Talk:Despise

Generalizing Danger
I'd like to know how "While only few monsters like Trolls and Gremlins call these caves their home, Despise is dangerous because of another fact: It is the worst maze in all of Britannia, with many locked doors, pit traps, false leads and dead ends. Many a warrior had descended into this cave system, only to never return form it, having starved to death in its depths after getting lost in the maze." generalizes all Ultimas. I think this article needs a serious look. AngusM 03:10, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed the generalization problem. I've also left open a lot of room for necessary expansion while lightly touching on what the dungeon is for all games. My intent is for the redlinks to articles specific for each game to be filled with in-depth descriptions, maps, and walkthroughs for the dungeon. -- Fenyx4 16:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fenyx... what in hell did you do? The idea behind a central article for a dungeon is, to have all the information there, and not to create numerous sub-articles, as you obviously plan to do when looking at all the currently dead links. And the whole maps and descriptions thing doesn't count, there are already solutions for them here.

The infobox is OK, that's useful, but otherwise tho whole thing looks like a mess, ripped into seperate pieces. Also with a little more writing elegance, the whole thing with countless sub-sections in the history wouldn't be neccassary.--Tribun 16:19, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum:I'll wait for you reaction, before I try to fix this mess.--Tribun 16:27, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that splitting the article up into subarticles is a bad idea - unless maps and solutions are provided in each sub-article, in which case I think it's a great idea! But I like the division into sections for each game, I think that's important since most dungeons change a lot. Generalization is bad, and there's far too much personal opinion on this wiki already. --Warder Dragon 17:23, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of the central article should be to provide an overview of the dungeon throughout the game and then provide a portal into detailed specifics for each game.
 * Tribun, I'm confused by your argument since you say the point is "to have all the information there" and then follow it in the next sentence with the fact that there already are sub-articles for the maps and descriptions. I assume you are talking about Dungeon_Solution_for_Ultima_IV and Dungeon_Solution_for_Ultima_V? Yes they exist but with nothing linking to them. The fact that they are categorized is useful but the typical user is going to arrive at this page when looking for information about Despise and we should give them a way to reach all that information from this page. I'd be happy with the redlinks being redirected to or replaced with links to those articles. But, to my knowledge, there aren't any pages like that for Ultima VI or VII or IX. The redlinks invite contributors to create those pages.


 * Warder has already made my point about the sub-sections. I feel that hardline seperation is necessary so people can be clear on what information was presented in which games. I'd love to see more information in them though. The Ultima VI section especially is a bit bare. -- Fenyx4 18:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it might be valuable to take a step back and figure out exactly what utility we're trying to provide. It seems to me that people interested in a particular dungeon are looking for one of three types of information: (1) A general big-picture concept of what the dungeon's place is in Britannia; (2) A specific summary of how the dungeon has changed from one game to the next; and (3) A very specific overview of the dungeon which can be used as a "cheat" or guide while playing a specific game.
 * It seems to me that this information is best presented in: (1) The opening paragraph of this article; (2) Specific sub-sections of this article; and (3) Separate articles (since the level of detail necessary to provide a half a dozen comprehensive playing guides would overwhelm a single article). This is precisely the structure that Fenyx has provided, and while the actual content could certainly use fleshing out (including the creation of many of the guides for each individual game), I don't see any reason to abandon the basic structure. JustinA 03:08, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not so subtle revert
I reverted the Complete rewrite not so subtle revert. There were problem with the text as it was before my edits. This whole thing started because attention was brought to some of them and I did my best to fix them. Subtly reverting back to that version with only the most minor of modifications to avoid completely ignoring the consensus above is bad form.

Admittedly I should have more immediately followed up and fixed all the other dungeon articles to match this one. But I've been busy doing other things. -- Fenyx4 04:06, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Despise/Shame in Ultima VII
There's been some back-and-forth editing on this issue in the past, and I still don't think we're at a point where it's handled appropriately.

One misleading assertion that has persisted thus far is that Despise and Shame were swapped in U7. Technically, they weren't. According to the cluebook, traditional Despise is still "Despise," but traditional Shame is now "Despise" as well. They're both mapped on the same page. I wouldn't call that an inversion; I'd call it an incorporation or assimilation.

So, here's what I think we should do: shift the content of the Shame article's Ultima VII section to Despise so that both dungeons are covered in that one article, while leaving Shame's current "Main article" link and note about the nomenclature as they are (albeit with changes to the aforementioned wording). I think this is the best way to be true to what was presented in U7 while still objectively acknowledging the fact that it was an error. --Terilem 02:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I for my part still won't move from my point that I don't accept that we have to replicate the fuck-up's of the creators, when they were unable to get their own canon straight. However, I'm (at least for now) in no mood for an editing war.--Tribun 03:06, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the wiki doesn't revolve around the stance of any single contributor. It's about making objective decisions through consensus, which is what I'm trying to get here so we don't have more editing wars on this issue. I'm merely putting forth an idea that hasn't been attempted yet. Is it not better to have a proper discussion rather than engage in a petty edit war? --Terilem 03:56, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the back and forth editing that has been made, but I don't really remember the U7 dungeons. However, in any event, I totally support trying to make things clearer and more objective, and hopefully preventing further editing on the issue.--Sega381 04:10, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooo, you make a very good point Terilem. I can't find any reference to Shame in official Ultima VII documentation. And as you found out the cluebook has both areas listed as Despise. It makes a lot more sense that Shame was assimilated than they were swapped. I think that'll make cleaning up the articles much easier too. -- Fenyx4 04:53, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree. If the clue books state inevocably that both area are listed as Despise, then there is no debate to be had and it is how it should be reference. I stand from my assement that is is not a wiki's role to fix or retcon any mistake (or else hell, we might as well begin retconing the eck out of most Ultima IX articles :P), but simply to report factually and objectively the content of the games, including whatever mistake they might have --Sergorn 05:34, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed completely. Especially Ultima IX needs more love on this wiki. Dungy 19:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt we can give much "love" to U9 (at least speaking for myself and for what I've seen), but I guess we can settle for "objectivity" :).--Sega381 19:48, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed :P As an Ultima fan, I'm loathe to see U9 incorporated as canon, but as an objective editor, it would be hypocritical to selectively omit it. --Terilem 02:11, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I completed the move as discussed above. Hopefully this will settle the issue. --Terilem 00:15, 9 December 2010 (PST)