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

Lore talk:Padomay

1,501 bytes added, 5 March
added response
So, I think paragraph 1 is core. Two or three very different interpretations that share a name get the same page, but 2 interpretations that are very similar get split because they don't share a name. Does that seem odd? --[[User:Lost in Hyrule|Lost in Hyrule]] ([[User talk:Lost in Hyrule|talk]]) 01:47, 5 March 2020 (GMT)
: I think that the Daedra example is a much more applicable one in this case, as Aedra are very hard in general to deal with. Merrunz should absolutely go on the Mehrunes page despite it being a different interpretation, as it's still Mehrunes, just in a different context. He may have actions attributed to him that he did or didn't do, but unlike the Aedra, this doesn't make him a separate deity from what we can tell.
: This seems like it's getting a little off topic, though, so I'm gonna try to steer it back to Padomay/Sithis. Personally, I think the answer should lie with two questions: 'Are the names effectively interchangeable' and 'will they lose any vital context for the god if the pages are split?'. In the case of Lorkhaj, no to both, as Lorkhaj is a fully defined diety with a mythos separate, albeit similar, from Lorkhan. For Padomay and Sithis, I would say they are used interchangeably, but lets pretend for a moment they aren't. Even then, separating all the different versions into individual pages takes them out of the context of the Monomyth and also really weakens the information we have available on each of these deities. The Adversary, Fadomai, Padomay, and Akel would all barely have 1 or 2 sources for their pages, and would be at most a paragraph long. It would be way harder for people to have an understanding of Padomay/Sithis as a result of splitting it up into 3 or 4 pages. -- [[User:Jacksol|Jacksol]] ([[User talk:Jacksol|talk]]) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (GMT)

Navigation menu