Lore talk:Fang of Haynekhtnamet

Set names in lore

I 100% disagree with the set name being listed as the name of the item for lore purposes. These items are grouped together by name for game mechanic purposes, not lore reasons. The item name is Fang of Haynekhtnamet. It just happens to be in the Swamp Raider's set. I think we shouldn't be trying to pull in these sorts of game mechanics into lorespace. Jeancey (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2020 (GMT)

I gotta agree with jeancey here. The One Tamriel patch revamped the name of the set from Fang of Haynekhtnamet to Swamp Raider's Fang of Haynekhtnamet to be more noob friendly to players to know that it is part of the set. The patch also revamped delve bosses and world boss drops to have their set names attached to their names for making things friendly to new players. Its not noted in the patch, only the quest reward revamp is noted. "The quest reward items from major quests have been updated to now be part of an item set. In many cases, these items' names have been modified to reflect this. Less important quests' rewards are not part of an item set." But it was one tamriel that world boss item drops had set names attached to their item names.Zebendal (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2020 (GMT)

It is absolutely unprecedented to refuse to refer to an item by its actual in-game name just because you don't like ZOS including its set name. This is not a valid reason to remove that info from the page. If anything, there should be a discussion about still referring to the ESO item as simply "Fang of Haynekhtnamet" in lore, since (as pointed out above) this is a deprecated pre-patch name. When our only lore source is the existence of an in-game item, then we need to respect the name of that item. It is not "gameplay mechanics"; it is our only reference. —Legoless (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2020 (GMT)

Also agree with Jeancey and Zeb that set names do not belong in lore. The way this was implemented in ESO has resulted in some items having three-part, partially contradictory, names just to follow the theme. --Enodoc (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2020 (GMT)

Agree with Jeancey too. The line is so out-of-place. I'd say its worth mentioning in the notes section - that there is a thing in ESO that references it. --Jimeee (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2020 (GMT)

Now you're suggesting removing mention of the item from the main text entirely?? This discussion about the item name is one thing, but Notes is not the correct place to document the appearance of this artifact in ESO. The line was recently reworded and can be done so again if you have any better suggestions, Jimeee.

For the record, it seems like the opposition to documenting the item name presented here is focused on personal distaste for how ZOS names their items. We have no control over this, and it's my view that personal distaste should never impact our documentation efforts. It seems like consensus is against mentioning it here, but I want to stress that this is a terrible precedent to be setting for the Lore:Artifacts project as it was originally envisioned: an attempt at reconciling the gameplay differences between item appearances in different games. If we aren't even being honest about the name of the item, my view is that our ESO coverage is incomplete. —Legoless (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2020 (GMT)

(←) I really don't see the reason why the "Swamp Raider's" part of the name should be included—the exact name of the in-game item isn't particularly relevant to the lore page. Are we even sure that the item is still called that in-game? A lot of items with unique names (at least quest rewards) have had the name of the set piece removed from the name in more recent patches. Unless people believe that the exact in-game name is of particular lore relevance, I think it should be removed. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2020 (GMT)

You can check the current name of the item using the ESO item link on the page. —Legoless (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (GMT)

Removal of Note

I've added the game-specific information as a note, which was subsequently removed on the basis of this discussion. Since my note wasn't actually discussed here at all, does anyone object to its inclusion? The Notes section is the correct place for game-specific information to go, and I feel it's important to explain to readers the nature of the item in ESO. I can't see any sound reason to delete the note. —Legoless (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (GMT)

Im fine with the swamp raider set being put as a note, just don't put it in the main summary.Zebendal (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2020 (GMT)