Lore talk:Smithing

Proposed Deletion

Is there any evidence for a Smith Guild outside the cited concept art? Having an article based solely on UOL is against our Content Guidelines for lorespace. Perhaps some of this information could be moved to a Lore:Smithing article instead? —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The text Master Assistant Materials Acquirer Pacrooti Answers Your Questions mentions them in all but name, clearly implying the benefits smiths were granted through the formation of guild's act and are listed alongside Mages Guild. The uol is the piece that has the institution's name but the institution of Smiths' union of some form is clearly established there. Tyrvarion (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Without an official source for the name "Smith Guild", I don't think the article title is appropriate. —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

While I will agree that there is no official name for them, the article's content is primarily from official sources, in fact, only an unofficial source is the name. Renaming the page into Smithing or Smiths and adding more relevant information could be a thing, but the fact that Smith's organization of some sort that was recognized by the Guild's Act (or at very least greatly benefited from it) is official Tyrvarion (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree on this page existing either. Even ignoring the Pacrooti comment, which IMO makes no such reference to a Smiths Guild, concept art shouldn't be used as a basis for lore. Concept art is meant to function as a draft and or "mood set piece" in game development, sometimes you've more polished things (such as the ESO concepts we see often) but typically that's the function it serves. Using a single mention in a single concept art about a Smiths Guild in Markarth does not mean there is a smith guild in markarth, especially since we do not see one in TESV. If we followed this logic, then the Celestial Warrior being Ebonarm is UOL lore as well... It's a concept and draft, not a finished product/cut content/developer comment. CoolBlast3 (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that the current solution should be satisfactory. The redirect page should remain as it is in line with cases such as Port Telvannis (for the last several years), or Parliment of Bugs being UOL redirects to broader concepts. Also it is rather obvious that the faction exists, it just got it's name in uol - and comparison to Ebonarm is rather misguided. Tyrvarion (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The faction may or may not exist, we do not know. What we know for a fact however is that there is no Smith Guild in TESV's Markarth. At most, the concept art should be in a Notes section under something like "In an initial concept for TESV, Markarth was meant to have a Smith Guild". Using sources in the manner of "it's not mentioned but makes sense" isn't really fitting of UESP CoolBlast3 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not "not mentioned" it is "not named, but mentioned". " Establishment of pan-Tamrielic guilds resulted in greater diffusion of knowledge. Smiths learned of interesting metals used only in distant lands, and this drove demand and trade for those materials. Mages Guild pointy-hats also learned how to refine magical ores, and then everyone wanted those too!" It does very clearly place Smiths and Mages in a similar light- as groups who benefited from the Guild Act.Tyrvarion (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Except it doesn't. All it says is smiths as a whole have started using new materials. Then it specifies that the Mages Guild has learned to use arcane materials. Even if in this case it does mean "smiths guild" which i disagree with, it does not excuse the UOL source being used as matter of fact, when at most it is a fun fact. CoolBlast3 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(←) I think the current form of the article is good. Smithing is a wide subject and we can definitely benefit from having an article on the topic. The current note on the page regarding the Smith Guild concept art seems fine. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, the main issue regarding the UOL is that it's used also in the main article as a matter of fact "smith guild exists", not just notes, and the main article outright extrapolates non-existent information from "History of the Fighters Guild". Again, should I just go edit Lore:Celestial to say Ebonarm is the Warrior? After all, the concept art says so CoolBlast3 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Article is great right now. Guild comment from the Q&A is mentioned whilst not directly coorelating it to a smithing guild, the note is there, and the scope has expanded to cover an appropriate range. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article in this state is accurate, to be honest. The concept art being used as a source in the main article being one of the problems, but it goes deeper than that. The article makes frequent mention to a guild of smiths, and links to the "History of the Fighter's Guild" as a source. However, if you look at the source, there is 0 mention of smiths of any kind in the lorebook. I think it is disingenuous to use a source that doesn't mention what is being talked about, as a source. Everything about a "guild of smiths" in this article is conjecture taken from a single line that doesn't even mention a guild of smiths. I think for it to be more accurate, any mention of a guild of smiths should be removed, as it is purely conjecture and using a source that doesn't even mention smiths. The fact that smiths, in general, benefitted from the Guild Act due to the interconnectiveness of the continent should stay, but there is no direct mention of a guild of smiths anywhere. Vinovin15 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ebonarm concept art does not equate him to The Warrior. Its cocnept art with depiction of Ebonarm (Ebonarm Thumbnail iirc), which was later repurposed for another entity. It is worth noting in notes that it was similar but it does not affect the main body of Ebonarm or The Warrior pages. That said concept art of Smith's Guild certainly belongs to the Smithing lorepage. The article does not equate those two institutions, but lists one after another. As for History of Fighters guild- it states that numerous guilds other than those named in the text followed the original ones named in the text. But even if it didnt its there as supplementary source to Pacrooti's text, that does not explain at lenght what guild's act did- but did specified that it affected smiths.Tyrvarion (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

According to your logic it does though. If concept art with a line saying "Smith's Guild" means a Smith Guild exists, then Ebonarm functions the same. Regarding the History of the Fighter's Guild- saying that "other guilds were formed later" does not entail the Smith Guild either. Else I could just say "damn, the pacrooti intergalactic guild exists" because more guilds were made later. Pacrooti's text does not mention a smith's guild either but i will admit that one might be seen that way, so i do not object. My only objections are making up non-existent lore from "History of the Fighter Guild" and using UOL as a matter of fact proof that "Smith Guild" exists, when UOL should not be in the main body here. CoolBlast3 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The article, as it stands, makes no mention of a smithing guild outside of the note. Even the info from the Q&A only states that smiths benefited from the act, before going on to elaborate on the act's benefits to Tamriel as a whole. The note does not conflate the conept's UOL status with canon. And, for the record, Ebonarm's page does have a note about his appearance in the concept art, which is exactly what we have here. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Read literally the first line in the article under "Tamriel" please. "Certain sources claim that organisation known as Smith Guild existed.[UOL 1] "CoolBlast3 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Removed. Thanks. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)