Lore talk:Temple Saints

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


I suggest that this page be merged with this one. They both lack information to be standalone articles, and they're also, at least in my opinion, not named right, since there are other saints (lesser and greater) that are not part of the Tribunal Temple. Any thoughts? --Kertaw48 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. This page isn't linked from anywhere except the Lesser Saints page anyway, so it won't be that much of an issue. rpeh •TCE 09:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I created the new article, but I'm not sure what to do with these two. Turning them into redirects is useless since they now don't link anywhere. --Kertaw48 08:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed the two pages for deletion. You're right - there's no point in keeping them. rpeh •TCE 09:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Support deletion - The new page name makes much more sense, well done. Jadrax 10:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Seeing the recent revert of Legoless' edit by an anon, I'm inclined to ask about Jiub. I haven't actually heard the rumor of Jiub driving off the cliffracers of Vvardenfell, but I always assumed that he was canonized into a saint. Can someone with more knowledge clarify this? -- Kertaw48 12:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've added Saint Jiub to the list. Even though it's simply a reference to the amount of cliff racers in Morrowind, I still think it deserves mentioning. An anonymous IP removed him on the grounds that he isn't a "Tribunal Saint", and I've undone the removal. I believe that the title of "saint" is implied to mean our old prison buddy has achieved status as a true deity of worship. This obviously can't be backed up with evidence due to the lack of info, but I think it comes down to common sense. I'd like some more opinions on whether or not Jiub should be included. He will of course have his own lore entry eventually, if that provides any reassurance. --Legoless 12:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why not to include him in the list. The only reason why I started the discussion was to avoid double edit revert (and possibly a third by the anon). If the anon has any arguments against it I'm sure we'd like to hear them... -- Kertaw48 12:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
T'was me, actually I got caught in the E/C and left the computer. I was just thinking there was not enough solid information he was a *Tribunal* saint. While annoying, (SKREEEEEE) I just think it wasn't something that would get you sainthood, although I seem to be outnumbered in this situation, meaning majority wins. :)--Corevette789 13:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)