Lore talk:Main Page

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
 
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussion specifically about the content of the Main Page. General discussion about the Lore section of the wiki belongs at UESPWiki_talk:Lore.
Casual discussion related to TES Lore, but unrelated to wiki articles, should be restricted to the forums.
Archives
Archive 1: Jun 2006 - Aug 2008
Archive 2: Sep 2008 - Jun 2012

Contents

[edit] Book Authors

These people aren't mentioned on the People's articles. But adding the in-game authors of in-game books to those articles would not only be a hassle, but would also not be very productive, since they have very little historical reference. Instead could we place a link in the People section to the Lore:Books_by_Author article? Since there are a lot of people not mentioned on People pages. -- kertaw48 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was bringing this up in the topic below, and I totally agree (honestly, I had overlooked this topic until Eshe archived the old topics). Like Kertaw said, including in-game authors to Lore:People wouldn't add much value. Even if we limit it to authors who possess some historical value, making entries for them would be a big, redundant chore that undoubtedly wouldn't present their significance any better than their books already do.
We don't have a proper Overview page for the Lore Library or for the People section. I propose we remove the authors already in the Lore:People multitopic articles, make those overviews, and note on each that authors are omitted from the People section. We could give specific "shout-outs" in the People overview to authors who do have some historical significance, and let people just read their work(s) if they want more info. I can draft the overview(s) and come back for feedback here.
Hope that makes sense. I don't think I'm explaining myself well; I'm in a rush and in desperate need of coffee at the moment. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 16:39, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
Took this up at UESPWiki talk:Lore. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 16:57, 19 October 2012 (GMT)

[edit] Need some consensus on these Skyrim NPCs

I'm almost finished updating Lore: People with NPCs from Skyrim who I feel are undoubtedly "lore-worthy". The following is a list of people who, for whatever reason, I didn't feel comfortable adding unilaterally. Some of them I think should be included, some I don't think should be included, but they're all borderline. I thought I should point out that I considered them for inclusion and intentionally omitted them because I felt like more than one man's opinion is needed to decide. It's up to you folks whether they get in the lore section. I'm not going to go through them individually; their potential historical significance, as well the factors that made me hesitant, should be apparent upon review. Most of the alternate jarls, such as Sorli the Builder, are not significant beyond the fact that they might become a jarl, and since there's no satisfactory way to mention that, I don't feel that they're eligible for inclusion, so I've omitted them. Stewards, Thanes, and Court Wizards have been categorically omitted.

I might add to this list if I find more names in the Skyrim lore that I'm ambivalent about.

Edit- For the sake of convenience, New readers can likely ignore crossed-out names, which are those who have been "black-balled" already by one or more contributors, as well as characters whose pages have already been made.

Arniel Gane

Adonato Leotelli

Alain Dufont

Ancano

Belyn Hlaalu

Brand-Shei

Brynjolf

Chief Burguk

Dexion Evicus

Elenwen

Fjotra

Galmar Stone-Fist

Gelebros

Gularzob

Jyrik Gauldurson

Hamal

Haldyn

Halldir

Idgrod the Younger

Laelette the Vampire

Chief Larak

Linwe

Lu'ah Al-Skaven

Malyn Varen

Chief Mauhulakh

Maven Black-Briar

Mikael

Mikrul Gauldurson

Minorne

Mirabelle Ervine

Nerien

Orchendor

Quaranir

Legate Rikke

Sergius Turrianus

Sigdis Gauldurson

Silus Vesuius

Tandil

Tolfdir

Velehk Sain

Viarmo

Vittoria Vici

Chief Yamarz

If you're wondering about the absence of some NPCs, it's probably because I intend to add them but haven't yet. Kodlak Whitemane, Korir, Valerica, etc. Only so many hours in a day. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 19:59, 11 October 2012 (GMT)

I'd be hesitant to give Belyn Hlaalu and the individual Psijic monks separate lore pages. Belyn is only important because of his last name, which is actually pretty common and doesn't necessarily imply any association with the Great House of the same name. We have next to no information on the monks, apart from perhaps the leader (Quaranir, is it?). Most of the others seem okay, but I haven't looked at all of them. I certainly wouldn't object to the creation of any of them. —Legoless (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
I agree with Legoless. I'm not sure what Alain Dufont or Mikael's significance is, and I'm not sure that Hamal is important enough to record as more than a passing note under Fjotra (she's the one that's important from a lore perspective). I'm not big on Laelette or Lu'ah Al-Skaven, but I wouldn't mind if they were mentioned. Vittoria Vici could receive a passing note, but she should definitely be mentioned. I think that recording the Orc Chieftains is a good idea (perhaps combine them into one section?), and the same for the mages at the College of Winterhold. Everything else looks good, though. • JAT 20:24, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
Mikael is an author, so he made the list. Adonato's on there for the same reason. Some authors of books are mentioned on the Lore: People multi-topic pages. I'm not sure if this is something we really want to continue doing or not, so I punted the issue here. I'm personally not a fan, as it doesn't add much if any value to the pages. Alain probably shouldn't be on here. He is one of the folk I don't think should be added, but he's a bandit leader, his problems with the Shatter-Shield clan were very public, and he possessed Aegisbane, a potential artifact, so I thought I should mention him. I agree on the other people you and Legoless mentioned. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 20:46, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
Stormcloak, Imperial, and Thalmor leadership are definitely worth mentioning, and Victoria Vici I would mention, since she is part of the Imperial Royal Family and her assassination was one of the reasons Mede came to Skyrim. The rest... Too many are listed for me to find time to glance over. Eric Snowmane(talk•email) 21:02, 11 October 2012 (GMT)
No rush; feel free to review the rest in your own time. In regards to Vici, her assassination doesn't necessarily happen, so her noteworthiness at this juncture would have to depend solely on her East Empire position and her connection to Titus Mede II. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 21:21, 11 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) I've come up with a decision on each individual page now, and it's under this Showhide to keep the section from becoming painfully long. That was a lot of pages to read :p Eric Snowmane(talk•email) 06:44, 13 October 2012 (GMT)

 
Snowmane's opinions
I disagree with the objections to Arniel Gane, the Gauldursons and Silus Vesuius. Arniel's experiments with Keening definitely make him lore-worthy, and I can't understand why the Gauldursons would be excluded, given their rather deep history and relation to an important artifact. Silus Vesuius only deserves a passing mention on the Mythic Dawn article, so giving him his own article would be a better option to trying to include all relevant info on the faction's page. I also disagree with excluding Velehk Sain; a Dremora pirate, featured in a book and with significant background, plus two possible fates based on the player's actions, seems more than noteworthy. Like I said above, there's no actual problem with creating these pages. If someone wants to put the time into writing it, the page isn't going to be deleted or something, as it likely would for someone like Glarthir or Faendal who have no true relevance in lore. —Legoless (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2012 (GMT)
I'd prefer Minorne to not be crossed off. She may be minor, but the Vigil of Stendarr has a page, and she did cause over a dozen of their members to worship her, so I think she's worthy of at least a mention, if not her own page. Her Skyrim page needs some serious work, but there's enough information on her in-game for a lore snippet.— ABCface◥ 04:10, 15 October 2012 (GMT)
In response to Legoless, I glanced over Arniel a little more closely when you mentioned Keening, since I missed that, and I would agree to her inclusion. I had passed over that quest when it said (Radiant), erroneously assuming it could have been something generic, and I missed the whole Keening thing. The Gauldurson brothers, I am still the same on them, since I am not particularly convinced that amulet is the most interesting of artifacts. If others find the amulet noteworthy as an artifact, rather than just an old amulet, then they would be noteworthy along side it, but right now, I am not convinced yet. Eric Snowmane(talk•email) 04:23, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) I put Minorne back in play. Of course, being crossed out here is just for easy reference on where people seem to stand thus far. I agree with Legoless that if someone chose to skip or ignore the whole committee approach and add someone listed here, I won't be the one to make an issue of it. But as exasperating as case-by-case group analyses can be, I think it can help produce a better product if we abide by such a process.

Anyways, I've already taken care of a few NPCs, who I've crossed out. Rikke, Tolfdir, etc. As for the Gauldursons, I'm really very undecided. Their story has already been told on a few different lore pages, so whatever noteworthiness they have might be a moot point. I share Snowmane's concern that the Gauldur Amulet, in the gsme, at least, turns out to be nothing special. Creating separate snippets for each brother seems a little over-the-top, there's not a lot to say about them individually, and its doubtful we'll get any more information on them in the future. On the other hand, they're involved in a significant amount of Skyrim's lore and world; Bethesda donated substantial time to fleshing out their stories. And from a lore perspective, Gauldur's Amulet is apparently supposed to be freakishly powerful, so the Gauldursons are that much more noteworthy just for being involved with it.

Any further thoughts on the whole author thing would be welcome. I'd like to flesh out the criteria for including them, if we are going to continue doing so without adding every single novelist, historian, or poet in Tamrielic history. Flipping through the multi-topic People pages, I imagine there are quite a few authors who could be added, and maybe a few on there already who could be removed. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 07:21, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

The Gauldur Amulet certainly seems like a noteworthy artifact from a lore perspective, despite being unique to one game. It will probably get its own article at some point. With an artifact article, having snippets for the three brothers becomes even more important. —Legoless (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

[edit] Edit Break - Update

So, a little more than half of the people listed above have been rejected or added already; a handful remain to be dealt with. I'll split them up accordingly.

 
Revised List

Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 03:38, 16 November 2012 (GMT)

[edit] Ref Template

The current system of using <noinclude> with references is error-prone. I think it would be a good idea to replace that usage with a template.

  • <ref>text</ref> will become {{ref|text}}
  • <ref name=desc>text</ref> will become {{ref|name=desc|text}}
  • <ref name=desc/> will become {{ref|name=desc}}

Any <noinclude> that is present only for the benefit of references can be removed. The references will only show on the article directly using the template, not on any pages transcluding it. In the few cases references should show on the article transcluding it, that can be achieved by slightly altering the transclusion in the target article: {{:basearticle|showrefs=1}} . Since the template internally uses <ref>, mixing the template with manually done references causes no problems.

The proposed template can be found here and a test case using it in this sandbox. --Alfwyn (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2012 (GMT)

If the template works as advertised, I don't see a downside to this. I can't think of any situation where we want to transclude references. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 16:20, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
This is an excellent idea. • JAT 16:25, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
I copied it to Template:-space now. One instance were we transclude references is Lore:Third Era Major, but we don't seem to do that for other Eras. --Alfwyn (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2012 (GMT)

[edit] References in multi-topic articles

Specifically, in the Lore:People, Lore:Places, Lore:Factions, and Lore:Gods multi-topic articles, do we want references for the snippets which are not transcluded from single-topic pages? --Minor Edits 22:36, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Basically, I want to do what I did here for these sections: update them as appropriate, provide sources, and mark the stuff I can't find a source for so that we can root out false information. -- Minor Edits 01:09, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Well, I'm taking the dead silence as support so overwhelming your excitement won't allow you to respond. I believe the lore guidelines on citations implicitly call for references on multi-topic articles anyways, so I'm gonna go ahead and clean up these sections. I'll slap {{fact}} tags on the statements I can't corroborate, and once I'm all done, I'll move any that haven't been corroborated to the talk pages in the wiki fact-checking equivalent of total war. Minor EditsThreats•Evidence 05:02, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Well if it's of any worth I support you. References are badly needed in these types of articles.--Ashendant (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore_talk:Main_Page&oldid=1185717"
Personal tools
What is this Ad?
Report Ad