Lore talk:Lyg

Mostly OOG

So, Lyg is a mostly out of game concept from MK. The only actual reference to Lyg comes in Mythic Dawn Commentaries 4, where it is mentioned once. Lyg also appears in the Exegesis of Merid-Nunda where it appears to be a being, not a continent. Honestly, given how massive the OOG content is in dealing with this, I don't think it really deserves its own page, but rather a small blurb on the location pages. The only actual info besides the name comes from OOG sources. There are some in-game sources, but they don't mention Lyg by name and you can only tell that they are related from OOG content written after the in-game references, essentially a retcon. What does everyone else think?--Jeancey (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the page currently deals primarily with unofficial OOG content and therefore should be deleted, but I believe I can give it a quick rewrite to include only officially sourced info. Keeping it as a separate page rather than a blurb on Lore:Places L also seems acceptable to me due to the need to have a Notes section briefly mentioning MK's stuff and Xero-Lyg. —Legoless (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've rewritten the page, although I've neglected adding any MK notes for now since I have limited knowledge of "his" Lyg. —Legoless (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you bloody kidding me! I worked hard on this page to dig up this info and im fine with editing but did you have to Delete the whole bloody page and start over! I'm undoing the changes and adding the information you have supplied, just next time, dont delete the whole page without consulting the original writer. -Lordolore(Talk) 13:44 27th September 2015

Hi Lordolore. A lot of the information you included was not properly sourced or accurate to the scant out of game material. For example, MK has stated only that Lyg is 'one of' the Adjacent Places, meaning that none of the info on Adjacent Places from the Lessons is relevant. Likewise, there is no source stating that the Vivec's Antlers coral from ESO is native to Lyg to my knowledge. If we've missed some information as the article is now, could you provide links to the missing sources? Thanks! --Dinmenel (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dinmeenel, Most of this infomation is infact in game meterial, either based off books in the games or spoken by NPCs in the games, but I have made assumptions on the details, for instance, the Coral at Vivecs Antlers, in a quest at Vivecs Antlers, the questgiver says "The Coral is summoning the Dreugh to defend it" now there are 2 ways this might happen, Mid Control or a Symbiotic Relationship between the two species. If this is the case (which it most likely is) then this Symbiotic relationship must go back tens of thousands of years to achieve telepathic communication and servitude between the two. This indicates that the two came from the same area and since we know that the Dreugh are from Lyg, it is likely that the Coral is also from here. But then with the Grabbers, when i wrote this article i had no knowledge of multiple Adjacent places and so assumed that they origialted from Lyg, but there is no solid proof against this fact so until conflicting evidence is presented i will just leave it there. P.S if someone can add the Links on the page that would be great -Lordolore(Talk) 14:25 27th September 2015

That is what we call 'original research'. I remember the connection between dreugh and the coral and I understand your reasoning, but it is not according to our guidelines to just include anything that cannot be disproved. If we did that, anyone could put anything that isn't explicitly denied into any article, and readers would go away thinking it was absolutely true. Unless there is something which definitively states that the coral is from Lyg or believed to be from Lyg, could you remove that information from the article? The other changes you have made also need to be explicitly sourced (and I am not aware of sources that support them, in-game or out of game), or they must be removed. For now, I'm adding fact tags where needed. --Dinmenel (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) I've removed all unsourced information. There is nothing to suggest Vivec's coral or the Grabbers are from Lyg or that the Adjacent Place is Lyg, and the description of its geography will need some sort of reference before it can be noted. I've left the list of places for now, although I initially thought those names to be rulers or gods rather than cities so I'm not sure if we can safely conclude anything from them. I've also moved the description of Lyg being a "parallel" of Tamriel to the Notes section, since OOG content shouldn't be in the opening sentence like that under our current guidelines. I've also restored the distinction between Mythic Dawn and Tribunal Temple teachings and the info on Xero-Lyg and the Oblivion Crisis.

As for the removal of content: "Note that all contributions to UESPWiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. [...] If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." While the work you did on this article is admirable, Lordolore, its content is outside the scope of UESP and really can't even be mentioned here without at least pointing us towards your sources. —Legoless (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Without the AMA, it is not possible to even state what Lyg is - the Commentaries do not state that it is a continent or that the dreugh ruled it in the Dawn. The guidelines are the guidelines, though; I just don't think we should state either of those two things. Likewise, the Commentaries do not state that it was freed 'from Creation.' I fully agree about the places - aside from Malbioge, they could as easily be people. This sentence is also awkward, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to change it during this discussion. "[...] and the after-image of was reborn in Tamriel and known as the Ruddy Man when he was the Ruddy Man." Lastly, since there are so few references to Lyg, I think the Aldudagga still deserves a reference in the notes section. --Dinmenel (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed that sentence. Linking to Aldudagga is fine with me, but I removed it as a reference since it's common knowledge that Molag Bal's domain is Coldharbour. I'm fine with it being re-added though. As for the Commentaries, Camoran says that Dagon's creation/rebellion happened in the Dawn multiple times: "Know that then you are royalty, a new breed of destroyer, whose garden shall flood with flowers known and unknown, as it was in the mythic dawn." He also says "the Mundex Terrene was once ruled over solely by the tyrant dreugh-kings [...] and borderwars fought between their slave oceans" and "Mehrunes threw down Lyg and cracked his face, declaring each of the nineteen and nine and nine oceans Free", which can be summarised as 'dreughs ruled Lyg'. This is why the correlation (but not confirmation) with the Sermons is important to both note and distinguish, as Vivec talks about the dreugh rulership of the world as well. 'From Creation' was a liberty of mine, based on Camoran's goals in Oblivion as well as the mention of towers. I'm okay with removing that bit, but I struggle to see what else Dagon could have "Freed" them from. —Legoless (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dreugh ruling Lyg I don't mean to dispute, and I think I can see a strong enough connection to the Dawn in this line: '"All will change in these days as it was changed in those..."' I'm still a bit uncomfortable with saying 'the' Dawn rather than 'a' Dawn, considering that Mankar operates on a different understanding of mythic history, but, eh. As for Creation, I don't think it fits because Mankar talks about Dagon's own creation: '"But for it the Crusades would be as my lord's Creation, Get by the Ge and do as thou wilt, of no fetters but your own conscience!"' But my biggest concern is with stating that Lyg is a continent. I don't see how we can know that without OOG material. --Dinmenel (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what that line about the Crusades even means, but like I said I'm okay with the article simply discussing destruction rather than going into the Freeing part. I thought about the continent part as well, and the reason I decided to keep it in was due to the fact that both Nirn and Mundus are mentioned in the Commentaries, and Camoran distinguished Lyg from 'Arena', i.e. Tamriel. He compares the Septims/Dragonborn to the dreugh-kings of Lyg, and wants to enable Dagon to cast them down and (according to Oblivion dialogue) restore Nirn to its "natural" Daedric state of chaos/destruction. To me, this is a direct comparison between Lyg and Tamriel, which is why labelling it a continent isn't too much of a leap into OOG in my opinion. I'd be okay with calling it a 'place' or a collection of oceans either, but given what we know from OOG and what we can quite fairly assume from official sources I don't find the term continent too objectionable. Also, if you subscribe to the kalpa thing, it would still be *the* Dawn Era, i.e. Lyg was destroyed at the end of the previous kalpa which bleeds into the timeline of Tamriel... but that bears little relevance. —Legoless (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. If it's ok to 'dip into' OOG based on in-game hints in the first sentence like that, I've no problem with it; it is obviously the intent, given the AMA. --Dinmenel (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mention of the Oblivion Crisis

Any reason in particular for including this? It's where the article begins to waver into the territory of trivia, in my opinion. I don't see the direct connection between Lyg and the replication of an event that destroyed said continent. Well, that's all I've got; pretty much what I said in my edit summary. Korodac (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per this removal, this article deals with Lyg from two perspectives: (1) the teachings of Vivec as espoused by the Tribunal Temple; and (2) the teachings of Mankar Camoran and his Mythic Dawn cult. Camoran's scripture on the destruction of Lyg directly correlates to Oblivion's main quest, and understanding this is central to his depiction of Lyg. It is not out of context when one of the article's two main references was written with the Oblivion Crisis in mind, nor is it extrapolated or 'trivial'. With so little official information on Lyg, it is absolutely essential to draw attention to its similarities with Tamriel. I can't see any justification or need to remove it. —Legoless (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Mythic Dawn Commentaries, Book Four should be listed as an additional source. From the events of Oblivion alone, without having read this book, there is indeed no connection to be made between the Oblivion Crisis and Lyg. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 17:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made the change. —Legoless (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh, seems like a blatant extrapolation of mostly useless trivia to me, only bearing some relevance overall. The piece doesn't really give any alluded insight into Lyg's depiction or similarities to Tamriel, even with the inclusion of an MDC4 reference. Mankar's teachings are thoroughly handled, given the faint amount of aforementioned information, and I think "with so little official information" is indicative of valid extrapolation... but extrapolation, nonetheless. It in fact does not give a lore inquirer any further understanding of Lyg, the continent, but rather mentions an event similar to that which took Lyg; I really don't see how that's anything other than article fat, as of now; if anything, it only says that Lyg was similar to Tamriel by virtue of having been taken by an event similar to the one that occurred in Oblivion, and nothing else. That's how I currently perceive it, for now.

Since removing the fat isn't imperative to the article's quality, however, I'm okay with its continued inclusion. Korodac (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So I guess that settles it? For the sake of argument though, I'll concede that 'Lyg' and 'the fall of Lyg' are two distinct (but interwoven) concepts. Since it makes sense for this article to deal with both, it should therefore deal with all information regarding the fall of Lyg, and in my opinion its attempted replication by Camoran falls under that in terms of notability. —Legoless (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

PTS Content

I have undone the restoration of the note about the Void-Crystal Anomaly antiquity from ESO which was named "Black Fragment of Lyg" on the PTS. A comparison was drawn between this page and Lore:Warlock's Ring on the grounds that Warlock's Ring includes deprecated information. Rezalon is correct in his reasoning here, we do include deprecated information in lorespace, because it was actually featured in-game at some point and therefore qualifies as a retcon. The difference here is that "Black Fragment of Lyg" is not deprecated content, it is pre-release information from a version of ESO which never made it to live. We don't even note PTS information on ESO articles, nevermind lorespace. Furthermore, we have a policy against pre-release content in lore articles for this very reason; such content is subject to change.

Now, in principle I am not against adding notes of PTS information to ESO and lore articles. However, it is not currently something we allow, and a discussion would need to happen to change this policy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say the Warlock's Ring is a little similar, but not an identical case of the exact same nature, as it was once in fully released content that was removed later on, whereas the Lyg fragment was only around for one week on the pts (the same case for the Blood scion having Vampire Lord wings). However, the item is still called "housing_uni_inc_antblackfragmentoflyg001.png" in the image files, so clearly it wasn't intended to have been a throwaway line at Lyg but rather made to reference it specifically. I'd categorize this the same as the concept art for the gods the celestials were originally based off and the other continents using the early card art for the summerset orrery, which also didnt make it into the final game but are perfectly fine being used since they're relegated to the Notes sections.

Personally I'm pretty indifferent over what to do for this one, but because there's very little info on Lyg to begin with, I think the page could benefit from noting the fragment. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should start reducing our standards without discussion just because "There isn't much info on the topic". There isn't much info because they seem to NOT want to add to it. Specifically removing the line should indicate that they do not mean for it to be canon, and including it on the page goes against our standards on the matter. We just report what makes it to the live game, we don't make judgment calls on what "they intended to do". Jeancey (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just mention it in the notes as a curiosity bro. 177.204.70.199 19:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention PTS content that never made it into the game in the notes just because it existed at one point. "This object was named after this place at one point" doesn't add to the lore in any meaningful way. -MolagBallet (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Jeancey (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

New Addition of UOL

All new UOL must first reach consensus on the talk page here. I have removed the following recently added UOL line, for discussion:

According to some sources, this destruction took place in the prior kalpa.{{ref|group=UOL|[[General:Pocket Guide to the Empire, Second Edition|Pocket Guide to the Empire, Second Edition]]}}

The source is the Pocket Guide to the Empire, Second Edition. In full context, this UOL was written by Michael Kirkbride who essentially created the idea of Lyg, so I think it probably is a fair point. One thing I would like to ask: Are there other sources saying the destruction did NOT take place in the prior Kalpa? If there are, and those sources are in-game, then this line should not be added to the page.

If anyone has any additional questions, feel free to raise them as well, or to respond to this point. Jeancey (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There aren't any in-game sources that say that description did not happen in a past kalpa. Rather, we have the line from the Songs of Pelinal (Also written by Michael Kirkbride) wherein King Umaril references the "World-River" of the past Kalpa:

... and he listed his bloodline in the Ayleidoon and spoke of his father, a god of the [previous kalpa's] World-Rive.{{ref|{{Cite Book|The Song of Pelinal, v 7}}}}

TO ME, at least, this is a clear reference to Lyg and its many oceans ruled by the Dreugh. But it is debatable.

What isn't debatable, however, is this other UOL reference, from the Aldudagga, which should also be added as it corroborates to the idea that Molag Bal once ruled Lyg:

The bull eyed the Prince, and gave a bow as the older cows taught him, and started to say, "Mighty Lion of Evening, Vulgar and Low, Keeper of Coldharbour since the fall of Lyg.{{ref|group=UOL|[[General:The Seven Fights of the Aldudagga|The Seven Fights of the Aldudagga]}} --177.204.70.199 19:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see the Uol info restored as I feel it is relevant to, and helps round out the article. There is no official lore source that conflicts with it being a prior kalpa. -dcking20 — Unsigned comment by Dcking20 (talk • contribs) at 20:04 on 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just policy that all new UOL be discussed first, regardless of how small or relevant :) Generally, these discussion last one week, and assuming no major disagreements with the statement, it'll be added. Jeancey (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't see much need for a discussion here, seems non-controversial for an established UOL text. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

While I may have personal disagreements with the inclusion of UOL text in general. I will set aside my biases for this and say that this usage of UOL text does fit with the current general usage of UOL throughout the wiki. For this reason I will agree that the information should be reinstated on the page. Enderkingdev (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We can probably snowball this for the original line, but I don't think the other line suggested has that sort of support. Jeancey (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)