reliable source. If you have more information, put it there until the article gets so bloated you have to split it off. 'Kay? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?

If Oblivion is The elder scrolls 4, can we really consider Skyrim (TES 5) as a sequel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.143.97 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Add site which prevents crashes and bugs?

I recently found this website: Prevent Crashes in Oblivion. It is an enormous list of ways to prevent bugs and crashes in TES4:Oblivion (I play this game myself and Oblivion does tend to crash excessively).

I was thinking that it should be added here. It would probably be a great help to most Oblivion gamers (it definatly helped me). What is everyone's opinion about adding this? 41.157.12.3 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this isn't a repository for links, or a how-to guide. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Based on the conversation so far, I was willing to accept this website as an attempted spamming and be done with it. However, I do own the game so I decided to give whoever suggested the website the benefit of the doubt and examine it's possible inclusion here. I'm glad I decided to examine the website.
Basically, the suggestions offered there changed my game from almost unplayable to very much stable. The website is very well written and I think it should be included here.
As for Hartford Fire Insurance's reply, I don't know what you mean by "Repository for links". I'm guessing you meant that the person is trying to advertise their website. However, based on my examination of the site and the suggester's text, I think a more realistic conclusion is that the person is trying to help anyone who has problems with the game, a very noble gesture I might add.
Then there is the comment about this article not being a how-to guide. True, the article isn't a how-to guide but that doesn't mean that it's links can't be how-to guides. Just to make sure, I examined Wikipedia's rules for external links and sure enough, there was nothing there that says that how-to guides aren't allowed. In fact, my investigation shows that this website complies with all the rules. Hence, that statement is based on your opinions of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, rather than what the rules say Wikipedia is supposed to be. In fact, judging by your talk page's content (specifically all the blocks and warnings), I would say that your opinion of what Wikipedia should be is completely wrong. Read the rules and become acquainted with them so that you can become a better editer.
Back to the website in question, I think it would make a very worthwhile addition to the article's list of links. Hence, I'm going to put the website into the article right now. Thank you very much to the person that suggested it. XJDHDR (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I just found that I can't add the website to the article yet. The editing page says that any candidates for inclusion in the external links section must be discussed here first, which explains why the suggester didn't add the link straight into the article instead of creating this discussion. Anyway, I don't think this discussion has progressed far enough to add the link just yet.
I'll wait three months for anyone else to give their input on this matter. At the beginning of May, if there are no reasonable objections to placing this site into the article, I'll return and make the necessary edits. If I am not available on that day, I would request that someone else who reads this make the edit instead. XJDHDR (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
What link are we talking about here? A bit confused... Eik Corell (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if my comment managed to confuse anyone. Basically, this discussion is whether the website suggested at the beginning of this section, Prevent Crashes in Oblivion, should be added into the External Links section of the main article. The person who suggested the link thinks that having the link added here will help people who play ES4 Oblivion have a less problematic gameplay experience.
Hartford Fire Insurance, the person who first replied, thinks that this person is trying to use Wikipedia to advertise a website though. I investigated this issue and my opinion is that the assumption is incorrect for the reasons I made in my previous comment. Seriously, I took a look at Hartford's talk page and this person seems to have some very strange ideas of what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Anyway, my investigation leads me to believe that this website would make an excellent addition to the article. The rules for this article say that any potential additions to the external links section must be discussed first though. So we need to discuss this link's worthiness for inclusion. I have already given my support. XJDHDR (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at it, I also see a problem with that link. It's a useful guide to players of the game, but that's where the trouble starts - Wikipedia is not a gameguide, or the place for tech support. The poster above who mentioned Wikipedia not being a repository of external links is indeed correct. The way this site is organized is very much so -- It's largely a collection of links. Eik Corell (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Eik I'm sorry to say that I noticed a few errors in the reasons you provided for not supporting the site. One of the things I absolutely detest in life are false statements that cause bad things to happen/prevent good things from happening.

First, you're correct in saying that Wikipedia's articles are not game guides. However, the rules in that regard do not make any provisions for Wikipedia's external links (ie The rules do not say that wikipedia's links are not game guides, rather it says that wikipedia's pages are not game guides; which then goes on to mention what wikipedia's pages should not read like).

As for the repository for links rule, I already mentioned in my previous comments why I think that Hartford Fire Insurance's guess is incorrect. Furthermore, the rule states that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". For an article the size and scope of this one, there is no way anyone can call 6 links excessive by any stretch of the mind. And to top it all, you are taking another rule for Wikipedia's pages and applying it to wikipedia's links, even though the rule makes no provisions in that regard. Why must everyone always assume that people have the worst intentions in mind?

Then for the Tech Support comment: 1) Dictionary.com's definition of Tech Support is: "a service provided by a computer or technological company for aiding or advising customers of its product or service, usu. by telephone or email". I can't see how this definition applies to this web site. Game Guide? I would say so. Tech support? Definitely not. 2) Where did you find this rule? Pity you didn't provide a link to it or I wouldn't need to ask. I have read a large number of Wikipedia's rules and I have not seen this rule anywhere. 3) If this rule does exist and the site is indeed dedicated to answering a customer's troubleshooting questions, this is probably yet another wikipedia page rule which you have extended to apply to wikipedia's links.

Just to make sure, I read through Wikipedia's rules for external links yet again and, sure enough, there is nothing there which mentions the issues you mentioned (ie, there is nothing in the rules which say that game guide and tech support links are not allowed). XJDHDR (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm back again. It is now the 16th of March which means that we are now halfway to the target I set being the 1st of May. So far, we have two votes of support for the website in question (from myself and the original poster: 41.157.12.3 and two unreasonable objections (Eik and Hartford Fire Insurance). Looking back at my reply to Eik, I feel that I may have sounded a bit harsh and for that, I apologise. However, the facts I stated in that reply still stand and I would like to further illustrate them.
First, Hartford Fire Insurance mentioned that Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. However, the closest I could find to this in Wikipedia's main rules is that Wikipedia is not a guide (which is the issue Eik mentioned which I will get to in a moment). If you want to object to something like this, you should use rules that actually exist, first of all. Also, take a look at the article about Soldering sometime. If you have a look at the "External Links" section of the article, you will see that the first thing listed there is a how-to guide on soldering. So that basically proves that external link candidates CAN be how-to guides.
Next is Eik's comment about game guides not being allowed. I have already mentioned that the Wikipedia is not a gameguide rule is designed for Wikipedia's pages, rather than the external links and to illustrate this fact, take a look at the external links section for THIS article. There is a link to The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages, which is a very well known game guide for Oblivion (take a look if you don't believe me). Again, don't apply Wikipedia page rules where they don't belong.
I have searched through the rules again and I did not see anything that mentions Tech Support articles. If anyone finds such a rule, please point it out to me but even then, I have already stated that I don't believe the candidate is a tech support site. If anyone can reasonably associate the website with technical support, please comment about it (if a tech support for external links rule exists that is, otherwise it is probably a pointless discussion).
And lastly, we come to the not a repository of external links rule which both Hartford and Eik quoted. I have to ask though: Who is turning this into a repository for links? Adding 1 additional external link is not going to turn this article into a link farm. To repeat something I mentioned above, the rule states that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia" and for an article the size and scope of this one, there is no way anyone can call 6 links excessive by any stretch of the mind.
And one last thing that worried me is that it felt like Hartford and Eik were trying to imply that User:41.157.12.3 was trying to get the candidate listed in the External Links section solely for advertising purposes. However, I feel that such an assumption goes against Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy. Also, their other reasons which lead up to them quoting that rule don't stand up to scrutiny. So please, if anyone else feels like pulling this card on someone, please make sure you have enough evidence to prove that the person is acting in bad faith.
So overall, the problem with Eik and Hartford's comments is that they 1) Quoted rules that don't exist or 2) Quoted existing rules inappropriately. That brings me to my final point. If you want to quote reasons or rules to support or oppose adding this site to this article, please make sure the reasons and rules you quote are reasonable and are appropriately quoted. The main source of rules for external links in Wikipedia's articles is this page. Please refer to that first and also do your research before posting comments. It will save everyone a lot of time and headaches.
One more thing, please comment on having this website added to this article, even if the comment is simply along the lines of "I support/oppose the addition for the following good reason". XJDHDR (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a much more comprehensive, easier to navigate, and better presented crash prevention page on Bethesda's own construction set wiki: Crash Prevention. The proposed page to link to just looks like a chopped-up copy/paste of an older version of the page I just mentioned. -C2Talon (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do your research to a higher quality before you post these comments. It took me less than a minute to find this paragraph: Note that the person who started the thread has stated that the information in that thread has been copied to an external website due to it being "...easier to update information on one website compared to a number of posts...". The information on the website will probably be more updated than either the topic or this wiki page. . Ironically enough, the external website is the site we're discussing.
That implies it's the wiki page, not the website, that's older. Comparing the two indicates this is correct. A lot of the information on the website has obviously been changed since the wiki page's creation. As for the wiki page being more comprehensive, easier and better presented, that's a matter of personal choice since I personally think it is the website that's all those things.
The fact that the wiki page is outdated and probably less popular alone is enough to question your objection. I'm going to inform the owner of that site about this artifact that is apparantly causing confusion for some. As for you C2Talon, I highly recommend that you amend or remove your objection in light of this new information. -XJDHDR (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose... The Wiki is sufficient. Also, how do you know that the site you want to add is more popular? Wiki activity can be measured by the amount of new edits and users, and as far as I see, the UESP is doing just fine. It also has a separate section for solving all kinds of problems, not just crashes. In my opinion, the Wiki is the better candidate as far as notability and relevance goes. Eik Corell (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on! That's two silly mistakes in one day on the same page. An outdated page on the Construction Set wiki has nothing to do with the popularity of the UESP. The UESP is designed for giving gameplay information and spoilers, not crash advice. Hence, the information in that regard is very limited. In fact, I did a search with "Oblivion crash". Title search returned nothing and a page search returned irrelevant pages (closest being Oblivion working in Linux). The UESP is already present in the external links section. We are discussing the inclusion of this site because it provides info that the UESP does not and can not provide.
I just checked the CS wiki page that C2Talon mentioned and it seems like the website owner got my message. All the info on that page has been deleted and replaced with a message telling readers to visit the website. So no, the wiki is not the better candidate because the page's info no longer exists. How do I know the site is more popular than the outdated wiki page? Obviously the author would make sure the most current versions of the guide get the most attention.
I'm sure your objection would still be appropriate if the wiki page still had it's info but that's not the case. I think you should step back a bit and calm down. It's beginning to feel like you have a vendetta against myself or this website or something. Maybe you should leave for a while and come back when you're more calm and willing to think rationally. XJDHDR (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, assume good faith. Secondly, don't condescend. I am talking about the UESP wiki which has a section covering tech support, including how to stop crashes. I see no reason to go deeper than that and start offering specific tech support links. Eik Corell (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I'm apparently incompetent, or whatever it is you believe, XJDHDR, I'll state the reasoning behind what I said:
  1. I've seen the forum thread as posted on the official Elder Scrolls forum; that's how I got the link to the wiki article in the first place. (Also, a page less than 10 months old with such a narrow scope and over 6000 hits that doesn't even have any indexed external links to it in Google says that it is quite the popular page. Forum threads of the same narrow scope get even less hits.)
  2. When information is the same in multiple places, it's usually preferred to go with information from a 1st party, rather than some 3rd party. Since the Construction Set wiki page is hosted by Bethesda, with seemingly the same information, it only made more sense to vie for that one.
  3. The proposed link is more or less a chopped-up version of the wiki article. — Just imagine if every section and subsection of an article on this wiki had it's own page you had to navigate to: in my opinion, that would be silly.
  4. The proposed link is hosted on a free hosting service; there are many times when people create pages on those just copy/paste things from other sites and try to take credit. — I mean just look at the front page of the proposed link, it has things copy/pasted from uesp.net's front page.
As such, I was trying to provide what I believed to be a better alternative to the proposed link, if such a link should even be added at all. Now that I am aware the proposed link might be more up-to-date, I will withdraw my alternative link suggestion.
However, I'm going to have to echo what Eik Corell has said, since there's really no reason to add a link to a another support page, let alone one with a much more narrow scope. -C2Talon (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking into this further, I've found that XJDHDR may be the author of that site and/or the information contained within it. This potential conflict of interest makes me question the reasoning or motives he may or may not have for adding the link here. A simple search on Google yields several sites where a user named XJDHDR has the proposed link listed as their home page. -C2Talon (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The UESP tech support page does not go anywhere near the depth that the site goes to. That's the one advantage of specialisation. This is the same reason a hardware shop get more hardware sales than a general store or supermarket with hardware in stock.
I never said that you were incompetent C2Talon. Where the hell did you get that idea? JdeRau wrote the CS wiki page. JdeRau most likely wrote the forum topic. And it is clear that JdeRau wrote the website as well (even before his most recent edit to the wiki page). That clearly indicates that it is the website that is the 1st party source of this info. I never criticised your opinion of how info should be presented. I said that peoples' opinions on that matter vary. Newspapers copy news from each other all the time and everyone accepts it. Why is it a problem when a website does the same thing?
Lastly, I've had enough. I'll gladly take that "conflict of interest" ticket to get out of here. Replying to this discussion has caused me to get stressed out and behave out of ordinary (seriously, this isn't how I talk to people). In fact, the only reason I took over this discussion is because the person who originally started this disappeared. It's not worth it anymore. Take this discussion in whatever direction you want. I don't care anymore. BTW, XJDHDR are my initials (french). I can understandable that someone with the same initials or for some other reason would register a similar account elsewhere. I can't see you believing me though but I'm too tired to care. XJDHDR (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.

The article is great and certainly at A level and I would keep it as GA except for the fact that refs 41, 43, 52, 56, 58, and 68 are dead links. This is too many dead links to overlook. I will hold the article for one week pending work on this. It shouldn't take much to fix this. H1nkles (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please list the refs that aren't working for you- all of the ones you listed are just fine for me. --PresN 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI the refs are off by one number, please check the following links: 42, 44, 53, 57, 59, 69, and also 85 is a dead link. I apologize for the confusion. H1nkles (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, they've all been replaced/removed, with the exception of #44 (now #43) - the site is down for temporary maintenance, and since its hosted by Bethesda themselves as the official place you can buy the DLC's, I have no doubts that it will return shortly. --PresN 03:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The dead refs have been fixed and I'll keep the article at GA, well done. H1nkles (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PC Mods

Maybe a section should be added for the very active Modding community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.10.250.80 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It should. But I'm not gonna be the one to do it. Everything I do here gets shot down. Still, if you add something, I can maybe help out with it. Look at what the Diablo II page says about mods, it's pretty much the same thing. Arawn 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs)
It's ridiculous that there isn't a subsection dedicated specifically to the modding community in Oblivion, considering it's the largest in the WORLD. 75.74.188.74 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed here. If anything, the modding community behind this game (oblivion) will be marked as the start of major modifications, in which players add 2 to 4 times the content of the original developers. I was shocked there wasn't more about the modding community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.97.145 (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Guilds Storylines

I noticed that there wasn't any mention of the major guilds and factions and was wondering if they should get some mention. Gloryify (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, and keep going.

Hi User:Anonymous Dissident. Thanks for the amazing effort in getting this article closer to FA. Your enthusiasm made me replay the game (that I bought a while ago), and I really enjoyed it. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help. Respect.  HWV258.  11:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm grateful for the kind words, and I'm glad to hear you were inspired to replay the game. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere that Radiant AI was not included in Oblivion as they couldn't keep all the npc's from going on mass murdering sprees. It was instead replaced with a modified scripting system leftover from Morrowind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.24.124 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't play this all that much, but the NPCs in my game do go around killing each other randomly.202.53.199.23 (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Are fan reviews notable?

I'm talking about the fourth paragraph of the reception tab. Do they count as published sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.141.132 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, reviews and the like need to be from reliable, third-party sourced. Eik Corell (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Best I could find. If you want to change them, find better ones. Plus, it's a well known fact that the quest arrow spoiled things and vampires were awful. Not my fault that no one wrote a report on it. For video games, I think we can count it. At least give me a heads up before removing stuff again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not my duty to find sources for you. If you can't find any acceptable sources at all, then it probably isn't "a well known fact," and it definitely doesn't belong on the article. The paragraph's Weasel Words do not help matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.141.132 (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm just gonna leave Oblivion to you guys to edit since you're so fast and efficient. Also, this is becoming nauseating to read let alone spend time on. It's a game article; why on earth would player reviews not matter (Rhetorical question, don't bother answering). Also, I have no idea what weasel words are but I really don't care about that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan sales

I'm looking for some info with regard to Oblivion being a hit in Japan. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that other than it no recent Western RPGs have been much of a success there. Any one have any links? SharkD  Talk  03:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

something is missing?

"The presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party tool,[107][108] In response to the new content, the ESRB conducted a new review of Oblivion, showing to its reviewers the content originally submitted by Bethesda along with the newly disclosed content."

Something seems to be missing from the first part of that, right after the 'third party tool' bit. Based on the rest of the paragraph it seems to be about topless characters. 202.53.199.23 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone chopped up that section on 18 October 2010. I've restored it to what it was before those changes. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AMD 6870

Has anyone tested that card on Oblivion and how many frames does it run as on average?86.148.130.248 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

First 2 lines at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --PresN 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

While all of the images have good rationales it seems. However, six fair use files is way too many, and I think that if any files can be cut out, it is necessary. Any suggestions or comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect data

"However, the player cannot initiate fast-travel if they are in combat or inside a location." I play TESIV (A.K.A. Oblivion) everyday and I can tell you that it is possible to initiate fast-travel from inside a few locations, all of which are player-owned houses. Basically "However, the player cannot initiate fast-travel if they are in combat or inside a location other than player-owned houses." I am not sure if this should be noted, and would like to hear other peoples opinions on the matter. For those that want to say I'm modding, I'm using the vanilla(basic) version of Oblivion on the PS3 and therefor cant use any mods. Michael.Sullivan1993 (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not how the level-scaling works.

"For example, if a player clears out a dungeon at level 1, the enemies would be skeletons. If the player returns at level 4 or above, it could be full of trolls. The enemies' weapons are also leveled along with the treasure the player can find in chests and on enemies' bodies."

For one thing, it's very rare and near impossible to find trolls at level four.Secondly, trolls would never ever replace skeletons because they are on completely different leveled lists.The only thing that would replace a skeleton is another skeleton or eventually, a lich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.0.52 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you can provide a better example in the article to illustrate the same point, please give it a try. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will then, around level 20 skeletons get replaced by lichs so I feel that this is appropriate. 75.107.0.52 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rating

The picture shows T when the rating is M

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.239.153 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 February 2010

This is how it works >>>> ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 

  -Darkened wiki (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oblivion area: not 16 square miles

I don't know who changed back the Oblivion area to 16 square miles, but either he's never played Oblivion, or he's really bad in mathematics. 16 square miles is really small, it's almost the area of the Imperial City and its surroundings. I know that a lot of internet posts say that Cyrodiil is 16 square miles. I suppose it comes from a common miscalculation, maybe Cyrodiil is 16 miles "LONG", so the area is 16 X 16 = 256 miles². It's for the whole square, but the continent is between a half and two thirds of the map, so the area is aproximately 150 miles², or 400 km².

Stop changing it back. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timorite (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Hate to break it to you, but the devs themselves have stated that the area is 16 square miles. Note that this is the ACTUAL playing area as opposed to how large the landmass would be if it existed in the real world. And yes, 16 square miles is a small area, that is why it does not take hours to walk from one end of the map to the other; this is not Daggerfall. Indrian (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Er... You really don't realize how small 16 square miles is. It's 4 miles X 4 miles. o_O Again, it's aproximately the size of the Imperial City, including the water around. It doesn't take litterally "hours" to travel through the continent, but it can take almost an hour of running, without a horse (depending of the speed of your character). Calculate which distance people can run in an hour, some really good runners can run a marathon (26 miles) in two hours... So again, 16 miles "LONG" is plausible for Cyrodiil, not 16 miles². I'd like to see the source of where you read that the developpers said it was that small, but if it's true the miscalculation must come from them at the beginning. Or maybe ther is another explanation, if the whole country is 16 square miles, that means that every character is about 20 inches tall. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timorite (talk • contribs) 10:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I see what you did "according to Microsoft..." Fine by me, but then there should maybe be a small parenthesis which says that the values are not plausible, or at least "questionned by gamers", because apparently I'm not the only one who thinks those values are strange: http://forum.teamxbox.com/archive/index.php/t-349272.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timorite (talk • contribs) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One last thing, you're talking of the "actual playing area", but it's still totally unrealistic. On the contrary, the actual playing area is far greater : first of all, in Oblivion you can walk to almost everywhere, except for the top of some mountains when the slope is too steep. Then, there are the upper and lowers floors of every buildings (you can enter them all in Oblivion), all the dungeons, sewers, etc. An finally all the doors to the demoniac areas. They are huge and there are a lot of them. And you're still saying that a square 4 miles X 4 miles small could cover all this area? o_O' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timorite (talk • contribs) 10:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrealistic or not, see WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Only content reliably referenced is acceptable, and "questioned by gamers" is original research. "Bethesda has created 16 square miles of geography" does not imply this is 16 in-game world square miles proportional to some size you believe characters are. Put it another way, do you have a reliable source that says "20 inches tall" is not internal character height? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Er... I agree that there must be some sort of reliable sources for what's written in Wikipedia, but common sense is clearly more important. If we (wikipedia writers) can agree together that a data comes from a clearly identified data miscalculation, and here it is clearly the case, then we shouldn't rectify it because the creators of the game said so? ... o_O' If so, this site would lose some credibility to me. Furthermore, if I follow your logic, even Bethesda's speach isn't "reliable". Is it the actual 3D modelers who said that, or is it a marketting guy who doesn't have a clue? Because this data "IS" irrelevant, and you're right when you say that we don't have the possibility to calculate it correctly. So you should simply remove this data, or as I said specify it is believed by some to be unrealistic.

Well, anyway, do what you want, I don't care that much. But this page will have a huge flaw if it stays like this. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timorite (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't trust your common sense. According to calculations made using the developer suggested 192 feet per cell, the game world comes out approximately 5x3.3 miles [1]. So from what I've seen, both informed gamers and the developers say around 16 square miles. No reason to remove this well sourced item. --Daniel 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I must agree with Daniel--sources matter more than subjective "common sense". And please sign your comments. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah ah. Well, again, either you people have never played that game, or you don't have a good sense for areas. I wished you knew a geometer wich would show how those values are unrealistic, as I obviously won't convince anyone here. :D (Sorry Pemilligan I'll try to sign my comments.) Timorite (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Sincerely people, think of what a mile represents, in your town or village for exemple. And tell yourself that 4 times that lengh is the lengh of the whole Cyrodiil country. You don't see a problem somewhere? o_O Personnally that would mean that my birth village (which is quite small) would be bigger than the Oblivion game. :D Timorite (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, you have no accurate way to measure this in game. You don't know how "fast" your character moves or how much distance he can cover in a given period of time. Just to give some real world parallels, when I was in graduate school at a large university I had to park my car just over two miles away from my dorm. I would sometimes walk to my car if I had no place to be in a hurry. Walking briskly (and occasionally having to stop for traffic lights, which is, of course not a problem in Oblivion), it took me about 35 minutes to cover that distance. Another time, I walked home from an event that took place 3.5 miles from my dorm. Again walking briskly, though once again having to deal with traffic lights and the occasional crowd, which are problems that do not affect Oblivion, that walk took me an hour.
To put things another way, wikipedia's article on the World's Best 10K, to choose a random 10K race (the equivalent of 6.2 miles), shows that the male winner of the race tends to finish in the 27.5 to 28.5 minute range. So for this unscientific evaluation lets just say that the best runners in the world over a 6.2 mile distance finish in 28 minutes. Four miles is roughly 65% of 6.2 miles, so they would cover that distance in about 18 minutes. You claim the Imperial City alone is four miles across, but it does not take 18 minutes to get from one end of the city to the other.
Now, I know what you are thinking at this point: "but it takes more than eighteen minutes to get from one end of the map to the other and a person running a smaller distance can probably run it faster due to needing to pace himself less." Yeah, that may all be true, but that just brings us back around to the first point: you have no idea how fast your character is actually going so you have no idea if he is covering the ground at the same rate as these 10K runners. What the above examples do illustrate, however, is that both average people walking briskly and world class runners need more time to cover a distance of a few miles than I think you realize. Four miles is an extremely short distance in the grand scheme of the world, but I think you are the one that does not have a very good grasp of how large a distance it can be. Indrian (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I really know what 4 miles represent, you can trust me on this (for several reasons that I won't bother to explain here). Second of all, I already clearly agreed that I (we) had no way to define how big that world is (unless we have access to the 3D Studio files of the game and check them, but I don't care that much. :D ) All I said is that if the data stays like this, we should maybe specify that it's official data but considered "by some" to be unrealistic or something (and we are several, what I'm doing here comes from a debate that I had on another forum).

And, I didn't say that only the Imperial City was 16 square miles, but with its surrounding water too (aproximately of course). And YES it can take quite some time to travel through that city, play it again and you'll see. I'll calculate it too if you want. But anyway you seem to agree that it takes a lot more time to travel through Oblivion even for a really high speed statistics characters, so there definitely is a problem somewhere, you must agree.

Anyway, I'm not sure I want to continue this debate here, as I see I won't change your minds. It's OK, now I know that my birth village is bigger than Oblivion, because some guy from Bethesda said so. Thanks a lot Wikipedia. :D Timorite

I quickly created a new character, with 30 in athletism or something (I play in french) which is an already fine speed. It took me about 7 minutes to travel east to west through the road just up the Imperial City (the square-like road). So ok, maybe I was otpimistic about this city, but it clearly shows that 4 miles in total is completely unrealistic. Of course, we can't calculate precisely, because we would have to know the average height and speed of the caracters. It's just abstract data, I completely agree. But that's why I talk about "common sense". Those are humans or humanoids, so they are supposed to be about our average size, otherwise that would make no sense (except if it's explaned in the game, but it's not). And when we run, it "feels" like we are running quite fast, even if we can't measure it.

I'm pretty sure my objections are legitimate. But if the only answer I get is "4 miles is larger than you think", there can be no real debate. ;-) It's not an interesting purpose of this site simply to relay information without questionning it. It's better to inform people the most accurately possible, is it not? That's because I care about this site and about the video games world that I'm trying to make myself heard. (And because I'm stubborn when I know I'm right. ^^' ) Timorite (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong, about Oblivion and about how Wikipedia works. As I have already said, people who have studied the game files determined the world to be about 5x3.3 miles. Bethesda said it was about 16 square miles (if they were going to get it wrong don't you think they'd overestimate?). Even when your own test running about 1/5th of the map in 7 minutes actually suggests a distances of about 5 miles (running 7 minute miles). All we have is you continuously saying "it can't be." You are also wrong about how Wikipedia works. We don't use original research, your own feelings about the matter bear no weight here. --Daniel 14:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah ah. Well, personnally all I hear from you all is simply trying to find a way to prove that this data is correct, not really think whether it's correct or not. So there can be no debate.

"people who have studied the game files" If I follow the trail of you links, I don't see anything about the Oblivion area. I only see this link : http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/Oblivion_Units wich explains an "approximation" about a character's lengh. (We "assume"...) It's quite plausible, but you won't calculate a whole country's area based on an approximation of a small element, the margin of error gets a lot bigger. I've worked in video games as a 3D graphist for quite some time, and I'll teach you something: there isn't always a defined lengh for 3D objects. In 3D studio Max or Maya (the most common 3D programs) you can chose standard lengh in miles or km, or simply abstract data, like in Oblivion apparently. So even for them it's impossible to know the true size of things in the game, because there is none.

Now, about my previous measurement, first of all,it's not 1/5 of the map, it's clearly more like like 1/7 (No debate there, you can check yourself : http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2010/292/5/6/t_e_s__iv_cyrodiil_map_by_samofsuthsax-d312ktc.jpg ) Second of all, according to this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Running#Limits_of_speed the best runner in the world can run 27.79 mph, or 0,46 miles per minute. So in those 7 minutes he would have run 3,22 miles. 3,22 X 7 = 22,54 miles. That would approximatively be the length of Cyrodiil, which would give a square of 508 square miles!! Of course, I'm not sure that my character would run as fast as the best runner in the world, but what is sure is that again it "feels" like he's running quite fast, at least not as slowly so that 22 miles become 4 miles... o_O'

I'm not saying that Cyrodiil is "a little" bigger thant 16 square miles, I'm saying it is A LOT bigger,otherwise I wouldn't bother. Again, the values are completely unrealistic. There is no way te calculate accurately those values, I agree, but at least it would be a first step to admit that ther is a problem somewhere. ;-) Timorite (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, the most plausible explanation is that they evaluated the lengh of Cyrodiil to 16 miles (which could be realistic) and they thought: 16 miles X 16 miles = 16 square miles, which is of course wrong. I really wouldn't be surprised, game developpers aren't mathematicians... at all apparently. :D Timorite (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you any more, this is getting silly. You don't have a leg to stand on from a Wikipedia policy perspective as all you can come up with is shoddy original research. Nor do you have any concept regarding scale in the video game. Read the design document I linked to in the first paragraph they say that the game itself converts the units to centimeters using the conversion factor listed, it is merely confirmed using the height approximation. Using the game's own math, individual cells come out to be 192 feet square. Based on the number of cells on the map it comes out to about 5.5 miles across. Your own feelings on this are meaningless (not to mention wrong) we aren't going to use your own research to change sourced facts in the article. --Daniel 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me there is some confusion as to the difference between a mile square, and a square mile. Sixteen square miles would refer to a square in which each side is sixteen miles long, not four miles. And that is beside the point anyway, since the only verifiable source is the people who made the damn game, and the just so happen to be where the sixteen square miles came from. It is not only a reasonable size for the game, it is the only measurement we can use. It doesn't matter what you feel is right or not. Remember, it doesn't matter if something is true, only if it is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.14.153 (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, I won't argue with you neither, as it's getting silly indeed. You don't want to understand that the values in the creation of a video games aren't at all supposed to be coherent values, even if an conversion approximation can of course be made. Sorry but your links aren't reliable in this matter. Do you know exactly how many "cells" the world map is, as it is there lengh unit? That would help a lot actually, because we would be able to compare to the size of a character.

To answer the last unsigned comment, yes the problem must be something like that. And as Indrian sais, it's the other way around. A 16 miles square would be completely plausible indeed, not 16 square miles, for the reasons I've explained.

So now, it's up to you to decide what you really want to write in the article, it's true that I'm new to editing on this site. But it just feels weird to simply let those values knowing that there is obviously a problem somewhere, even if I'm not sure where it comes from. :S Timorite (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, I really think that anyone who wants to post here should first launch the game (if he has one), teleport to the Anvil north gate, set the marker on the far east of the country, and try walk the straightest possible to the marker. Take a horse if you don't want to waste 40 minutes of your time. The quicker we agree there actually is a data problem, the better, and then we'll think about what to do about it. And if everyone still strongly thinks he has only travelled 4 or 5 miles, I'll definitely stop my "silly" quest. ;-) Timorite (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem or no problem, do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? Because, if there isn't one, there's nothing we can do short of ignoring WP:VERIFIABILITY. Adding "According to [whomever]" is the closest we can go to saying that it's that particular group/person who says this, but we cannot add our personal interpretations of what that means. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Timorite, HELLKNOWZ has got it precisely right. You can argue your opinion for as long as you like, but when it comes to the content of the article, what matters is having a source to cite. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand, no problem. It still feels weird, but if it's the Wikipedia way I accept it. If I ever encounter a better information I'll let you know. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timorite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to work out. The local map is about 264 ft wide(1/20th of a mile). You can verify this by using life detect for eg. From this you can estimate the size of the map, which comes to....about 16 sq miles(4*4 miles), using this method. 86.178.73.8 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Awkward wording

The caption below the small picture of the equip menu mentions garb being used as a verb. Comments, questions, concerns? GeneralRobotwallah (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The inventory interface, where the player garbs, armors, and equips their character.
Garb can be used as a verb. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rated M for Mature.

I don't get this.

I know about the "topless character" story that caused the ESRB to change the rating to M. But the article clearly stated that Bethesda removed all traces of that from the game. So why is it STILL rated M? Dartpaw86 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86

Because it is. Unless the ESRB reevaluates the game a third time and changes the rating again, it remains M. Also, if you read the ESRB statement, you'll see that the rating was moved to M for more reasons than the top less models. ESRB stated that the game's violence and gore was above what was originally expressed by Bethseda or available in the original review of the game's content. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim is better

People have said that Oblivion is better than skyrim but they never prove. Zak123456789  (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to declare which game is better. Did you find something in an article that made such a declaration?  Honette 06:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Development history of The Elder Scrolls series

A merge discussion at Development history of The Elder Scrolls series was closed as merging the information there into the relevant sub articles. This is a good article, potentially featured, so I am loath to merge in anything that could damage that rating (even though the other article is of Good quality). From what I can gather there is not much new at that article anyway. If anyone is interested they can find the pre-merge version here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Info. Box: Missing Producer? (Todd Howard)

TES IV: Oblivion's in-game credits show Todd Howard as Executive Producer and Ashley Cheng as Senior Producer, in that order. The info. panel in the article shows only one producer, Ashley Cheng. If only one of the producers can be shown in the box, shouldn't it be the more senior person who is listed earliest in the in-game credits?

I looked at some of the article's history, and it appears that, on 12 March, 2014, Howard was listed in the box as a Designer (which is inaccurate according to the game's credits) and in the next historical version, on 16 March, 2014, he was removed from the list of Designers and a Producer field was added, but his name was not added to it.

I did not make an edit because I don't know if this is an oversight or if it was intended.

I own the game and can provide a screen image of that portion of the credits if necessary. A text version is also available online at: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Development_Team, but as the site's name implies, it is not an "official" source.

Eodril (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion/Archive_4&oldid=1191614466"