Lore talk:Arden-Sul

Deletion

Please do not delete. I know it's covered in the book but that's only some. Lots is new and I think we need a real page to go to when we see arden-sul. He's very important to the SI history and I think it's kinda silly it not have a page telling about him. I have put a lot of effort into this page and I think that it should stay because a person as improtand as arden-sul needs a page to expaln him other than just a in-game book. If we have a page for a random beggar should we not have one for "the great arden-sul".--Emperor Ray IV 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What information is new from that article? Is there anything there that is not mentioned in the book? And as I said, since the Arden-Sul is not a NPC he'd be better for Lore. We don't have Oblivion pages for Vitellus Donton or Countess Chorrol's husband. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 00:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely oppose deletion. I honestly hadn't realised that we didn't have a full page for this entity. I'm not a huge fan of the way this article is currently written but much of it should be "lore-ified" and then transcluded here because the implications of Arden-Sul could extend over more than one game, and in any case he's worth mentioning in Lorespace. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like everything relavent is covered in the book, though. Lore articles eat that stuff up, but not usually outside there. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 00:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a Lore article that acts as a distillation of the book and of other material (in-game dialogue, etc). rpeh •T•C•E• 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a Lore page is entirely appropriate. I think the Shivering article, if there is one, should just be a redirect to that. Unless there are examples where we've done it before, I'd say a transclusion is isn't warranted given that, as AMM said, Arden-Sul isn't an NPC. – Robin Hood↝talk 03:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic: I've re-worked the page a fair bit. It could probably still use another set of eyes, but it should be closer to Lore-ready. – Robin Hood↝talk 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that in this case it should be put in lore but it is important that we keep it because I think people would rather be directed to a real page than just a book. We will need it to link to the other pages in SI because he is mentioned so much.I have made more edits to it since I first made the page and I think it will be useful.--Emperor Ray IV 14:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(←) Since the broad consensus seems to be to move it to Lore at the very least, I've done so, as you can see. Now we just need to figure out what else to do with it. – Robin Hood↝talk 01:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)