Lore talk:Scenarist Guild

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

Iszara the Restless[edit]

Legoless just added the note "Iszara the Restless, Singer of the Scenarist Guild" is mentioned in High King Emeric Answers Your Questions, an in-universe Q&A dated 2E 582.[3]. I may be mistaken, but if I interpret the information there correctly, Iszara the Restless, Singer of the Scenarist Guild was just a name a user gave to himself. If so, I don't think we should include this note. -- SarthesArai Talk 22:16, 9 January 2015 (GMT)

Lorespace note sections aren't in-universe, so it's the appropriate place to mention it. Since we're treating the Loremaster's Archive as canon, it's certainly worth mentioning, especially if you consider the fact that the lore behind the Scenarist Guild comes from an 18-year-old game guide and the related advertisement. None of it is particularly canonical to begin with. I refrained from actually using the information in the main text since the Q&A usernames have not been exactly lore-friendly in the past, but it still seems noteworthy to me. —Legoless (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2015 (GMT)
I'm Iszara the Restless, the name and title is some kind of in-game RP. I simply love re-bring to life the old lore. In the email I've explicitly pointed to this page for indicating to ZOS what is the Scenarist Guild, but I don't know if they take it in consideration.
--Lady freyja (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
Even more noteworthy then, if Zeni knew what the guild was and still mentioned it in the Second Era. —Legoless (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
"Since we're treating the Loremaster's Archive as canon" - but are we treating players' names, or titles, as canon? Let's suppose someone is calling himself 'Ayrenn The KINMUNE from the Ninth Era' or whatever, will this automatically mean Zeni's approval and verification of obscure lore? Or (just imagine), 'Barack Obama' - will this mean Zeni is mentioning him in the Secon Era of Tamriel? 22:47, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
Edit: In my opinion, questions that were added and approved in Q&A are worthy of mentioning, but players' names from the start don't have to be in-universe or co-operated with developers, so including that name don't mean that such person is actually lived in the Second Era. 22:53, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
Not expressly canon, but still notable (see these guidelines). I would be more inclined to treat the Q&As as "OOG" sources anyway. —Legoless (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
(edit conflict) I must agree: We have names such as "ICEbweaka9" or "kevkev21" present. Do we want to consider these canon as well? -- SarthesArai Talk 23:03, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
I was actually in the midst of linking to these usernames as some examples of why we won't be treating them as canon. Still, see the guidelines linked above for why the note should remain. —Legoless (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
@Legoless. Technically, that exact name and title were mentioned by Zenimax out-of-character and not included in the text of question and answer. I suppose Zenimax themself is able to clarify the situation about nicknames. Let's until maybe change the line in the article to something like, 'One player asked a question in Emeric's Q&A who signed himself as a member of Scenarist Guild, but does this indicate Zenimax's acceptance of that Guild or that username in the Second Era is questionable', it's clear and disambiguating, also unbiased. And maybe similar note is worth to be added to the Q&As own page? I apologize for my English. 23:15, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
How's this? —Legoless (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
Yes, that will be way better, thank you. Still, I'm thinking that general explanation at Loremaster's Archive page would be helpful. 00:00, 11 January 2015 (GMT)

Implementing LA lore[edit]

There has been an edit war on this page about the inclusion of the aforementioned Iszara the Restless in the previous discussion above. So there has been a discussion about including LA material before. However, while I am not directly against including question material as OOG UOL, I do have a problem with including player names in lorespace. I don't really see the difference of including Iszara (a nod to a Redguard character) or any other random username like the "Mage's Guild Magister Furoniil Telvanni of the Blacklight Guildhall" on the Blacklight page. We don't even include many in-game characters in lorespace! I maybe could agree with removing the player name and include something like: "The scenarist guild was mentioned in the LA interview(UOL ref)" even if I don't like that either. I just can't shake it off me that inclusion of player names from LA in lorespace is damaging the credibility of UESP lorespace as a whole. --Ilaro (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm for having players that ask questions in the LA mentioned in lore articles. By all means, they are included in the LA, which we conisder as canon/official lore, they act as in-universe characters, speak as in-universe characters, and are responded to by in-universe characters who acknowledge their existence as in-universe characters. For all intents and purposes, they are characters that exist in TES lore, and should therefore be treated as such. --Rezalon (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify: We do not consider the the LA questions as canon, but as UOL (previously OOG), just like how we use Michael Kirkbride's work on the The Towers page per the discussion on the Community Portal. --Ilaro (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) The reason we don't include many in-game characters in lorespace is the same reason we won't be including a random guild magister on Lore:Blacklight: they are irrelevant to lore and don't meet the relevance threshold as set out on Lore:People. Comparing this note to other potential (non-existent!) notes is a strawman argument and is totally irrelevant to this article.
The Community Portal discussion you linked above shows a strong consensus to include Loremaster's Archive in lorespace, with user submissions marked as UOL. The fact that you have a problem with including user-submitted names in lorespace again has nothing to do with this article, because the consensus from that discussion was quite clearly against wholesale exclusion of Loremaster's Archive material from lorespace on the basis of it being user-submitted. To support the removal of the note on this article on that basis is to totally ignore the outcome of the linked discussion, which I find highly objectionable.
Finally, I would encourage you to familiarise yourself with our policy for UOL citations: "A talk page discussion should happen before introducing new information from OOG. Any OOG should appear low on a single-topic page for which it is substantially relevant." Per the above discussion, the note on this page has already been modified and approved by prior consensus, and has remained on the page for over three years without objection (until tonight's removal). As pointed out by Rezalon's edit summary, its inclusion is highly relevant to article topic as this faction is extremely obscure lore sourced from a Daggerfall strategy guide and which has gone otherwise-unmentioned for 20 years. Removing the context in which it was mentioned (i.e. by removing the character's name, as suggested) is not justifiable in my opinion.
I would argue that the recent Community Portal discussion provides for the inclusion of this information in the text of the article itself, as long as it's cited as UOL. However, in light of the existing consensus for inclusion on this page, I don't see the harm in leaving it in the Notes section. What I must object to is the resurrection of the Loremaster's Archive canonicity debate on every single talk page where a UOL citation must be dealt with. If you really want to reopen that can of worms, the correct forum is the Community Portal, not individual lore article talk pages. —Legoless (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how "and has remained on the page for over three years without objection" has any merit on my objection, because no user can be aware of every page on the wiki. Secondly, I still literally don't see how this is different than the use of the Blacklight Guild Magister playername, because Blacklight is almost as obscure as the Scenarist Guild (only appears in Arena and is mentioned a couple of times in books, but no inclusion of the city in ESO or Morrowind). To respond to "If you really want to reopen that can of worms, the correct forum is the Community Portal, not individual lore article talk pages." this is the first page I am aware of the use of a player name is on a lorepage, so it felt appropriate to start the discussion here. --Ilaro (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, please see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS.
Regarding your insistence on continuously bringing up a non-existent note on Lore:Blacklight, this is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with the note on this article. Please refer to the policy on UOL citations which I quoted above in full.
If you cannot raise specific points of objection to the inclusion of the note on this page without (a) ignoring recent Community Portal consensus or (b) referring to hypothetical straw man situations involving other LA character names, then I don't really see any merit in this discussion. —Legoless (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the note in the article should be expanded with an explanation for why it is appropriate to mention a player's username. The note in its current form makes it seem like Iszara's inclusion is arbitrary and has no real purpose behind it. Croaker (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
That's getting a little meta, don't you think? It would be highly unusual to justify an edit by adding said justification to the article itself. That's the purpose of edit summaries and talk pages. The information is either noteworthy or it's not, and its inclusion hinges on that. —Legoless (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

() Many Notes sections in lore articles are already used to present meta information. Besides, if a reader can't easily determine the worthiness of a note from the note itself, as seems to be the case here, then more elucidation can only benefit the article and curb further disputes. All we'd have to add is some of the stuff brought up in this very discussion: "This is the first mention of the Scenarist Guild in any Elder Scrolls context outside of The Elder Scrolls Chapter II: Daggerfall." Or something along those lines. Croaker (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

To pitch in, so to speak, I feel that the member of the guild is not so much loreworthy as the guild's existence at that time. An individual member of the guild doesn't matter so much as the guild, so I would approve of a note saying "The guild was extant in 2E 584 as evidenced by a member known as Iszara the Restless's appearance in a Loremaster's Archive" or something similar. — J. J. Fullerton talk﴿ 01:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Currently we don't include similar notes on other guild pages when fans have used guild names like "Wizard Solinar of Firsthold, Mages Guild" - because, of course, its not noteworthy. However if the whole point of this page's note is to illustrate the guild existed in the 2nd Era, then I think Fullerton's example is the perfect wording. It makes the context very clear, because before its always seemed a bit arbitrary. --Jimeee (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Fullerton hit the nail on the head. Croaker (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
So now I feel it comes down to how noteworthy something is. Scenarist Guild is seen as something really obscure, while my mention of the use of a player name on the Blacklight page seems to be brushed away as a straw man, even though I am trying to make a parallel, because Blacklight is only ever mentioned in a couple of texts without any any appearances (except for Arena) in-game at the position where it's supposed to be. How obscure has something to be before it's obscure?
Even ignoring all this, my objection is mostly about canonizing the player names, not the mention of the Scenarist Guild. A similar case on Lore:Dibella: "Some Nords are known to have considered Jephre, God of Natural Beauty, to be an imitation of Dibella." is used without mentioning the player name from which the question originated. In my opinion, if we would implement these UOL references, we should strife to have them like on the Dibella page.
"The Scenarist Guild is mentioned in the Loremaster's Archives during the second era.(UOLref)" --Ilaro (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I can get behind something like that Ilaro. After all, "Iszara the Restless" now is equal to "kevkev" under this policy. Would we be having this discussion if it was the right honorable Mr kevkev21 who posed the LA question instead of Iszara? --Jimeee (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

() Croaker's proposal ("This is the first mention of the Scenarist Guild...") seems reasonable to me. However, I'd like to point out that the construction of parallels for the purpose of refuting them is the literal definition of a straw man argument. We aren't talking about kevkev21 on Lore:Scenarist Guild, and why would we be? What lore relevance does that even have? The name is actually the relevant piece of information here, not only because it implies the existence of the guild in the Second Era (as Fullerton points out), but also because we know "Singer" is a title within the guild.

Partially deleting information from the page because you don't like user-submitted names in lorespace goes against the Community Portal consensus and I am strongly opposed to it in this case where said name is clearly very relevant. Jimeee: you yourself approved of using Loremaster's Archive as a UOL reference as long as it was restricted to the Notes section, which it is in this case; I don't understand why you are now going back on that and trying to delete information from a lore page. I disagree that inclusion of the name is "arbitrary"; rather, it allows the reader to be informed of the full context in which the guild was mentioned, and adds new detail to a topic which sorely needs it. This is precisely the purpose of UOL citations. —Legoless (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If LA questions are to be considered UOL then the note should not be there. UOL sources are used to build upon existing information or topics when the official information is lacking. Any known members should be presented exactly the same way as any other page, which precludes this persons inclusion because those lists do not include non-officially confirmed members. Presenting the information as a note in order to try and get the information included under a different set of rules is bad practice, bad precedent, and shouldn't be accepted. Considering the preceding comment, there is a very easy way to move the note into the article to include the so-called pertinent information, without the need to even mention the name at all. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a nonsensical line of argument and also demonstrably untrue in practice. Lore:Septim Dynasty mentions Gemile, an unofficial character. Lore:Elder Council lists faction members of no particular importance other than by virtue of their membership. Whatever theory you've concocted about the alleged non-inclusion of relevant UOL characters in lore articles is simply incorrect.
Aside from Iszara the Restless, we only know of one other Scenarist Guild member, and he is from an entirely different time period. There is no conspiratorial plot to "get the information included under a different set of rules", it was added as a Note and modified/maintained on the page per the above discussion. It doesn't have to be a Note to remain exceedingly relevant and worthy of inclusion. —Legoless (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
How about I expand that to unofficial members who have nothing else of significance other than being a member. Gemile is significant and already included in other lore pages, so to exclude her name from that list is nonsensical in context (plus the source is someone working on the games, as opposed to the unambiguous unofficial and lore-unapproved nature of a player's name). All of the members of the Elder Council are known through official means, therefore satisfying "my" criteria. The note as it is written is an excuse to include the name. If the pertinent information is the date, then the date should be the focus, not the name of the player. This information can even be included in the main text. The note isn't even marked OOG or UOL. Unofficial sources are not equal, we are 100% free to pick and choose what information we take from them, and even if we take them at all. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I think something important to note is that questioners cannot always be reliable in their claims and we can't always know what they mean. For example, one questioner is called "Away-From-Keyboard", which can't mean a computer keyboard in an "immersive" sense but could mean a musical or typewriting keyboard. Another one would be "the Lonely Ayleid", which we all know most likely can't be a real Ayleid since King Dynar is mentioned in ESO as being the last one, and while the most probable case would be that it's a nickname or title, we can't know exactly what it means. That being said, the archive's mention of the "Scenarist Guild" is definitely canon, since it's unlikely it's mentioned in a screenwriting context or refers to anything but this guild. However, is "Iszara" actually a member of the guild, or is she just saying that she is in her letters? We have no method of verifying this either way, and therefore don't know if "Singer" is an actual rank in the guild. The best thing to do is just mention that the Scenarist Guild was existent during the Second Era. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Silencer: please see the Community Portal per your disapproval of "player's names". Consensus is against you on this point by a factor of 10. As regards it not being marked as UOL at present, you are of course entirely correct on this point and I've updated the page accordingly to match current policy.
Rim: I maintain that the best way to deal with such concerns is to provide the information in full and allow the reader to decide if Iszara is actually a member. It is pure speculation on our part to assume one way or the other, which is exactly why the full context is important here. —Legoless (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd first like to register a certain measure of disbelief towards your claims on the Community Portal, as I appear to have read them entirely differently from how you have, Legoless.
But to address the matter at hand, the player's name is not the issue. From my perspective, the note exists to mention that in the year 2E 584 the guild was known, meaning its extancy dates to before that year. Iszara the Restless really is secondary to the note itself, as the note (from my perspective) isn't presenting Iszara as lore; but the fact of the 2E 584 extancy of the guild. I would be happy with any change to the note that moves the stress and focus from Iszara to the fact of the guild's extancy in that year. — J. J. Fullerton talk﴿ 06:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

() I think Legoless is correct in that every part of the LA questions is citable as UOL. Each individual mention of UOL has to be decided if it's relevant, so kevkev21 won't be showing up! However, I don't think Iszara matches the 'qualifications' set out by the People page Legoless mentioned. She isn't important to the overall history of TES. The mention of the guild is the only relevant piece, it seems. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Lego wasn't talking about Iszara when he mentioned the "qualifications." He was replying to Ilaro's mention that many in-game characters do not have their own lore page (which is completely irrelevant to this discussion by the way). Anyway, speaking about Iszara, she is relevant for this page: moreso because of the scarcity of other sources. It is referenced correctly, in the Notes section, per the UOL rules people have agreed upon. The References section explicitly states that these sources are meant to "provide rounder background.", and it is not a stretch to see in which cases this could be useful. (This here is one of these cases!)
Further (re the other above comments), the arguments about whether what really existed are not relevant. The source is not used to claim a fact. It's there to show a possibility that there might be certain ranks in this Scenarist Guild. The fact that this note is UOL is already doing what you are trying to argue for - that we know very little about this guild. Hence the UOL! :P Tib (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
In reply to Lego: "Jimeee: you yourself approved of using Loremaster's Archive as a UOL reference as long as it was restricted to the Notes section, which it is in this case; I don't understand why you are now going back on that and trying to delete information from a lore page. I disagree that inclusion of the name is "arbitrary"; rather, it allows the reader to be informed of the full context in which the guild was mentioned, and adds new detail to a topic which sorely needs it."
The first thing is I'm not going back on the inclusion of the LA questions as UOL. I said earlier I agree with the inclusion and intention of the note, but have issue with the wording. I'll repeat again that if your intention was to illustrate the guild existed in the 2nd Era, then I'm perfectly ok with that and having it cited as UOL. This single point can be expressed with Fullerton's wording - no question. However now there is talk about:
1) ranks in the guild
2) members of the guild
3) appeal to include this lore on the basis that the topic sorely needs it (!)
This is the part that I (and others) have issue with. If you are pushing for 1 and 2 and you're using the argument that because pages like Lore:Elder Council lists random faction members, then the intent of this note has changed. If the subject is no longer about just the existence of the guild in the 2nd Era, the wording needs to reflect that. First, this page would require a "Known Members" header with Iszara listed as UOL. Next, the part about "singers" being a possible rank in the guild should to be worded to say so... explicitly... and marked UOL. Possibly couched in uncertain language as per policy. However you said yourself that "It is pure speculation on our part to assume one way or the other". Indeed the best way to deal with such concerns is to provide the information - via a link to the LA - and allow the reader to decide if Iszara is actually a member.
Right now the note is a mish-mash attempting to state three different things, but making none of them explicit. Its worded as a general, almost neutral statement. I think its fair to say that the consensus in this discussion is most are fine with the note expressing that the guild existed in the 2nd Era and marking it UOL per Fullerton. They are not ok with it mentioning the player name as it is currently worded.
Lastly, I brought up kevkev21 again not to strawman, but to try and put this sort of citation on player names to the test. This sort of thing will probably come up in the future so there is absolutely nothing wrong with talking now about how we might deal with such a scenario. Honestly, if in the future we get a detailed, lore-packed question from "Guildmaster Smokedawg69 of the Alinor Sunbirds" are we going to cherrypick the name when it doesn't suit our lore-friendly sensibilities? I would say that making a special exception for Iszara to be named purely because she has a lore-friendly name is quite literally cherrypicking. --Jimeee (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"Right now the note is a mish-mash attempting to state three different things, but making none of them explicit. Its worded as a general, almost neutral statement."
This is an entirely incorrect assessment of both the note and this discussion. The note exists as-is; it is not "attempting to state three different things". The reason I bring up those three points are to justify the inclusion of the note as-is and allow the reader to infer whatever they want from it. If you want to make those inferences explicit on the page or add a members section, be my guest, but to argue for the removal of the current note without addressing those three points is to entirely miss the purpose of this discussion.
I have justified the reasoning behind keeping this UOL content on the page and I have yet to see a valid argument against any of those points. I do not see any sort of consensus in the above postings; rather, I see a lot of cherrypicking and a general misunderstanding as regards how UOL citations work.
I'm not going to address "[putting] this sort of citation on player names to the test" when it involves a straw man argument unrelated to the article. UOL is dealt with on a case-by-case basis as per longstanding policy. —Legoless (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"but to argue for the removal of the current note without addressing those three points is to entirely miss the purpose of this discussion."
For the last time... I am NOT arguing for the removal of the current note. Most of us aren't either. Its to reword it! Why do you keep saying this? I have no ideas why you're so vehemently against a reword because earlier you was open to a compromise: "Croaker's proposal ("This is the first mention of the Scenarist Guild...") seems reasonable to me." --Jimeee (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Croaker's initial proposal did not involve the removal of the name, it was to simply add a qualifier explaining why it's relevant. As I said, if someone wants to make the inferences explicit, go for it. I think the note is self-explanatory enough as-is but there's no harm in further clarification.
Regarding removal, that is what initially began this discussion (here) and continues to be the theme throughout: all reword proposals involve the removal of information from the page, because apparently "player names" offend. —Legoless (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Reading the new arguments that have appeared on this page, I have realised that a point of contention is the retention of the title of "Singer" adopted by "Iszara the Restless". With this in mind, I would like to alter the wording of my proposal to: "The Scenarist Guild was extant in 2E 582, as evidenced by the appearance of Iszara the Restless who claimed to be a 'Singer' of the Scenarist Guild in a Loremaster's Archive dated to 2E 582." I feel this would present all of the information while making clear that the focus of it is not on Iszara but rather on the Scenarist Guild itself without removing any information. — J. J. Fullerton talk﴿ 21:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That wording seems fine to me (although technically the name appears in multiple Loremaster's Archive Q&As). —Legoless (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I like this wording as well. —Dillonn241 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

() Oh well, I wasn't aware that my edit would start yet another long discussion to justify taking some player's names above others.

Let's think about it. Currently the note says. "A player with the name "Iszara the Restless, Singer of the Scenarist Guild" is mentioned in several Loremaster's Archive interviews"

I would argue that the player is mentioned. What we really know is that "A player with the name "Iszara the Restless, Singer of the Scenarist Guild" asked several questions in Loremaster's Archive interviews". That is the pure fact. Does that fact tell us anything except there is such a player who likes to sign their questions that way? No. Would Zenimax edit that name away? They definitely wouldn't. Then why do we need to document that name in the lore article in the current way? We don't. It tells only about that player, and I didn't see the policy that says that facts should tell us about random players.

Next, to the derived information from that name (the existence of the faction). The faction would not exist in the Second Era simply because Zenimax didn't cut the name off. Nor it would exist because there is a player who, again, likes to sign their questions that way. The possibility of the existence? It may exist, but it does so not because there is such player. The possibility the faction already exists is not related in any way to the fact that there is such player.

As a side note I cannot help but notice that Legoless tends to handwave other people's arguments as "straw man", but at the same time is cherrypicking, trying to make some names sound more important to lore than others when in fact they all are not important.Phoenix Neko (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As I already said above, our policy states that UOL is cited on a case-by-case basis and always has been. It's quite apparent that you do not understand nor agree with this policy, but I resent the accusation that I'm "handwaving" or "cherrypicking" when this has literally been the way lorespace has functioned for well over six years. —Legoless (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Legoless is correct. Accusations of "Cherrypicking" are quite frankly misplaced. To refer to case-by-case bases as such is a false equivalence. It has been decided by the community in this discussion that this note is loreworthy. Additionally, Scarab Phoenix's concerns with the current wording will prove to be unnecessary if this discussion results in new wording for the note. Quite frankly, I feel that the concerns about "the probability" of existence are not valid, as the purpose of the notes is to allow readers to infer the importance of Iszara's appearance in the Loremaster's Archives. — J. J. Fullerton talk﴿ 21:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that the most recent consensus was the expansion of the previous note, and that the only voiced opposition following that consensus was a protest against the wording that had existed at the time of the complaint and prior to this update (in the face of the upcoming clause), I have altered the note per the aforementioned consensus. — J. J. Fullerton talk﴿ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, great work. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)