Lore talk:Ebonheart

Rename

I was just thinking considering Ebonheart's notability in lore over the fortress on Vvardenfell, and the fact that it's now making it's second appearance in-game, perhaps the page should be moved to simply Ebonheart while moving the castle to something like Castle Ebonheart, Ebonheart (fortress) or something of the like, opinions? — Unsigned comment by StormySkies (talk • contribs) at 04:19 on 29 March 2014 (GMT)

I wouldn't mind "Castle Ebonheart", since Old Ebonheart isn't an official name anyway AFAIK. —Legoless (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2014 (GMT)

Ah. I was laboring under the delusion that it was. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 13:38, 29 March 2014 (GMT)

If you use distant land on Morrowind PC it becomes very obvious that Ebonheart is an Imperial castle built right next to Vivec for Imperial business reasons. Makes sense to call it Castle Ebonheart, named after the city on the mainland. — Unsigned comment by 108.36.229.184 (talk) at 17:55 on 25 April 2014 (GMT)

As long as we have a source for Castle Ebonheart. Otherwise we may as well stick with this. —Legoless (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2014 (GMT)

Under the circumstances, I favor Ebonheart (city) and Ebonheart (castle). Otherwise, we risk giving readers (like me) the false impression that the name is official. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 21:28, 25 April 2014 (GMT)

That works. —Legoless (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) Any further objections/comments on moving these pages to Ebonheart (city) and Ebonheart (castle)? Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 23:22, 6 June 2014 (GMT)

I would favor just Ebonheart and Castle Ebonheart to avoid ugly parentheticals where they aren't necessary. The castle descriptor is used about a dozen times in MW dialogue ("Castle Ebonheart is the seat of Imperial authority on Vvardenfell", "Castle Ebonheart is the home of Duke Vedam Dren, the district's ruler and Emperor's representative."), as well as in Guide to Vvardenfell and The Real Barenziah v IV (which also references 'Old' Ebonheart as just Ebonheart). -- Hargrimm^(T) 00:21, 7 June 2014 (GMT)

I would favor Ebonheart and Castle Ebonheart too, but after we decided to make the change, I would request one or two weeks of transition time to make sure all the links are moved over. There are likely hundreds of links to Ebonheart that need to be fixed, as well as books, lore articles and articles in other namespaces that are referring old ebonheart or ebonheart. Jeancey (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (GMT)

Sounds good to me.Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 13:40, 7 June 2014 (GMT)

Okay since this seems to be a done deal is it alright if I start changing links to the city to just Ebonheart and to the castle to Castle Ebonheart?--StormySkies (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

JUST change Ebonheart to Castle Ebonheart. Old Ebonheart links will remain until we move the page, which will only be done once all the current ebonheart links are converted to castle ebonheart. This way everything will point to the correct page the entire time. Otherwise we would have a period of time where links to ebonheart would go to the castle page while they are supposed to go Old Ebonheart. Make sense? Jeancey (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Clockwork City

Actually underneath Mournhold. Timeoin (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

One manifestation of an entrance is underneath Mournhold. That doesn't mean there aren't others. And the page is still correct; it is "often assumed" that it is under Ebonheart, whether it's actually true or not is unstated. --Enodoc (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point :) Timeoin (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

The historical-fiction books of King Edwards are used extensively on this page, without any note or qualification that they are fiction and the events described did not happen. While there is always some uncertainty with the unreliable narrator, this book series has specifically been called on as being fictional in universe, so much so that the writer of the book says that the books "shouldn't be considered official lore or history". I think we should remove all of the information being cited solely from King Edward, as these events did not happen, as per the actual author of the books. Jeancey (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Massive misinterpretation of the concept of a historical fiction. Wasserman's comments on the book don’t hold as much weight as the text itself as she was no longer an active developer at the time of her comments. King Edward is an invaluable world building text that is referenced on dozens of lore articles and I will personally oppose you or anyone else who attempts to remove it from lore space to the empth degree. You have shown a pattern of having subpar understanding of what the lore space of Uesp sets out to accomplish in regards to letting the readers determine how much weight to give to a certain source. Dcking20 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Treating the events that happen in King Edward as 100% hard and fast true lore completely ignores the in-universe fictional nature of the book series. At bare minimum, any statement purely from King Edward has to provide clarification on it that the information is potentially (and almost certainly beyond that), not accurate or "real" in-universe. We use developer comments all the time, including after they have left the series, and we tag them as such. The statement from the writer makes it clear that this book series is less historical and more fiction, even more so than other historical fiction novels within the games. If the statements can be supported by other sources in the universe, we should tag those, and if they do not have supporting sources, we should be noting that they come from a in-universe fictional source. Not doing that would be a disservice to readers, as it distorts the lore in a way to make what they are reading inaccurate.

Also, saying that you will refuse to listen to any arguments or any sort of consensus building on this topic is a pretty extreme point of view, and I don't think helps the situation. Jeancey (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the current version of the page is a fair compromise between the inclusion of KE info and the highlighting of it as an unreliable source. Any wording along the lines of "potentially fictional" or "series of historical fiction" allows us to document these sources with the appropriate nuance for readers who may be unaware of the books' in-universe context. I agree that anything less is a disservice to readers.

As an aside, there is no need for hostility or personal attacks over this. Dcking, you may be personally and vehemently opposed to any removal of KE info from lore articles, but nothing can remain on the wiki in the absence of consensus. —⁠Legoless (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)