Lore talk:Ring of Namira

Morrowind image

Its inclusion makes no sense as the Morrowind version of the ring never appeared in the final game, and thus is not canon nor lore-friendly. The image should be removed as it does not belong on a lore page. The link to the cut ring is there, and its page has the image, so there's no reason to have the image here. --Rezalon (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

I'm not going to comment on its lore-friendliness, I will comment on how it seems odd to have the note on its unused nature in Morrowind above the "See Also" note for its actual appearances. Kiz^{(email - talk)} 06:16, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

Yeah. It's not even really in the game it's JUST a model. I'm removing the note entirely, it's not relevant. They made a ring model. That's it... Jeancey (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

Regarding the note, what other examples do we have of unused content being noted? --Enodoc (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

In general? We note the arena teams? That's the only one I can think of.... Sutch might note cut content? We normally don't include this sort of thing at all. Jeancey (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

I'm fine with the image from the page being removed and left on its own gamespace section, but Jeancey shouldn't have removed all mentions of the unused daedric artifact as the talk page was about removing the image. Where do we draw the line on unused content in lore pages? If we start removing all mentions of unused content on the grounds that someone feels that it isn't important enough, what's stopping someone from removing all arena team mentions?Zebendal (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

Slippery slope is a common argument tactic that doesn't work, ever. It's a logical fallacy, and it doesn't really help the argument... Jeancey (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

(←) Sutch does technically mention the cut content from OB as a UOL source, but doesn't actually state anything using that UOL that you couldn't state either from ESO or what did make it into OB itself. For me, this doesn't add anything to the page, and certainly how it was put for too much emphasis on this cut content than the appearances it does have. I support its complete removal from the page and to leave it as it stands now. Kiz^{(email - talk)} 18:52, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

I would agree with that. Especially since ESO adding stuff corroborating it. Plus, the Sutch UOL was publicly release iirc, so was much more widespread in knowledge pre-release than a unused model in the files found more than 15 years post-release. Jeancey (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

I see no issue mentioning the ring in the Notes section of this page, seems like relevant trivia even if the inclusion of the image is opposed here. Alternatively a link could be added to the See Also section directing readers to whatever page in MWspace talks about the .bsa model. —Legoless (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

Agreed. I can't find any precedent that there have been any unused artifacts elsewhere so I guess this is a special case. I would think a Note is the most appropriate, something simple along the lines of An unused model of the Ring of Namira, which was never implemented, exists in the BSA file for Morrowind. --Enodoc (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

Zeb has a point about avoiding the removal of mentioning Cut Content in lore, we've been putting it on lore pages for years, and it's almost always relegated to the notes section. All of a sudden excluding it in this case doesn't make sense, keeping the mention of the cut ring is important, even if it is in just notes/see also. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

The wording of Enodoc's proposed note sounds good to me, particularly as it takes account of the concerns raised by Jeancey as regards inferring any intention to include the ring in-game. —Legoless (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

We haven't been putting it on lore pages for years, there isn't much Cut Content in lore at all... One of the two options I came up with actually DOESN'T mention it. So it definitely isn't the norm to include this sort of cut content. Jeancey (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2020 (GMT)

(←) It's not exactly Enodoc's wording, but I made an edit to try and reflect what seems to be the forming consensus. If acceptable, I will do the same on the Ring of Khajiit page. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2020 (GMT)