Lore talk:Belharza

Proposed UOL

I am against the proposed UOL from the question in the Loremaster's Archive Q&A. If the information posed were indirectly referenced in some way in the answer (such as the namedrop of Hoodoc in the same Q&A) I'd be open to it, but as is the info is unrelated to the question. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I do happen to agree with this I think like we shouldn't be using any of the questions to add to lore. Since players are not, Zenimax/Bethesda/official workers or employees that are actually working on the games proper or former workers from said companies. Exceptions to this is if Zenimax/bethesda says that we can do that to like honor like their contributing to the lore in some way. So like that is how I feel about this. Even if the character gets named dropped or the person in the question. So I think that like the subject matter of the answers should be used what I think shouldn't be used is like the questions and their content and roleplay character name as well in the lore articles the person that asks the question shouldn't be considered a lore person that is lorewise within the lore, it just some random stranger its not relevant.

Unless in certain circumstances where Zenimax is cool with that, we get permission to do it and also permission to do it from one of the persons that asked said question. Contributors shouldn't be using their own questions as part of the lore just the answers they get from the questions. The reason why I feel strongly about this is because its like to me like adding modded unofficial content, and lore into lore pages. Just because the mod is so good that people think it should be. So i'm very opposed to player questions being used as UOL in any form, unless its cleared by the person in question and Zenimax. TheVampKnight (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We're already using this as a UOL reference on Lore:Cyrodilic Emperors. I have no objection to it here, and I'd like to just remind folks that the purpose of marking LA as UOL at all is to allow us to cite the questions. It was a curated and edited question that was officially published by ZOS on the ESO website, so opposing it on the above grounds is inconsistent with our current policy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It was a tremendous attempt to find a nice spot for Ami-el in the timeline and also make a fascinating connection between him and Belharza and by extension Alessia and Morihaus. That said, in remaining consistent with my previous stance on these type of things, I believe the lack of dev acknowledgement on the matter in the response to the question makes the concept fully fanmade and thus lacking grounds to be cited even as uol. Dcking20 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We already neglect to use names from the questions in Lore:Names, even when the name is mentioned in the answer, and mentions of the Scenarist Guild in a question were removed via consensus a while back. Now, there was explicit mention of that outcome not being used as a precedent, but the general attitude was, to my best understanding, against using questions at all when there's no mention in the answer. In this Ami-El case in particular, the gist of the question revolves around asking when the Thieves Guild was created, since the asker couldn't find anything on the matter in the Imperial Archives. The Ami-El stuff is stuff they did find in the Archives, but completely irrelevant to the question being asked. I'd be down with citing questions as UOL if the subject matter is even vaguely referenced but in this case the info is so disconnected from the answer that it is nothing but fluff. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The content of questions is relevant only if it provides further context to the answer. If some character name or organization or other concept invented in the question is acknowledged and named in the answer - then it's considered official, but only the part of it that exists within the answer. There seem to be a lot of varied opinions about LA's in UESP but I believe, in this specific case at very least, the information from the question is not eligible to be part of the article.Tyrvarion (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Pure, unadulterated fan fiction being presented alongside official, whew... I knew this would eventually happen on Ami-El too. I support removal as always - our (misguided) policy states inclusion is by consensus only and decided on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully we can re-open that kettle of fish one day, but in the mean time bring on canonicity of kevkev while we're at it.--Jimeee (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) I've always been against using any form of the question as even UOL. I support the removal as well. I also think it's clear that there is a pretty clear consensus on what to do in this specific instance as well. Jeancey (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if Zenimax stated everything said is correct in the question itself and confirmed it to be officially like that lorewise without going into much detail as the answer. Then I can see the question be like officially endorsed and canonized to where we could use it for UOL. Otherwise I am wary of using player questions outside of that very niche situation, and where it stands now is many of us agree to some way or another about this. The point of the Lore Master's archives is to get new lore from the answers provided, which we can use to add to respective lorepages. So only using what is said in the answers is what I think the policy should be with that one niche exception but that would be for like a policy conversation on the one page where that stuff is decided. Otherwise we leave the door open to fan fiction being added to lore articles.TheVampKnight (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually going to reverse my stance here, joining Legoless in the camp of re-adding the UOL. What caused me to reconsider my perspective was the recent question alterations done to Loremaster's Archive - Malacath and Maelstrom. Questions that referred to Fa-Nuit-Hen with masculine pronouns were changed to use they/them. To me, this proves that even if info is inconsequential to the answer, it is still considered and prone to alteration by the Loremaster. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)