Lore talk:Main Page

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussion specifically about the content of the Main Page. General discussion about the Lore section of the wiki belongs at UESPWiki_talk:Lore.
Casual discussion related to TES Lore, but unrelated to wiki articles, should be restricted to the forums.
Archives
Archive 1: Jun 2006 - Aug 2008
Archive 2: Sep 2008 - Jun 2012

Book Authors[edit]

These people aren't mentioned on the People's articles. But adding the in-game authors of in-game books to those articles would not only be a hassle, but would also not be very productive, since they have very little historical reference. Instead could we place a link in the People section to the Lore:Books_by_Author article? Since there are a lot of people not mentioned on People pages. -- kertaw48 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was bringing this up in the topic below, and I totally agree (honestly, I had overlooked this topic until Eshe archived the old topics). Like Kertaw said, including in-game authors to Lore:People wouldn't add much value. Even if we limit it to authors who possess some historical value, making entries for them would be a big, redundant chore that undoubtedly wouldn't present their significance any better than their books already do.
We don't have a proper Overview page for the Lore Library or for the People section. I propose we remove the authors already in the Lore:People multitopic articles, make those overviews, and note on each that authors are omitted from the People section. We could give specific "shout-outs" in the People overview to authors who do have some historical significance, and let people just read their work(s) if they want more info. I can draft the overview(s) and come back for feedback here.
Hope that makes sense. I don't think I'm explaining myself well; I'm in a rush and in desperate need of coffee at the moment. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:39, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
Took this up at UESPWiki talk:Lore. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:57, 19 October 2012 (GMT)

Need some consensus on these Skyrim NPCs[edit]

I'm almost finished updating Lore: People with NPCs from Skyrim who I feel are undoubtedly "lore-worthy". The following is a list of people who, for whatever reason, I didn't feel comfortable adding unilaterally. Some of them I think should be included, some I don't think should be included, but they're all borderline. I thought I should point out that I considered them for inclusion and intentionally omitted them because I felt like more than one man's opinion is needed to decide. It's up to you folks whether they get in the lore section. I'm not going to go through them individually; their potential historical significance, as well the factors that made me hesitant, should be apparent upon review. Most of the alternate jarls, such as Sorli the Builder, are not significant beyond the fact that they might become a jarl, and since there's no satisfactory way to mention that, I don't feel that they're eligible for inclusion, so I've omitted them. Stewards, Thanes, and Court Wizards have been categorically omitted.

I might add to this list if I find more names in the Skyrim lore that I'm ambivalent about.

Edit- For the sake of convenience, New readers can likely ignore crossed-out names, which are those who have been "black-balled" already by one or more contributors, as well as characters whose pages have already been made.

Arniel Gane

Adonato Leotelli

Alain Dufont

Ancano

Belyn Hlaalu

Brand-Shei

Brynjolf

Chief Burguk

Dexion Evicus

Elenwen

Fjotra

Galmar Stone-Fist

Gelebros

Gularzob

Jyrik Gauldurson

Hamal

Haldyn

Halldir

Idgrod the Younger

Laelette the Vampire

Chief Larak

Linwe

Lu'ah Al-Skaven

Malyn Varen

Chief Mauhulakh

Maven Black-Briar

Mikael

Mikrul Gauldurson

Minorne

Mirabelle Ervine

Nerien

Orchendor

Quaranir

Legate Rikke

Sergius Turrianus

Sigdis Gauldurson

Silus Vesuius

Tandil

Tolfdir

Velehk Sain

Viarmo

Vittoria Vici

Chief Yamarz

If you're wondering about the absence of some NPCs, it's probably because I intend to add them but haven't yet. Kodlak Whitemane, Korir, Valerica, etc. Only so many hours in a day. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 19:59, 11 October 2012 (GMT)

I'd be hesitant to give Belyn Hlaalu and the individual Psijic monks separate lore pages. Belyn is only important because of his last name, which is actually pretty common and doesn't necessarily imply any association with the Great House of the same name. We have next to no information on the monks, apart from perhaps the leader (Quaranir, is it?). Most of the others seem okay, but I haven't looked at all of them. I certainly wouldn't object to the creation of any of them. —Legoless (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
I agree with Legoless. I'm not sure what Alain Dufont or Mikael's significance is, and I'm not sure that Hamal is important enough to record as more than a passing note under Fjotra (she's the one that's important from a lore perspective). I'm not big on Laelette or Lu'ah Al-Skaven, but I wouldn't mind if they were mentioned. Vittoria Vici could receive a passing note, but she should definitely be mentioned. I think that recording the Orc Chieftains is a good idea (perhaps combine them into one section?), and the same for the mages at the College of Winterhold. Everything else looks good, though. • JAT 20:24, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
Mikael is an author, so he made the list. Adonato's on there for the same reason. Some authors of books are mentioned on the Lore: People multi-topic pages. I'm not sure if this is something we really want to continue doing or not, so I punted the issue here. I'm personally not a fan, as it doesn't add much if any value to the pages. Alain probably shouldn't be on here. He is one of the folk I don't think should be added, but he's a bandit leader, his problems with the Shatter-Shield clan were very public, and he possessed Aegisbane, a potential artifact, so I thought I should mention him. I agree on the other people you and Legoless mentioned. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:46, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
Stormcloak, Imperial, and Thalmor leadership are definitely worth mentioning, and Victoria Vici I would mention, since she is part of the Imperial Royal Family and her assassination was one of the reasons Mede came to Skyrim. The rest... Too many are listed for me to find time to glance over. Eric Snowmane(talkemail) 21:02, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
No rush; feel free to review the rest in your own time. In regards to Vici, her assassination doesn't necessarily happen, so her noteworthiness at this juncture would have to depend solely on her East Empire position and her connection to Titus Mede II. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:21, 11 October 2012 (GMT)

() I've come up with a decision on each individual page now, and it's under this Showhide to keep the section from becoming painfully long. That was a lot of pages to read :p Eric Snowmane(talkemail) 06:44, 13 October 2012 (GMT)

I disagree with the objections to Arniel Gane, the Gauldursons and Silus Vesuius. Arniel's experiments with Keening definitely make him lore-worthy, and I can't understand why the Gauldursons would be excluded, given their rather deep history and relation to an important artifact. Silus Vesuius only deserves a passing mention on the Mythic Dawn article, so giving him his own article would be a better option to trying to include all relevant info on the faction's page. I also disagree with excluding Velehk Sain; a Dremora pirate, featured in a book and with significant background, plus two possible fates based on the player's actions, seems more than noteworthy. Like I said above, there's no actual problem with creating these pages. If someone wants to put the time into writing it, the page isn't going to be deleted or something, as it likely would for someone like Glarthir or Faendal who have no true relevance in lore. —Legoless (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2012 (GMT)
I'd prefer Minorne to not be crossed off. She may be minor, but the Vigil of Stendarr has a page, and she did cause over a dozen of their members to worship her, so I think she's worthy of at least a mention, if not her own page. Her Skyrim page needs some serious work, but there's enough information on her in-game for a lore snippet.— ABCface 04:10, 15 October 2012 (GMT)
In response to Legoless, I glanced over Arniel a little more closely when you mentioned Keening, since I missed that, and I would agree to her inclusion. I had passed over that quest when it said (Radiant), erroneously assuming it could have been something generic, and I missed the whole Keening thing. The Gauldurson brothers, I am still the same on them, since I am not particularly convinced that amulet is the most interesting of artifacts. If others find the amulet noteworthy as an artifact, rather than just an old amulet, then they would be noteworthy along side it, but right now, I am not convinced yet. Eric Snowmane(talkemail) 04:23, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

() I put Minorne back in play. Of course, being crossed out here is just for easy reference on where people seem to stand thus far. I agree with Legoless that if someone chose to skip or ignore the whole committee approach and add someone listed here, I won't be the one to make an issue of it. But as exasperating as case-by-case group analyses can be, I think it can help produce a better product if we abide by such a process.

Anyways, I've already taken care of a few NPCs, who I've crossed out. Rikke, Tolfdir, etc. As for the Gauldursons, I'm really very undecided. Their story has already been told on a few different lore pages, so whatever noteworthiness they have might be a moot point. I share Snowmane's concern that the Gauldur Amulet, in the gsme, at least, turns out to be nothing special. Creating separate snippets for each brother seems a little over-the-top, there's not a lot to say about them individually, and its doubtful we'll get any more information on them in the future. On the other hand, they're involved in a significant amount of Skyrim's lore and world; Bethesda donated substantial time to fleshing out their stories. And from a lore perspective, Gauldur's Amulet is apparently supposed to be freakishly powerful, so the Gauldursons are that much more noteworthy just for being involved with it.

Any further thoughts on the whole author thing would be welcome. I'd like to flesh out the criteria for including them, if we are going to continue doing so without adding every single novelist, historian, or poet in Tamrielic history. Flipping through the multi-topic People pages, I imagine there are quite a few authors who could be added, and maybe a few on there already who could be removed. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 07:21, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

The Gauldur Amulet certainly seems like a noteworthy artifact from a lore perspective, despite being unique to one game. It will probably get its own article at some point. With an artifact article, having snippets for the three brothers becomes even more important. —Legoless (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

Edit Break - Update[edit]

So, a little more than half of the people listed above have been rejected or added already; a handful remain to be dealt with. I'll split them up accordingly.

Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:38, 16 November 2012 (GMT)

Ref Template[edit]

The current system of using <noinclude> with references is error-prone. I think it would be a good idea to replace that usage with a template.

  • <ref>text</ref> will become {{ref|text}}
  • <ref name=desc>text</ref> will become {{ref|name=desc|text}}
  • <ref name=desc/> will become {{ref|name=desc}}

Any <noinclude> that is present only for the benefit of references can be removed. The references will only show on the article directly using the template, not on any pages transcluding it. In the few cases references should show on the article transcluding it, that can be achieved by slightly altering the transclusion in the target article: {{:basearticle|showrefs=1}} . Since the template internally uses <ref>, mixing the template with manually done references causes no problems.

The proposed template can be found here and a test case using it in this sandbox. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2012 (GMT)

If the template works as advertised, I don't see a downside to this. I can't think of any situation where we want to transclude references. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 16:20, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
This is an excellent idea. • JAT 16:25, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
I copied it to Template:-space now. One instance were we transclude references is Lore:Third Era Major, but we don't seem to do that for other Eras. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2012 (GMT)

References in multi-topic articles[edit]

Specifically, in the Lore:People, Lore:Places, Lore:Factions, and Lore:Gods multi-topic articles, do we want references for the snippets which are not transcluded from single-topic pages? --Minor Edits 22:36, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Basically, I want to do what I did here for these sections: update them as appropriate, provide sources, and mark the stuff I can't find a source for so that we can root out false information. -- Minor Edits 01:09, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Well, I'm taking the dead silence as support so overwhelming your excitement won't allow you to respond. I believe the lore guidelines on citations implicitly call for references on multi-topic articles anyways, so I'm gonna go ahead and clean up these sections. I'll slap {{fact}} tags on the statements I can't corroborate, and once I'm all done, I'll move any that haven't been corroborated to the talk pages in the wiki fact-checking equivalent of total war. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:02, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Well if it's of any worth I support you. References are badly needed in these types of articles.--Ashendant (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Add a new link ?[edit]

I don't see the link for the "lore names" page. Lore:Names Since i can't edit this page to add it myself, anyone withe the rights can do the trick ? — Unsigned comment by 62.212.115.195 (talk)

It's linked under the Appendices section, which has a bunch of articles not major enough to include on the main page. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2014 (GMT)
I felt it also could be linked from the People page, though not here. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:17, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

Question concerning the map shown[edit]

Seeing as the Anthology map of Tamriel is the most recent official version of the map of Tamriel, would it be appropriate to swap the current Codex one for the Anthology one?

From the looks of the Anthology map scan, you can still see the folds in the map, some tearing, some blurring, and some shadows, so I personally don't think we should use it. I'm only asking because it is the most recent version. --Rezalon (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the current version. I almost want to ask Beth if they could give us the original images of the maps, so we can get pretty versions online of them. There isn't an official upload of them, as far as I can see. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 07:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
An ESO map would probably be the most accurate, but the codex one does the job fine. —Legoless (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Bethesda's comments on canon/lore[edit]

In the Oblivion Fan Interview III in 2006, when asked if OOG works (Nu-Mantia Intercept and Love Letter from the Fifth Era were used as examples) were a part of Elder Scrolls lore, Gavin Carter, Todd Howard, and Pete Hines said "Remember that only things that have been published in Elder Scrolls games should be considered official lore.", implying that OOG works, or at least Michael Kirkbride's OOG works, aren't canon. Of course this was said in 2006, so the two Keyes novels and other official companion pieces are excluded from this statement.

Despite certain groups of fans still believing Kirkbride's OOG works are canon, I believe that this quote, or a paraphrase with a link to the quote itself, should be put somewhere on this page and any other relevant pages, such as UESPWiki:Lore, just so those confused about TES lore or not knowing that Kirkbride's OOG works are only used on UESP as minor pieces of information backing up information already established in the games know that Bethesda's official stance on these OOG works is not canon.

Note that I am not looking for an argument, and yes I know the place for that is the Forums, but I believe this is an essential quote to the TES community, and should be used more frequently in it. --Rezalon (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed layout for "Races" subsection[edit]

Races[edit]

Numerous races flourish across Nirn. Some are rare, others live in remote areas or dwell on different planes of existence, while others are believed to be purely mythical.

Overview | ManMerBeastfolkAkaviri — Other | Names

Phoenix Neko (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me! You'd need a link to something on Other, and to match the Lore:Races page, maybe Et'Ada should also be added, but I realize that Lore:Et'Ada just links straight to Lore:Gods, which is already here anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Dunno, maybe instead of "Other" there should be Ehlnofey, Hist, and Daedra? Phoenix Neko (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, next version:

Races[edit]

Numerous races flourish across Nirn. Some are rare, others live in remote areas or dwell on different planes of existence, while others are believed to be purely mythical.

Overview | ManMerBeastfolkAkaviriEhlnofeyHistDaedra | Names

Phoenix Neko (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I would replace Ehlnofey with Aedra, since Aedra is in the Races category and Ehlnofey isn't, but otherwise, that looks good!
Overview | ManMerBeastfolkAkaviriAedraDaedraHist | Names
--Enodoc (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm bit confused though why Aedra even counts as a race. The Ehlnofey are fitting more to that category IMO, also it is a pretty important race which suddenly doesn't get listed. Okay, let's try again, now with Et'Ada (which combines both Aedra and Daedra):

Races[edit]

Numerous races flourish across Nirn. Some are rare, others live in remote areas or dwell on different planes of existence, while others are believed to be purely mythical.

Overview | ManMerBeastfolkAkaviriEhlnofeyHistEt'Ada | Names | Languages

Now with Languages which I suggest to make a separate page which also seem appropriate. Phoenix Neko (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who came up with the categories, but as it stands, Aedra and Daedra are in the Races category and Et'Ada and Ehlnofey are in Gods, which is why I suggested [ AedraDaedra ] rather than [ EhlnofeyEt'Ada ]. The Ehlnofey are a subdivision of Aedra, and Et'Ada are even more not a racial grouping than Aedra/Daedra, so I don't think they should be there, but whatever we use should match the Races page, since that is what the thing is supposed to summarise. Languages is already covered under the Linguistics section of the Appendices, so I don't think it's needed here. --Enodoc (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Lore page for Lord Kain proposed[edit]

Please see Daggerfall talk:Lord Kain#Lore page. — Darklocq  ¢ 12:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)