Lore talk:Godhead

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

Create Page[edit]

Should a page about the godhead be created? I understand that some of what is said about it is non-canon, but this site doesn’t have a page on the godhead and neither does wikia.

-Thebusdriver

Is there any mention of this at all from an in-game source, or something official from Bethesda/Zenimax? If so, it could warrant a page, otherwise probably not. --MarginWalker (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There are mentions of the Godhead in-game. Black Book: Waking Dreams in Skyrim mentions it, and the word Amaranth (which is almost synonymous) is mentioned in 36 Lessons of Vivec, Sermon 37 and in the name of the Discourse Amaranthine in ESO. There are also some indirect references to the concept in other places. Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It has always been our policy, and the ES wikia generally follows it too, that we don't make pages about purely OOG topics. Even in the case where something is mentioned, we shy away from creating a page where the only explanations are from unofficial sources. If there was something substantial from an official source to start the page, then the OOG can be used to broaden it. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a page on CHIM then? --MarginWalker (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

() Playing the devils advocate here but CHIM is canon, but not much is known about it. It is mentioned in the 36 lessons of Vivec. Thebusdriver (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned there once, but there's nothing definitive about it anywhere in the lore, which as per Silent's criteria should make it ineligible for inclusion. I bring it up because 'CHIM' and the godhead are most likely just two terms for the same concept, but of course that's impossible to verify. --MarginWalker (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't strawman with something before you check it. There are 19 "official" sources used as references on that page. By using all those sources we get a fair idea of what CHIM is, and the 2 unofficial sources help to round out the rough edges of that theory into something more coherent. It doesn't have to mention the thing directly to be relevant. These are not my criteria, they are the general criteria as set by consensus, and are on the Lore guidelines pages, so that there is some idea of the amount of information needed before a page can be made. I was explaining the guidelines so that you could determine whether the page met them, not expressing an opinion as to whether a page should or should not be made. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I did check it in fact, and there is exactly one reference to CHIM in the lore. Everything else there is pure conjecture based on OOG explanations from MK. Putting ten references next to every sentence does not mean something is actually well-supported. And when you say "It doesn't have to mention the thing directly to be relevant" doesn't that contradict what you said above about not making pages about something that's only mentioned and substantiated only in OOG sources? Because that is precisely the case with CHIM. I'm not judging the guidelines, I'm just trying to clarify what the standards actually are. --MarginWalker (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You're mixing the two things up. A source doesn't have to directly mention something but can explain it (or part of it, or something about it), just as many things are mentioned directly but not explained in any way. The explanation is the important part, without that it is just a word, and the explanation has to start in something official before something unofficial can be brought in to help round it out. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but still contradicts what you first said about something only being explained in OOG sources. There is nothing explaining CHIM in any in-game source, I'm sure that's why MK felt the need to write articles explaining it OOG. The Godhead is not a concept that TES introduced, you could find many OOG sources that explain it and you could likewise find ways to link them to in-game concepts. It just seems like an exception was made with CHIM because it was one of MK's concepts, and because he was there to flesh it out (even in an unofficial capacity) that elevated it and the conjecture around it to "semi-canon" status. --MarginWalker (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

() There is also a page about the infamous c0da,which is 100 percent pure OOG, but it exists. what if it was explicitly stated as OOG information in the page? Thebusdriver (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that may be different, as thats General:C0DA rather than in the Lore section. Timeoin (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the page makes it clear that it is MK's personal project and is not official. --MarginWalker (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
what if we made it a General page and made it clear that most of the information was oog? Thebusdriver (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
No. C0DA isn't a "concept" or topic being explained by MK it is an actual thing of substance. Now you get my opinion. You have so far failed so utterly to demonstrate any reason for this page to be created at this time that you are now trying to bypass the guidelines by trying a different namespace. If the source material is so utterly lacking in explanation that you can't even show how the page might fall short of meeting the guidelines and perhaps deserve an exception, then this page has no merit to be created at all. The guidelines are there to protect lore from the rubbish that is out there in fan-created lore. If I could I would shut this conversation down right now, nevertheless I personally don't want to see any replies that don't show how this page deserves creation on its own merits and within the guidelines. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

() Sandbox it and it'll probably be made, either in Lore or General. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)