Arena talk:Main Quest

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Uriel Septim IV?[edit]

From the second paragraph:

Uriel Septim IV, Emperor of Tamriel,

Uhm, shouldn't that be Uriel Septim VII ? --130.83.244.131 12:03, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, but in-game that's Uriel Septim IV is used, and we usually use the in-game version around here, even if it's incorrect.--LordDagon 12:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

492 is not an error. Manual states that an Era is 1000 years.[edit]

The intro scenes to Arena contain a few errors, however, one of the errors that many people point out today, wouldn't have been considered an error when the game was released. It states that it has been 492 years since Tiber Septim took control of Tamriel (in 2E 896), but later tells you that the current year is 3E 389. We do some math and come to the conclusion that this was clearly an error, but we've imposed our knowledge of the future. Page 39 of the Player's Guide (user manual) states: "Each Era lasts for 1000 years". It isn't until Daggerfall that we learn that when Tiber is crowned Emperor he also declares it the beginning of the 3rd Era. So until Daggerfall "492 years since" wasn't error, it was lore. -- But then again, Daggerfall is what introduces us to the "tall" Wood Elves. So...you know....there's that.

I don't mind that we call it an "error" because since Daggerfall it is incorrect information, but I would like us to reference the unique circumstances surrounding this case. — Unsigned comment by Satribe (talkcontribs) at 12:49 on 8 November 2020

EDIT: And now I know about signing. --Satribe (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
EDIT: Please see the Arena Subforum where the investigation and discussion was able to tie together all the math, in game sources, and references in the manual. . --Satribe (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems like these are good points. Gamespace articles should be written in context of the game and any discrepancies with other games are at most worth a mention in a notes section. Feel free to edit the parts that you think are problematic. --Ilaro (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I've added the information to the NOTES section, but specifically under the note that mentions mods to "fix" errors in the slides. The [sic] comment on 492 isn't specific whether this is a typo or lore controversy, but the mod fix specifically tries to correct it to future lore additions. I felt this was the proper place to address how 492 is a unique situation as opposed to the other mistakes, especially if you were to consider changing/correcting it in your game. --Satribe (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Minor correction: Clarified the game is intended to start 1st of Hearthfire and that starting 1st of Morning Star is a bug that was introduced in ver 1.05. Current documentation of this is located in the Arena Subforum. Both months occur before Frost Fall, so either start date is the year following the Emperor's birthday. --Satribe (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Should the future game references be removed?[edit]

There is a small discussion on the PLACES talk page (Seen In) that suggest the consensus is to "not" reference future games. There are several references throughout these pages. The reasoning for removal was this: ["This isn't relevant info in the Arena namespace, especially since the lists will likely continue to be expanded upon as time goes on. We generally only note past appearances (i.e. Oblivion location in ESO), not future."] I'm just giving time to see if there may be a reason these are different. If not, I will try to update them later as they were in the Places section. --Satribe (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the earlier discussion, but personally I don't see a problem with noting future appearances. I've seen several instances of future game references in other namespaces and have added a few myself, so perhaps this topic needs to be revisited. --Oriwa Talk 18:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe we had a similar discussion in the Morrowind namespace surrounding ESO information, and I think we settled on leaving existing notes (i.e. those that were referencing Oblivion and Skyrim) but not to add any additional notes of these sorts. Jeancey (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I heavily agree these notes should be in the main Lore section. From an editing conservation standpoint, I agree there isn't a need to track them down and squash them. And for the same reason, it would be an even more difficult task to track down all the locations throughout the game spaces and update them with each new release. I'm okay with whatever the group think is on this, but I am a huge fan of consistency. For me currently, that seems to default to Lore pages, not game spaces; don't worry about removing them....but if your making changes anyway... --Satribe (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Just learned the phrase "group think" is negative about squashing individual creativity. Sorry; I meant - "I always have strong opinions, but whatever the group thinks; is fine." --Satribe (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise? These pages are a walk-through and the first location mentioned has a link to the ARENA:PLACES page and the second location is not a link because this page also includes the map for the main dungeon. (I get it, but it feels a little mixed-matched or under noted to me. But that's a different discussion.) I mention this because I do believe we need to have a link to the LORE section for these major places....and the lore pages link to the future references. However, if I change the first mention of say Labyrinthian to point to the LORE pages then I've added inconsistency. One links to Places, the other Lore. --My suggestion: Keep the note in the NOTES section, but change it to be a reference and link to the LORE page. Remove specific information and allow that to occur on the LORE page. --Satribe (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Just an edit because I caught my misunderstanding. The walk through is using the PLACES sections. That's why it doesn't need a link to itself. (DOH!) However, since the reason I'm on this page is because of the walk-through, and it wasn't abundantly clear (my problem), I still think it might be confusing to have the lore link at the top because the other link is a PLACES link. --Satribe (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)