Lore talk:Companions

Great War

Does anybody know if the companions participated in the Great war with the Aldmeri Dominion? — Unsigned comment by 67.240.135.2 (talk) at 22:34 on 4 March 2013

The Companions avoid politics, so I doubt it. —Legoless (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (GMT)

Chronology errors

If Jeek succeeded Ysgramor that would mean his time as Harbinger would have still been during the Merethic era..... the first era was still a long ways away. It needs to be fixed.

Membership Reorganization and Expansion

I think having a more expansive membership catalogue would benefit the page, particularly since we are listing all of the known 500 Companions already. Something like this is my idea:

(==)Known Members(==)

Five Hundred Companions

(members, alphabetical columns can remain)

Modern Companions

(this could be broken up by eras or perhaps separated into Members/Welps, The Circle Members, and Harbingers)

I mainly propose this after learning that Falk Firebeard was a member of the Companions before entering the Court of Solitude, which I feel is noteworthy. Figured I'd talk page it first, though, since it would be a decently sized change. Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to list all the Companions on the main page, particularly considering the contents of The Five Hundred Mighty Companions or Thereabouts of Ysgramor the Returned. This needs to be split. —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So something like Lore:Companions and Lore:Five Hundred Companions, with the modern Companions page having on of those notes at the top with the other article? In that case, would an expanded membership section on the modern Companions page be suitable? Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Having 2 pages is overkill when section headers would do the same job. However the 500 members MK text is meme-level lore full of in-jokes and inconsistencies to the degree it doesnt even qualify as UOL.--Jimeee (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of listing all Companions that have ever existed. We don't do this with any other major faction, nor do the majority of these individuals meet our Lore:People notability standard. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(←) Notablity? The guidelines for Lore:People are designed to exclude game-relevant individuals who are not historically notable. This is the reasoning that allowed a single mention character like Lore:Huna get their own page. The founding fathers of Skyrim are argubally even more historically notable than a random hoplite, so I dont see an issue listing the 500, and even further, each having their own page. Listing them on a page is appropriate and just the next logical step, because they are historically notable and it fleshes out the page. There are plenty faction pages that list Known Members--Jimeee (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I prefer Mindtrait0r's suggestion of a split if we are going to maintain a full list of the 500. "Unnamed firemage" has no relevance to the modern faction. —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not either/or. We can split the page and still maintain 2 big members lists. We did split Dragonguard/Blades which is a very similar situation, so I dont oppose it.--Jimeee (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If an extensive membership section is unfavorable due to length as Legoless suggested, would it be good to use a collapsable drop-down? Similar to the Known Owners one on Lore:Mehrunes' Razor? Mindtrait0r (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Collapsable lists are strongly discouraged because they are notoriously poor for usability and accessibility. A 2 or 3 column list is better.--Jimeee (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)