UESPWiki - User Contributions [en]

Morrowind:Armor Artifacts

2008-09-03T01:44:33Z

Benould: weapon => armor

{{Morrowind Artifact Trail}}{{Featured article}} [[Category:Morrowind-Hints]] [[Category:Morrowind-Armor]]
{{TOCright|limit=2}}
An '''artifact''' is a unique and unusually powerful magical item. Many of the artifacts in Morrowind have appeared in other Elder Scrolls games, as listed at the [[Lore:Artifacts|Lore article on Artifacts]].

Artifacts are specifically defined as anything with a ''unique'' appearance. This is opposed to [[Morrowind:Unique Armor|Unique Armor]], which are defined as those which there is only one of, but which have the same appearance as other ''generic'' items.

There are a number of armor artifacts that can be found throughout the game of [[Morrowind:Morrowind|Morrowind]]. For [[Tribunal:Tribunal|Tribunal]] and [[Bloodmoon:Bloodmoon|Bloodmoon]] artifacts, check the [[Tribunal:Artifacts|Tribunal Artifact Page]] and the [[Bloodmoon:Artifacts|Bloodmoon Artifact Page]].

;'''Notes'''
*'''''Armor Rating''''' is given both as base values and Max values, which apply when you have 100 points in the relevant armor skill.
*'''''Charge/Cost= Uses''''' indicates how many uses on average you can get before needing to recharge the armor(or wait for it to charge on its own). Note that the Cost depends on your Enchant skill, so your results may vary.
*Only the most exceptional magical items and artifacts are included here.

{{newLine}}
==Boots==
{{Morrowind:Boots of the Apostle (artifact)}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Ten Pace Boots}}
{{NewLine}}
==Cuirasses==
{{Morrowind:Cuirass of the Savior's Hide}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Dragonbone cuirass}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Ebony Mail (artifact)}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Lord's Mail (artifact)}}
{{NewLine}}
==Gauntlets==
{{Morrowind:Fists of Radagulf}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Wraithguard}}
{{NewLine}}
==Helmets==
{{Morrowind:Helm of Oreyn Bearclaw}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Masque of Clavicus Vile}}
{{NewLine}}
==Shields==
{{Morrowind:Auriel's Shield}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Eleidon's Ward}}
{{NewLine}}
{{Morrowind:Spell Breaker}}
{{NewLine}}

User:Benould

2008-08-26T07:18:36Z

Benould: sp

{| width=100% style="border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; background:#b5cbea; text-align:center"
|• [[#Morrowind|Morrowind]] • [[#Contributions| Contributions]] • [[#About Me|About Me]] • [[#Other Games|Other Games]] • [[#Playgrounds|Playgrounds]] •
|}

{{notice|Thanks for everything, it has been fun to work on the wiki. When it isn't fun anymore, it is time for me to stop. I'll check in every now and then, good luck.}}

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__
<DIV STYLE="float: left; margin: 3px; border: 3px solid #FFE4B5; background: White;">
{| style="border:0" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 "text-align:center"
|- valign="top"
• [[UESPWiki:Morrowind_Redesign_Project#Current_tasks|MW Task]] • [[UESPWiki:Task_List|Tasks]] • [[UESPWiki:Messages|Messages]] • [[Special:Patrol|Patrol]] •
{| style="text-align:center" cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0 border=0 rules=none
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Mentor}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Patroller}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Morrowind}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Bloodmoon}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Tribunal}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#999999"
|||{{User XBox}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#999999"
|||{{Userbox|#FFF|#EEF|[[Image:UB-Wide.gif]]|info=This user plays on a 36" wide-screen.}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#666666"
|||{{User Male}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#333333"
|||{{User German}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#333333"
|||{{User American}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#333333"
|||{{User Danish}}
|
|}</DIV>

===About Me===
After a few previous anonymous edits, I joined this site in February of 2008. My handle stems from my Morrowind character, the Breton Benould the Wise.

I played Morrowind after it was first released in 2002 on my Brother-in-Law's PC, never getting further then the Dwemer Puzzlebox. When a recent Sky-diving accident had my bed-bound for the better part of a year, I bought a Xbox and a copy of Knights of the Old Republic and Morrowind GOTY.
Needless to say, I played a lot that year. My experience with Oblivion is limited to 2 weeks on a borrowed 360, so....

===Morrowind===
I normally play power-gaming, robust characters, like sneaking Redguards using Long Blade with magic support. Benould was the first attempt at a role-playing, spear-wielding Battlemage. After he slayed Dagoth Ur, I made him a custom Armor of God, with a 10 pt. Light on self and 100 pt. Sanctuary.

====Favorite Places in Morrowind====
My favorite cave to spam is [[Morrowind:Tharys Ancestral Tomb|Tharys Ancestral Tomb]] for the proximity to Balmora. I train spear there and get good early loot to sell. Skeleton Archers drop yummy enchanted arrows in stacks, from character level 2-6. [[Morrowind:Ra'Virr|Ra'Virr]] has that tasty [[Morrowind:Devil Spear|Devil Spear]] for the bargain of 165 gold that is perfect for the place... Greater Bonewalkers do pop up at about level 5-6, but there is that shrine for that. Never ending supplies of baddies, Soul-trapping, skill-training, loot, all right next to Balmora.

My favorite home-away-from-home is the Dome in [[Morrowind:Marandus|Marandus]]. I normally set my ''Mark'' here since it has good temporary storage, a bed and unbeatable instant access to the whole of Morrowind. Intervention chaining can take me to [[Morrowind:Balmora|Balmora]], [[Morrowind:Pelagiad|Pelagiad]], [[Morrowind:Vivec (city)|Vivec]] and [[Morrowind:Ebonheart|Ebonheart]]. Since I don't have the master index on the Xbox, the Propylon chamber here can take me close to anywhere on island, for example 1 stop and an intervention takes me to [[Morrowind:Wolverine Hall|Wolverine Hall]].
{{newLeft}}
===Contributions===
Mainly revamping Morrowind, Bloodmoon, Tribunal.
====Pages I am proud of====
Completely re-designed and re-wrote all [[Morrowind:Cities & Towns]] pages.
Complete revamp of the [[:Bloodmoon]] namespace, with many articles written from scratch or with major additions.
===Other Games===
Love to play FFXI, KOTOR, Castlevania series, Civilization series. A long time ago I used to be a mod on the gaming community TheAmazonbasin and once had a Hardcore Guardian Circle in Diablo II LOD.

{{NewLeft}}
===Playgrounds===

:[[User:Benould/Audi|Audi]]- Notepad
:[[User:Benould/BMW|BMW]]
:[[User:Benould/Benz|Benz]]
:[[User:Benould/Ford|Ford]]
:[[User:Benould/Opel|Opel]]
:[[User:Benould/Porsche|Porsche]]

User talk:Benould

2008-08-26T07:16:54Z

Benould: notice

{{notice|Thanks for everything, it has been fun to work on the wiki. When it isn't fun anymore, it is time to stop. I'll check in every now and then, good luck.}}

{{notice|'''Welcome to my talk page!''' Feel free to leave me a message or ask a question. To add a new topic, you can just click on the "+" tab at the top of this page (for more info, see [[Help:Editing Pages|Editing Pages]] and [[Help:Editing Pages#Editing a Discussion Page|Editing a Discussion Page]]). I'm usually able to answer questions within a day.}}

'''Archives''':
* '''2008''':
;[[User talk:Benould/Archive-2008-01|March/April]]
;[[User talk:Benould/Archive-2008-02|May/June]]
'''Cookies''': [[User:Benould/Cookie Jar|My cookie jar]]
{{TOCright}}

== Collective Items ==

Ya Benould I got one question, its not really important, kind of off topic, but Do you know where to find the commemorative plate in morrowind? Or the jar of grease? You see I’m a collector, and I need these last pieces for my collection. I've looked everywhere in the game and on the web, so this is my last resort; I normally wouldn't bother people like this. Well any help would be appreciated.

Thanks [[User:Hyrenaqil|Hyrenaqil]] 10:28, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:Commemorative Plate [[Morrowind:Clutter]] have the ID's <code>misc_com_plate_02_tgrc / misc_com_plate_06_tgrc </code>
:Jar of Grease [[Tribunal:Item List]] ID <code>Misc_flask_grease</code>

:If you're on the PC, you can look those codes up in the Construction Set (which I don't have), which gives you their location. Alternatively, you can use the [[Morrowind:Console]]. Good luck in your hunt, --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:45, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the help, but i also play on the xbox, so the codes can't help me much, but thanks anyways. I'll ask someone who has a PC to check out there locations on the Construction Set. Do know any person who would be willing to help and has a PC. --[[User:Hyrenaqil|Hyrenaqil]] 09:39, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Neither of them actually exist in the game, I'm afraid. You'll need the console to get them which means they're PC only. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks no wonder I couldn't find them. I guess I won't have to collect them. I appreciate the help, you've saved me a bunch of time. -- [[User:Hyrenaqil|Hyrenaqil]] 17:25, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Morrowind:Level ==

I see you fixed the misinformation that Anarchangel keeps adding to Morrowind:Level about Misc skills not adding to attributes. I already deleted it twice before. --[[User:Brf|Brf]] 17:11, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Data Requests ==

Benould, could I ask that in future you make requests for editors to supply you with data on the appropriate article talk page instead of making redundant requests on multiple editors' talk pages? It seems like that would significantly reduce the chance of having three editors do the same work to provide you with same data three times over. And having the discussion on a neutral page such as an article talk page would make it a bit more obvious that some coordination of effort might be needed. From my point of view, at least, it is somewhat unpleasant to spend a couple of hours trying to respond your request, only to email the data then immediately find out that you'd asked another editor to do the same task in the meantime. The request was only just over a day old, and I thought my post just hours earlier would have provided some indication that I was responding to the request. Six hours doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of time to be allowed to complete the task without having my efforts discarded as unnecessary. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:Nephele, first of all, thank you for taking the time trying to get me the data, I am sorry that this misunderstanding has come about. I agree, a message on the appropriate page would be better, if such message indeed would get attention. I know that you're not normally too deep in the MW/TR/BM, that's why I posted on your personal page with this -what I thought- simple request. I did not ask Lurlock the same task, he jumped in on your task page, and once it became a back-and-forth between him and me, we moved to his page as to not to bombard you with "New Message" notices. In the [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock#Tribunal_item_list|subsequent postings]], he stated that such a list wouldn't be automated, and it gave me the impression that'd it be not reasonable to ask you to do this. At this point, it was important to get an overview how much missing entries we were actually talking about and Lurlock stated he had some pre-made list, which he then dumped on his sandbox. As it turned out, what was missing was comparatively little, and I was able to fill things last night and this morning with the help of a newly-discovered [http://www.elricm.com/nuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=MWCSData&file=index&mycs=yes&id_cat=12#tribunal source]. The good news is that most of the work is now done, and Tribunal is better for it. Again, thank you. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== SandBox ==

I can't figure out how to make my own SandBox, and I need to experiment. please help me. [[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 00:29, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Simple, behind your user name, type /sandboxname. Example: <nowiki>wiki/User:Jklack/nameyoursandox</nowiki> --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 00:39, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

this still doesn't make sense to me. Do I search it and make a page. I already know what to type i just need to know where to type it. [[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 20:39, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
::I just cut and pasted that, made the sandbox. Still unclear? <nowiki>http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Jklack/nameyoursandox</nowiki> is the whole address, just replace "nameyoursandox" with what you want to call it ;) Sandboxes are are sub-pages of you (non-existing) user page, you might want to create that first, like <nowiki>http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Jklack</nowiki> It then says the page doesn't exist, would you want to create it? Check the Welcome message on your Talk page, it has several useful links about wiki editing, or click [[UESPWiki:Getting_Started|here]] and you'll pick it up in no time at all. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:43, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

When I tr to make my own page a popup apears and says:
*do you want to save this file, or find an online program to open it?
** options: '''find''' '''save''' '''cancel'''
[[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 23:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

: I just created your user page, click on your signature ([[User:Jklack|Jklack]]) here to be taken there. Then, look at the top of the page where it says "Edit". That should let you modify your page. What browser are you using? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 23:34, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

When I click edit the popup comes up still. [[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 23:41, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:You did not say what Browser you are using. My recommendation would be to reset your browser settings, or if that fails, download Firefox and scrub your computer for any spyware. We do not use popups. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 00:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

== PGE ==

I notice that you're posting the PGE up there. You might want to specify somehow that it's the 3rd Edition, which is distinctly different from the 1st Edition (included with Morrowind) in many areas. The 1st Edition should probably also be posted, for the sake of comparison. (There's no 2nd Edition that I'm aware of.) Granted, the 3rd Edition is more up to date, but there's still some content in the 1st that is not in the 3rd, so we should have both. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 14:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
:You mean like the line "These are the transcripts of the Pocket Guide to the Empire, Third Edition."? I know we have the 1.st PGE available for download at [http://www.uesp.net/redguard/files/redfiles.shtm redguard files]; you'd have to talk to Ratwar if we can host these beyond that. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 16:00, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, but the page names don't specify, and if we post both in this way, there'll be pagename conflicts between the two that we'll need to deal with. As for old files - well, I mean we have it on the site, but it's the old site, and nobody goes there anymore, we probably should have it on the wiki somewhere. I think if we've gotten around the potential legalities enough that we're posting the 3rd Edition without worrying, we're probably okay posting the first as well. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 17:42, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Which is why there was a talk page entry up about it, how to structure the tree. As long as the PGE 3rd. Edition finds its home before we massively start linking, I am fine with what ever, perhaps the current page can link to the 1.st edition as well. For editing purposes, a disambiguation page would be a disservice, and we probably need either redirects PGE, PGE1, PGE3 or a template like <nowiki>{{PGE}}</nowiki>, because typing the whole smear will get tedious fast. So move away, categorize, but soon, so the linking can get underway, good sir ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:14, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==Hey==

Yeah, would you mind checking your IRC window? I want to talk to you...--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 23:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

== question ==

Hello, I see that Temple-zero has added things to Lore:Nedes and Lore: Greedy Man that comes from the MK-texts. Does this mean the discussion about what is canon and what is not is already over???

[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 02:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:No, it is not over, see [[Lore_talk:Main_Page#The_Case_for_Kirkbride|here]] for the preliminary statements; a formal discussion will be forth-coming on the [[UESPWiki:Community Portal]]. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Edit messup ==

If you happen to find the time, do you think you could check [[User:Alphaman/sandbox|my sandbox]] and see if you can point out which parts caused the messup? (as opposed to your fix of the [[Shivering:Crucible]] page). We talked about this for a minute tonight in the irc channel. :) Thanks, --[[User:Alphaman|Alphaman]]•[[User_Talk:Alphaman|T]]• 02:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks, I see where I went wrong now :)--[[User:Alphaman|Alphaman]]•[[User_Talk:Alphaman|T]]• 14:41, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Userpage deletions ==

Just so you know, if a user requests their userpage or sub-pages to be deleted, such as [[User:Benould/PGE/Temple Morrowind|this one]], it meets the criteria for speedy dedletion, in other words it might be worth using the <nowiki>{{speed}}</nowiki> tag instead of the <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> one. Just saves the hassle of the 1 week wait period. --[[User:Volanaro|Volanaro]] 15:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:I would agree, except they all link to <nowiki>[[User:RobinHood70/PGE]]</nowiki> I I don't feel like I can tag RH's pages. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Heh. ==

You make me laugh. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 19:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:Glad to be of service, the world needs more laughter. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Comments ==

Sorry, my bad. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 01:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Apology ==

Sorry. I didn't know that all user pages and changes to them were patrolled. Could you advise me on a problem I'm having with my user page? [[User:Orange-laser-cube|Orange-laser-cube]] 12:00, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
:No problem, ask away. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 16:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

::Well when I go to add some faction userboxes on my user page, they all get misaligned for some reason. Large vertical spaces appear between the userboxes. I've tried to fix this, but I can't quite seem to get it right. Could you tell me how to organize userboxes correctly, possibly in a column? [[User:Orange-laser-cube|Orange-laser-cube]] 18:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
:::If I understand you correctly, you're looking for a floating division, like the example [[User:Benould/Opel|here]]? <nowiki><div style="float:left"></nowiki> and close it afterwards with <nowiki></div></nowiki>. hope this helps, --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:01, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes that's what I was trying to do. Thanks. [[User:Orange-laser-cube|Orange-laser-cube]] 19:53, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Idiot" ==

Just block him. Skip all warning procedures. He's nothing but a vandal and should be given a chance. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 02:28, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:And its attitudes like that that alienate potentially constructive editors, a warning might b enough to make him stop or evn start contributing constructively. --[[User:Volanaro|Volanaro]] 05:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Daedryon, blocking is done by Administrators only and then only after following the needed procedures described in the [[UESPWiki:Blocking_Policy|Blocking policy]]. The only outright blocks are levied against personal attacks and bots. This keeps actions from being done at-a-whim, and transparent enough to be reversible. Just revert the vandalism, give advice or warning depending on the situation; don't worry about blocks. Always [[UESPWiki:Assume_Good_Faith|assume good faith]]. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 07:03, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Well I've assumed good faith, and contrary to what Volanaro thinks, I can sense a vandal and Idiot is a vandal. Must we always assume that every vandal is going to magically pull a good side out of his/her rear end and turn into a good editor? Did we not already learn with [[User:Dagoth Ur, Mad God|DUMG]]? Our blocking policy is pathetic and prevents us from stopping any vandals in their tracks, but instead, gives them an extra 5 or 10 minutes to vandalize the hell out of UESP. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 12:27, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I do agree that the assume good faith idea is takn a bit too far sometimes, but there have been a few occasions where after recieving a warning, disruptive editors have apologised or started t ocontribute constructively. The blocking policy is not a fixed set of rules and admins often make [[User_talk:66.36.230.163|exceptions]] in extreme cases. --[[User:Volanaro|Volanaro]] 12:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::In this particular case, Benould couldn't have blocked him even if he wanted to. Only administrators have that right and none was available at the time. The blocking policy works perfectly well. There's a world of difference between users like Idiot and DUMG and people who just make a mistake. If you have some definite suggestions to make as far as changing the policy is concerned, please do so on the [[UESPWiki_talk:Blocking_Policy|relevant talk page]]. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Oh, oops! I thought Benould was an admin. As far as I know, only Ratwar, Nephele, Rpeh, Timenn and Benould are admins. Maybe I was wrong. But still, if Idiot hasn't been banned, he should be. Also, I suggest taking a look at the racist name of [[User:Fat Cracka]] [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 12:36, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And just for the records, the full list of administators can be found [[UESPWiki:Administrators|here]]--[[User:Volanaro|Volanaro]] 12:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

User:Benould

2008-08-26T07:14:55Z

Benould: notice

{| width=100% style="border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; background:#b5cbea; text-align:center"
|• [[#Morrowind|Morrowind]] • [[#Contributions| Contributions]] • [[#About Me|About Me]] • [[#Other Games|Other Games]] • [[#Playgrounds|Playgrounds]] •
|}

{{notice|Thanks for everything, it has been fun to work on the wiki. When it's not fun anymore, it is time to stop. I'll check in every now and then, good luck.}}

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__
<DIV STYLE="float: left; margin: 3px; border: 3px solid #FFE4B5; background: White;">
{| style="border:0" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 "text-align:center"
|- valign="top"
• [[UESPWiki:Morrowind_Redesign_Project#Current_tasks|MW Task]] • [[UESPWiki:Task_List|Tasks]] • [[UESPWiki:Messages|Messages]] • [[Special:Patrol|Patrol]] •
{| style="text-align:center" cellpadding=1 cellspacing=0 border=0 rules=none
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Mentor}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Patroller}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Morrowind}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Bloodmoon}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#cccccc"
|||{{User Tribunal}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#999999"
|||{{User XBox}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#999999"
|||{{Userbox|#FFF|#EEF|[[Image:UB-Wide.gif]]|info=This user plays on a 36" wide-screen.}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#666666"
|||{{User Male}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#333333"
|||{{User German}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#333333"
|||{{User American}}
|
|colspan=3 height=5|
|-bgcolor="#333333"
|||{{User Danish}}
|
|}</DIV>

===About Me===
After a few previous anonymous edits, I joined this site in February of 2008. My handle stems from my Morrowind character, the Breton Benould the Wise.

I played Morrowind after it was first released in 2002 on my Brother-in-Law's PC, never getting further then the Dwemer Puzzlebox. When a recent Sky-diving accident had my bed-bound for the better part of a year, I bought a Xbox and a copy of Knights of the Old Republic and Morrowind GOTY.
Needless to say, I played a lot that year. My experience with Oblivion is limited to 2 weeks on a borrowed 360, so....

===Morrowind===
I normally play power-gaming, robust characters, like sneaking Redguards using Long Blade with magic support. Benould was the first attempt at a role-playing, spear-wielding Battlemage. After he slayed Dagoth Ur, I made him a custom Armor of God, with a 10 pt. Light on self and 100 pt. Sanctuary.

====Favorite Places in Morrowind====
My favorite cave to spam is [[Morrowind:Tharys Ancestral Tomb|Tharys Ancestral Tomb]] for the proximity to Balmora. I train spear there and get good early loot to sell. Skeleton Archers drop yummy enchanted arrows in stacks, from character level 2-6. [[Morrowind:Ra'Virr|Ra'Virr]] has that tasty [[Morrowind:Devil Spear|Devil Spear]] for the bargain of 165 gold that is perfect for the place... Greater Bonewalkers do pop up at about level 5-6, but there is that shrine for that. Never ending supplies of baddies, Soul-trapping, skill-training, loot, all right next to Balmora.

My favorite home-away-from-home is the Dome in [[Morrowind:Marandus|Marandus]]. I normally set my ''Mark'' here since it has good temporary storage, a bed and unbeatable instant access to the whole of Morrowind. Intervention chaining can take me to [[Morrowind:Balmora|Balmora]], [[Morrowind:Pelagiad|Pelagiad]], [[Morrowind:Vivec (city)|Vivec]] and [[Morrowind:Ebonheart|Ebonheart]]. Since I don't have the master index on the Xbox, the Propylon chamber here can take me close to anywhere on island, for example 1 stop and an intervention takes me to [[Morrowind:Wolverine Hall|Wolverine Hall]].
{{newLeft}}
===Contributions===
Mainly revamping Morrowind, Bloodmoon, Tribunal.
====Pages I am proud of====
Completely re-designed and re-wrote all [[Morrowind:Cities & Towns]] pages.
Complete revamp of the [[:Bloodmoon]] namespace, with many articles written from scratch or with major additions.
===Other Games===
Love to play FFXI, KOTOR, Castlevania series, Civilization series. A long time ago I used to be a mod on the gaming community TheAmazonbasin and once had a Hardcore Guardian Circle in Diablo II LOD.

{{NewLeft}}
===Playgrounds===

:[[User:Benould/Audi|Audi]]- Notepad
:[[User:Benould/BMW|BMW]]
:[[User:Benould/Benz|Benz]]
:[[User:Benould/Ford|Ford]]
:[[User:Benould/Opel|Opel]]
:[[User:Benould/Porsche|Porsche]]

UESPWiki talk:Lore

2008-08-26T07:03:23Z

Benould: /* We're not ready for guidelines... */ done

{| class=wikitable style="float:right"
! Related Discussions
|-
|
* [[:Category:Archive-Tamriel|Archived discussions about the Tamriel namespace]]
|}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==Sources for Lore Articles==
:''The first section of this discussion (everything up to my contribution at [[#Nephele|Nephele]]) was originally posted at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]]. I've moved it all here because it is general discussion about the Lore namespace, rather than discussion specifically about what belongs on the [[Lore:Main Page|Main Page]] of the Lore section. Also, any guidelines that are adopted as a result of this discussion will be posted on [[UESPWiki:Lore]]; this keeps the discussion together with the guidelines.'' --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
===The Case for Kirkbride===

As most readers of this page are indubitably aware at this point, there has been something of a tempest in a teapot regarding the contributions of the user Temple-Zero. I admit readily that I involved myself in this community fully at his behest, and that I agree with his principles fully. This essay is an attempt to explain and justify the position he and I are taking in a non-bombastic way.

There are a few people who have significantly contributed to the "lore" of the TES series in an official context - Ken Rolston, Kurt Kuhlmann, Marilyn Wasserman, Douglas Goodall, Gary Noonan, Ted Peterson, and Michael Kirkbride. Of these, the latter two's contributions have been by far the most significant, with Peterson writing proliferously for the series and Kirkbride being the primary force behind worldbuilding and lore since 1996. The difficulty that arises is that Kirkbride has contributed, as of today, 20 works which have not appeared in TES games, in addition to several collaborations with other writers. Others have contributed similarly, though not to nearly the same extent. These works have been archived by The Imperial Library [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/ on this page]. There appears to be some disagreement over whether these qualify as "lore."

The argument many members of this community have put forth is that something is not "lore" unless explicitly endorsed by Bethesda Softworks (or one of the associated companies involved in the production of TES games) by appearing in a game. Though this may sound like a simple and successful way to organize lore into "canon" and "non-canon," this line of reasoning is specious and not accepted by any prominent member of the lore community.

The idea that Bethesda is the source of canon does not hold up with Bethesda's own policy. "Ius, the Animal God" is not serious lore, its own author readily admits that. ''Arena'' is not an accurate depiction of Tamriel except insofar as it has the provinces right and the cities are kind of accurate. Even the Pocket Guide was ignored when creating ''Oblivion'', something which would be inexplicable if not for one of the texts some editors argue should not be treated as lore. If the games are conflicting, how can it be ''them'' that is canon, and the texts which repair this conflict not?

The reality is that Mr. Kirkbride is the primary moving force for TES lore. He was the primary author of the First Pocket Guide to the Empire, Varieties of Faith, and every single creation myth except the Khajiit's, he drew the art which inspired the design of virtually every aspect of Morrowind's visuals - from the Ministry of Truth to corpus beasts to the Telvanni mushroom towers - he is the voice of Vivec and the author the Thirty-Six Lessons, and the man behind Mankar Camoran. Almost every major character from the lore is either his creation or someone he expanded on immeasurably - from Pelinal and Alessia to Tiber Septim and Zurin Arctus to Sotha Sil and Almalexia. The only major exceptions are the events of ''2920'' and Barenziah and her children, which are Peterson's invention. Dismissing him as a "dev," or one of many in a large group of contributors, is folly. Similarly, dismissing half his corpus as "forum posts" is equally unwise.

You cannot fully understand ''The Thirty-Six Lessons of Vivec'' without "Vehk's Teachings," or grasp their ultimate implications without "A Letter from the Fifth Era of Tamriel." You cannot account for Oblivion's plot-holes without "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "From the Many-Headed Talos." The story of the Alessian Revolt is not complete without the "Lament for Pelinal," and the in-game version of "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is missing half its text. "Lord Vivec’s Sword-Meeting With Cyrus the Restless" is a sequel to ''TESA: Redguard'' and his contributions in the Trial of Vivec bring the story of ''Morrowind'' and ''Tribunal'' to a close. "The Imperial Census of Daedra Lords" gives invaluable information on the Daedra, and "Cosmology" gives equally important information on the metaphysical geography of the TES universe. I can continue to describe the significance of the eleven other texts at hand, but I think my point is made.

When Temple-Zero says "TES is literature" he means it. The view that has developed slowly from the gestations of the lore community sees Kirkbride as an author like any other, and his works as a story that has developed over more than a decade. Lore is ultimately just the cataloging of this story for ease of understanding. If UESP ignores such significant contributions to this story because they aren't included in the video game that allowed this story to exist, then UESP's lore section remains crippled and useless as it so much is currently. The obscure texts are not unsourced and non-canon, they are ''essential'' to our understanding of this universe and stories within it. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 08:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with your argument. In my personal opinion, this edit should form the foundation of our discussions on how to proceed from here. What is the purpose of the wiki "Lore" section is maybe the bigger issue, what audience are we trying to reach? Without a basic agreement on these two issues, Lore namespace will remain piece-meal; with a varying, sometimes dubious quality. Much more can be said, but as many probably agree, we need to discuss this in the community. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed. If UESP aims only to inform the average player of the basics of the games' backstory, then it can settle with in-game sources. But it could be more than that, it could be a source players newly interested in lore could go to learn about things unhindered by the poetics of the in-game sources, or by their conflicting narratives, and also providing background as to how consensus was formed and links to the original sources. The obscure texts are essential to our understanding of this.

::Certainly treating these sources with scorn will only alienate the lore community from this website, making it useless by virtue of not being taken seriously. As will comments that suggest that the lore community is somehow insigificant, along the lines of insinuating that we can go off and "discuss" in our "forums" as if you have any audience but us. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 20:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Does wiki have some sort of charter? Because unless reluctance to include non-canon material is in writing somewhere, its inclusion seems very much in keeping with the nature of the site, in some ways. UESP doesn't judge, it only reflects and records. In the articles dealing with aspects of the games, every conceivable detail finds a place- useful, interesting, or not. This allows it to be used as an open-ended resource for a variety of purposes. It is not a targeted runthrough of the subject with clear goals in mind. It is wiki's job to show or reference everything, EVERYTHING that there is to be seen, a database of details to minor to be explored in something as cursory and efficient as a walkthrough. The entirety of Elder Scrolls, just as Wikipedia tries to be the sum of all knowledge. Withholding lore does not make sense in such a place. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::But like Wikipedia, we do not appreciate faulty inceptions in our articles, which brings us back to the non-canon discussion that took place earlier. We want verified, sourced material straight from the horses, in this case Bethesda's, mouth. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 23:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
This site isn't about Bethesda. It's about Elder Scrolls. What is your fascination with this faceless corporation? You aren't affiliates. It's hard for me to take this viewpoint seriously when no one explains it, only reiterates it. It's not that hard- I've heard one passable justification before now.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 23:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:A faceless corporation? While not every person at Bethesda may have contributed anything to the ES lore, the current canon we hold is what has been agreed upon by the developers at Bethesda. Yes, there are developers who may have contributed the major part to the lore, but that does not mean that what they say outside the official sources is inrefutably true. We don't know what happens inside Bethesda, for all we know the developers vote for every plot arch before they continue upon it. What Kirkbride says outside an official source may be what he would have written, but as he doesn't say "This is official" we can't take it for canon without placing question marks to its validity. There has not been stated on the site that unofficial sources can never be used, the major issue has been with you automatically taking them for true. You have been jumping to conclusions right from the beginning and are taking a very cynical approach to anyone who questions the validity of such sources. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 03:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Question: If what is found under [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text Obscure Texts at TIL] is mostly contract work done for Bethesda, how can it not be considered part of the Lore, even by the old standards - only Bethesda sanctioned material? What is contract work there, what isn't? Do we have any written standards on what is admissible? Anyone care to enlighten me? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

First, apologies for the length of this post but I think we have a lot to talk about.

I think there are three areas of disagreement: the perspective of the articles, the sources for them, and the degree to which conclusions should be drawn.

To quote the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Perspective|Style Guide]], "Within Lore articles, it is more appropriate to write from the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe. The articles are still expected to be encyclopedia-style, but designed as if they were reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel. Gameplay details should be avoided in Lore articles; game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen." Although the section is still marked as a proposed guideline, it's been up there for months and nobody has ever argued against it, That means that additions like [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Nede&curid=12249&diff=347662&oldid=347661&rcid=351122 this one] should not be made because it's pretty clear that a citizen of Tamriel wouldn't know what the developers have been saying. The previous version of the text is perfectly accurate, neutral and fits with the required style; the new edit simply pushes a personal viewpoint. The average citizen is much more likely to believe a more "impressive" history - in our own universe the Romans' version of history held that they were directly descended from Trojan refugees, rather more lofty than "Another Italic tribe that happened to get lucky".

As a little bit of background, the reason for the Lore space being different in perspective is that we had several complaints about the site being written from an all-seeing, all-knowing point of view, with some believing it spoiled the games. We decided that it was almost impossible to avoid doing this in the gamespaces but that the Lore space would be an ideal place to write from a citizen's viewpoint. I'm well aware that most of the pages don't quite work like that at the moment; most focus has been on "finishing" the game pages (inasmuch as such a thing is possible). A few pages have been rewritten in the new style, however - [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3ADark_Brotherhood&diff=313090&oldid=313020 my edit] to the Dark Brotherhood page was intended to act as an example of how even the game sections of Lore pages can fit with the style. Since then, the article has grown and become much better through the additions made by people like Apophis2412 that have been made in the same style. In his case, opposing theories were presented with equal prominence, which is the correct way to write when there is disagreement.

As far as source material is concerned, I don't think anybody will be massively shocked when I say that I strenuously oppose the inclusion of sources from outside the games. My main reason for this is simply - where do you draw the line? Material that MK wrote in an official capacity for Bethesda? Material written by MK for fun? Material improvised by devs in a roleplay? What about somebody like Douglas Goodall? We [[General:Douglas_Goodall_Interview|know]] that he isn't a fan of the way things have developed so what if he wrote some lore that brings things back to his way of thinking? I know that's a hypothetical question, but it's one that is worth asking.

The "obscure texts" are material that, for whatever reason, has ''not'' been put in the games. Obviously, anything that appeared after SI came out can't really be included anywhere, but for the rest of it, it was available and yet not included for whatever reason. You say that the fact the in-game "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is half the size of the other means that we have to use the latter; I say that half the material was deliberately cut so we have to use the former.

The points you make about the games being internally inconsistent is a good one, but then we already know that they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon retconned]* once, with the Warp in the West, so I don't see that it's a deal breaker. There are things going on that your typical citizen of Tamriel doesn't know about, as I'm sure they'd admit.

::

* ''the irony of linking this particular post to a WP article flagged for containing original material has not escaped me.''

Let me give you another piece of history from the site. We've had several edit wars about the ranks of people in Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=190339&oldid=187427] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=202684&oldid=201953] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=207839&oldid=202712] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=220731&oldid=207842] for just four such examples on one page) The site policy on this is that we always use the values from the data files, which gives us a quick and easy way to decide any issue like this that comes up. By drawing an analogous line and saying that only texts that appear in the games (plus the PGE, which at least comes with them) can be used, questions about the legitimacy of material are answered easily.

This brings me to the last point - conclusions. There have been several cases where edits are presented as facts where they are actually extrapolation ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AKhajiit&diff=332997&oldid=332990] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AGods_A&diff=331035&oldid=320426] are two examples). This for me is the most disturbing trend in recent edits. If this kind of content appears regularly we're going to be lost in a wasteland of unverifiable pages that will undoubtedly be the subject of edit warring. Even having said that, there are instances where extrapolation ''can'' be acceptable. Lurlock recently [[Morrowind_talk:Camonna_Tong#Gap_in_the_Ranks|posted]] a theory to explain why there is a huge gap in the ranks in the Morrowind Camonna Tong, the basis for which is that there are people living in Vvardenfell (and Cyrodiil) that we don't see. In this case, it's pretty easy to prove. In the case of Oblivion, for example we have the [[Oblivion:Night Mother Rituals!|Night Mother Rituals]] edition of the Black Horse Courier being written by one Agnes Earheardt. Since no NPC in the game has that name there must be people we don't see - QED. On the other hand, his suggestion that the unseen people outnumber the seen by 50 times is just a guess. It's an informed guess and he gives his reasons for making it, but it's a guess nonetheless. Personally, my guess would be more like 75 times, but I'm not going to put that on an article either.

In conclusion, this is a potentially very exciting time for the site. The Lore section has always been the poor relation of the site and I'd love to see it spruced up, but not by including material of dubious veracity. In any case, all material should be supported with citations. Benould gave a [[User_talk:Temple-Zero#References|good example]] of how to do that, and it should happen with all these edits so people can find the supporting material quickly and easily.

–[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Just to follow up Rpeh's comments on source material, I am also opposed to the inclusion of non-game material. If we are going down the path of including everything that a developer (or whatever you want to call them) has said in a 'semi-official' capacity, where do you draw the line? For example, if you include Gary "Wormgod" Noonan's forum posts as 'official', do you also count the 'Morrowind Advanced' mod as official, because he wrote it? I would argue that, despite being written by a BethSoft developer, it is very much an unofficial mod as it is not officially supported and distributed by BethSoft. I would could forum posts and other 'semi-official' works in the same manner. Just because somebody who works for BethSoft happens to say something about something somewhere, it doesn't make it official. What if MK posted something along the lines of "Actually, Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon" - does that become official canon simply because MK said it? --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should concentrate less on determining what 'canon' means in the context of TES's "spaghetti lore" and more on the usefulness of this wiki. As the lore community — an important part of our audience — sees MK's views as taking precedence over in-game material as well as over material by other developers, we should edit the Lore section with this in mind. That is, we might want to write something to the effect of "source X says Y, Michael Kirkbride says Z" whenever such contradictions occur — and link to a "Michael Kirkbride" article where we explain that the lore community sees him as having a "privileged" status among the developers. If we simply ignore MK's forum posts/Obscure Texts (and by "ignore" I refer to not writing anything about it; I'm not referring to not treating it as the absolute truth), we will miss an important part of TES lore. Treating MK-Lore as absolute truth would be better than this in ''my'' opinion, but as it seems that a great deal of this wiki's editors are opposed to such an approach, we might find the compromise I've just presented as being a good solution instead. [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:If I had been asked about this a few days ago I would have probably been of the opinion not to consider these texts canon. I do not like Mk's texts very much and they're not a part of "my ES world". (The only one I really like is "Fall of Ald-Ruhn") However the recent discussion on this site has changed my opinon a bit: How much I may dislike them, they are still a part of the Elder Scrolls however and thus cannot be ignored. Since this site's goal is to be a major source of information about Elder Scrolls this site does not have the luxury to simply ignore them.

:Vallagar has some interesting points. We could of course add a section to each article dedicated to sources not found within the game. I'm saying that we don't add information coming from these outside texts to the main part of the article but rather devote a seperate section of the article to it. I'm also of the opinion that we must still seperate the dev-texts from the in-game sources but that we atleast allow people to find out what is inside them. Perhaps we can even put a disclaimer on the top of the lore page, explaining UESP's and the community's opinion on this and let the reader decide wether they want to consider it canon.

: I also agree with Sload when he says that this might be a great opportunity for UESP to improve it's lore section and thus make it a lore site comparable to TIL. On the other hand, one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints.

: The biggest problem I see at the moment with these outside texts is deciding what is a credible source and what is not. If we include MK's texts, do we also include Ken Rolston's texts about Caius Coscades? If we consider the RP: Trial of Vivec, a credible source, does that make Ted Peterson's RP's also a viable source of information? And what do we do about texts like these: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=754160&hl= and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=607899&hl= ??
:Are they lore or just a jest?

: Another problem is the very nature of Mk's texts. Texts like "Short life of Uriel Septim" or "On: Morrowind" are your standard historical texts. You can take information straight from the text and add it to the UESP article. They aren't much open to interpetation. MK's works (like "Sithis" or "The 36 sermons") are more of a theological nature. In some ways you can compare them to the Bible. The difference with normal texts is that can't take information straight from the article but have to interpete what the texts says.

:If the discussion on what is and what is not canon cannot be easliy decided then it might be an idea for UESP to make use of a system of canonicity levels like the Star Wars Franchise uses. See here for an example: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database

:[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 08:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)Apophis2412

:: To quote Apophsis2412: '''''one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints'''''
:: I think we need to be careful that we are not simply duplicating TIL - the UESP doesn't exist to simply regurgitate stuff that is found elsewhere on the web, but to fill its own niche. I think the above quote also answer's Valaggar's question about the usefulness of the wiki - UESP is viewed primarily as a 'gameplay hints' site, not a 'lore' site.
:: (Maybe we should have chosen something other than 'Lore' as the title for the moved 'Tamriel' domain, or even not bothered moving it)
:: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: True, but one must not forget that this site also has articles about lore that Til doesn't have, like our articles about all the factions (MW Great Houses for example), and the articles about important people (Vivec, Almalexia, Sotha Sil for example).
:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 09:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: First, I see a trend among all the responses above that I would like to reply to. You are all coming to the same set of concerns from a variety of angles, whether questions of style or 'UESP doesn't do lore.' You are very skeptical that we should consider the texts official and question our rationale for using them. Well, you have some valid concerns, but I have to ask you, is that enough to completely ignore them? Pretend they never existed and scrub the many insights they have provided from the sight and ban their discussion? This sounds like an extreme portrayal of the situation, but it is what you seem to be asking. Sload, Benould, and I argue that obscure texts should be acknowledged valid as citations, evidence, and sources. We don't ask that you put them on the site and grant them pride of place, only that they be given their intended status of aids to understand ES lore. When you respond to this pointing out the unclear semantics of the situation and possible slippery slopes and negative effects, you follow a course of reasoning that will only be satisfied by their complete and absolute banishment. Is this what you really want? If so, then you should probably contest our claims that you might as well not have a lore section, because we are indeadly earnest on that point.

::::Rpeh: That is an interesting post, because I can't really highlight any irreversible conflicts. Those are concerns, but not principled objections to the material itself. We are arguing for the basics here, and if your concerns are the qualifications we have to work with, then that's fine and dandy, because we're getting somewhere. But if we are to resolve this, then you're going to have to realize that some things are a little slippery for the rule of thumb, though everyone can submit to the rule of law. You all act like you fear the rabble that will tramp through the site if we relax these constrictions (there aren't enough of us to constitute a mob) and point to areas where trespasses may occur. Well, that's where admins come in, to separate the shades of grey, and from your reluctance, I'm beginning to think you aren't very optimistic about your chances. You have to use your judgment to draw the line, that is what you are there for. And it will be much easier when the editors are working for you, not against you. This is the messy part of the revolution, I hope. How you categorize the sources as does not matter, as you won't be including or describing them on the site. They will only be used as references, and you will be admirably placed to view the content and decide if it is a joke, or too vague. When you cite something on Uesp, you are not crediting a source, you are pointing to a point of information or insight within that source. Decide if that is valid, and nevermind the package. That doesn't matter, and it's downright ridiculous to complain about the confusion from obscure texts when the game's lore and internal continuity is more tangled up by far. The site seems to handle it all admirably, however. Maybe you just need someone as knowledgeable in lore as most of the admins are with the games.

::::And because I'm up to that part: "What happens if Ted Peterson says Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon?" Because Ted Peterson knows less about lore than Michael Kirkbride does. It seems to me the only reason official material is worthy of such respect is because of the convenience of copyright. In substance it is often less reliable, and needs to be rationalized and updated in other, unofficial contexts.

::::Valaggar has some good ideas, but I bet Rpeh would find them all lacking in terms of the requirements of the style guide. Well, I had read that quote he provided before, but assumed it meant something else, because I don't see uesp's posts as anything remotely like 'in-character.' In practice, it doesn't seem like a style so much as a guide of what to leave out. Console commands and easter egg notes have an exception? It seems like you are touting the objectives of a goal no one pays any heed towards fulfilling. But I can say that if you believe it is grounds to stifle all candidness about the origins of sources and conflicts in lore to the point of their being left out, consider this the first objection.

::::Apophis, I will try to answer your concerns. The beauty of the obscure texts is that they ARE unofficial. They are not sitting there in your face and asserting the authority of their canon truth. They are there as references, an invitation to explore the subject more closely. They ask that you view the content inside and judge that, not the format in its entirety. If Ted Peterson wrote a poem that was a joke about T Rex's getting it on and sprinkled it with the birth dates of all the Septim Emperors, some of the details would be worth examining. I wouldn't want to put it up next to some of the more serious texts, but it would still be there, informing our thinking. The writers own Tamriel, the company just owns the game. If you must categorize the different levels of non-canon lore, then gut it up and use your judgment.

::::Gaebrial, don't be a defeatist.

::::In conclusion, I don't think I ask for much. Right of footnote, essentially. I leave it to the admins to flood the lore section with prods, flags, and disclaimers if they want to. Linked articles on the nuances of the sources and prominent theories that cannot be drawn by a simple reading of explicit text? Analyses on bias, conflicts and retcons in the real world context of the subject? we can handle it. Resolving disputes is impossible when we differ on such a fundamental level. Meet me here, and I will work towards resolving any of the concerns you have brought up as they arrive. I can't work with you until we are working with the same material. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::If Lore is supposed to be as seen as by an average citizen, follow that thought for a second. The situation here reminds me of Temple dogma, which should be familiar to anyone who has played Morrowind. There is the Temple doctrine that described the situation and the death of Nerevar, the Apotheosis of the Almsivi, and most people were happy with that for 3000 years. There were dissenting voices that were tossed into the Ministry of Truth, or that went into hiding. There was also the oral tradition of the Ashlanders and the report of Sul, which were ridiculed. Although some of these diverging opinion existed in form of texts and books, they were hidden in the Secret Library, marked not safe for public consumption. When things got out of hand with Dagoth Ur, these very people and documents were needed to bring about a solution. The higher ranks were, begrudgingly, able to adjust to the new "truth", Vivec gave 3 different sources, and admitted to murder, yet the god Vivec did not. The clincher is. no-one believes you that Almalexia is dead after the Tribunal Main Quest, and that she went mad and killed Sotha Sil, even if this is clearly the case.

:::::I liken these afore mentioned "Obscure Texts" to the oral traditions of the Ashlanders, and the texts of the Dissident Priests, alternative views of history, that may very well prove crucial to the understandings, even if they're not accessible to the average citizen of Cyrodiil. In-game dogma ''only'' may not be sufficient, I believe the Obscure texts are a helpful addition, and they are sufficiently limited in scope, no flood gates needed. Anyways, I am glad we're taking this discussion now, Lore namespace will be better for it, one way or another. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 11:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Temple-Zero, I don't believe you've responded to any of my three points. To go through a paragraph at at time... First, Yes I do indeed think that anything outside the games should not be included for the reasons already stated. You obviously feel the obscure texts are worthy of consideration and I feel exactly the opposite. Material that hasn't appeared in the games shouldn't be used as a source because Bethesda haven't considered it worthy of inclusion. However, I obviously disagree with your point about killing the Lore section. I think it should be a section about Lore ''as it relates to the games'' whereas you're talking about opening it up to any other material. I don't believe that is an invalid choice. As others have stated, we're not trying to create a duplicate of TIL.
::::::Second, "that's where admins come in"? I've been trying to keep the more speculative material off the site and haven't exactly had a very nice response. I'm not complaining about confusion from the obscure text, I'm saying there will be confusion about what is acceptable and what isn't and there's only one way to resolve that.
::::::Paragraph three... I don't know what it means. That quote isn't what Gaebrial wrote so I'm not sure how it fits. However, you've inadvertently proved my point - you seem to say that if Ted Peterson says something that contradicts Michael Kirkbride then we should ignore the former. In other words, you're picking and choosing from source material based on your beliefs. That is exactly my problem with including material not from the games.
::::::Fourth, I admitted that the Lore space isn't right in terms of style at the moment but I'm darn sure there aren't any console codes or easter eggs in that namespace. If you've found some then, to use an expression of yours, delete with extreme prejudice!
::::::Fifth, Valaggar's suggestion is interesting but it's not a solution as it simply moves the problem to another place. If such a system was used I would give any of the current obscure texts the lowest possible "reliability" score whereas you seem to regard them as just as reliable a source as the in-game books. So instead of reverting each others textual edits we end up reverting each others scores.
::::::Sixth, it's the willingness to include anything at all that I find disturbing. A joke about T Rex should be treated as just that and it should only "inform our thinking" insofar as it shows what a funny guy Ted Peterson is.
::::::So that's my position: No non-game material. It just isn't going to work. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

To comment on the qeustion what would happen when Ted Peterson would declare Vivec to be love child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon. The Imperial Library has always used the following standard for the obscure texts. They must be verifiably written by a developer and they must be in character. The latter is most important in this case because being written in character will take the dev-author out of the equation. At which point the fictional author will be patted on the back for cracking a great joke.

I'd put in right in place but this wiki style debate system doesn't make that easy.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===Nephele===
There have been multiple debates over the last week or so about what content belongs on UESP's articles, and in particular whether or not to include information from books that have never appeared in an Elder Scrolls game. Some of the other discussions have taken place at:
* [[Lore talk:Vivec (god)#Non-Canon Material - Hogithum Hall]]
* [[User talk:Temple-Zero]]
* The discussion previously at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]] has been moved here, as explained above
One term that's been used a few time is "canon", although in my opinion that seems overly dogmatic. I don't think we're trying to establish any universal standards -- the goal is only to establish guidelines for UESP. Other websites, in particular TIL and the Lore section of the Official Forums, will have their own standards and guidelines that are appropriate for their sites.

These are comments that I started writing a few days ago, so some of the ideas predate much of the other discussion. But I've also tried to update these comments based on what I've seen elsewhere, and in particular I've tried to incorporate other people's ideas and preferences into the proposed guidelines. I know it's long, so if you want, just skip to the [[#Proposed Guidelines|Proposed Guidelines]]. But the rest of includes a lot of rationale and responses to what's been said before.

====Background/Perspectives====

The basic problem here is, I believe, establishing what is "true" in the Elder Scrolls universe. The in-game content is not always sufficient to establish the facts: the content is not comprehensive, it's at times contradictory, and is also likely to contain mistakes (evidenced by changes in books between games, plus occasional obvious typos/mistakes, etc.). So do we limit UESP articles to incomplete (or possibly even incorrect) information? Or do we try to expand the articles to include additional information? And, if so, what additional information?

I think in most cases there is no single universally valid answer to the questions: whether it's that the developers wanted to give themselves "wiggle room" to incorporate future plot twists, or whether it's that they wanted a rich and complex mythos, the fact is that the Elder Scrolls literature contains contradictions. Ultimately, each fan is free to make his or her own decisions about which versions he or she likes most; each of the millions of fans will come up with an individualized storyline, whether or not a website says "this is the unique and official storyline."

There is a pretty wide variety of types of content that end up being used in the community as sources for lore. The first few that come to mind are:
# Content that has appeared in game, including content from books, notes, and dialogues.
# Pocket Guides to the Empire (PGE). They have not appeared in-game, but have been released as printed content purchased with (specific editions of) the game.
# Drafts of in-game content/PGE, some of which have been made available, for example on TIL.
# Other books written by the game developers (in particular Michael Kirkbride) that have been posted on TIL but have never appeared in-game.
# Articles written by librarians at TIL
# Discussions on forums between community members
Reliability is not guaranteed with any type of source -- even in-game content. But also it cannot all be considered equally valid or authoritative -- somewhere a line has to be drawn. UESP has tended to only include #1 and #2; the discussion is about whether some of the other types of content should also be used as sources for UESP articles.

Clearly these different types of sources are not all equally authoritative. But even what we mean by "authoritative" is subject to debate. When it comes to establishing the "true" facts about any topic, there are at least two different standards:
* What was the intended meaning when the information was originally written?
* What will be the interpretation in future Elder Scrolls games?
So we can ask, for example, "Who are the [[Lore:Nede|Nedes]]?" One way to try to reconcile the differing accounts is to turn to the people who wrote the information and find out what they meant at the time. However, we are also assuming that there will be future ES games, with new books some of which may provide new information about the Nedes, so we would like to not add information that ends up being proven wrong by future games. The basic paradox is that what will appear in future games is not necessarily consistent with the once-intended meaning.

Although the developers of any future Elder Scrolls games will presumably want to maintain continuity, they also want to (even have to) be given the creative freedom to come up with new, original ideas. Would any of us want to play TES5 if we could predict exactly what would happen in the game? New information will be added, some of which may intentionally diverge from what's previously been stated and some of which may accidentally diverge. Since Michael Kirkbride is no longer directly responsible for developing ES games, there is no guarantee that his perspective will be integrated into any new game. The lore added by Oblivion seems to confirm that the developers do not consider themselves 100% constrained by MK's vision of the lore. I think it's safe to assume that future games will feel more constrained by facts that have appeared in-game -- or at least they cannot undo what has previously appeared in a game. But I think anything else is subject to developer whim.

On the other hand, completely eliminating all out-of-game sources of information is very limiting. The person who originally wrote a given text is clearly qualified to provide useful information about the text. Was a particular word a typo? Was the text meant to be a joke, a metaphor, or a literal history? Was the text written independently from other texts on the topic or were the facts in the texts coordinated? Facts about the game's development cannot be changed by future game-writers (even if the facts are not taken into account when writing the new games). And some information that is currently only available out-of-game probably will be incorporated into the game in future. Writing articles ignoring those facts leads to inaccurate articles -- even while writing articles incorporating all out-of-game facts will also lead to inaccurate articles. We can't predict the future, so we can't know for sure what out-of-game information will become part of the games, but there are probably cases where we can be reasonably certain about what to expect.

This problem is not unique to Elder Scrolls games. Apophis2412 posted a very interesting link to [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon Star Wars' canon]. However, in the case of Star Wars, the person responsible for much of their lore (i.e., Lucas) owns the franchise, guaranteeing that his ideas will be honoured. Also, with the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database Holocron continuity database] there are some clear statements about will and will not allowed be in future Star Wars releases. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues are similar, and we do ultimately have to come up with some type of similar ranking -- whether it's explicitly stated, or whether each of has our own personal ranking.''

====Lore on UESP====

Decisions about what content gets added to UESP articles need to be based upon the characteristics of UESP: Who are UESP's readers? What content do the readers look for and expect to find on the site? What are the site's overall objectives? How will the wiki nature of the site affect article content? Therefore, what sources are used on UESP articles can not be decided based upon abstract principles. Also, since UESP and TIL are two different websites with different purposes, the content and guidelines on each site will reflect each site's purpose. The two sites should complement each other -- not contradict one another, but also not be identical to each other. So, what works best for TIL is not automatically appropriate for UESP.

UESP, for better or for worse, has tended to focus pretty much on what happens in the games. This has in part developed because we have been putting a lot more time into the game-specific versions of the site. Nevertheless, the majority of our readers are here to find out how to the play games and no matter how much we develop the Lore namespace, that is likely to remain true. Therefore, the Lore articles should be accessible to (and useful for) people who have only ever read one or two books (or perhaps even no books -- but are just trying to understand the story behind a quest line). They should also be accessible to people who have read every single book in-game, and are only now starting to reach out to the web to find out more about those books. These people are not the same audience as the typical TIL reader.

Taking into account readers' expectations is even more important on a wiki than a typical website. If readers think information is missing from an article, they'll end up trying to add it to the article -- no matter what the site's guidelines say, no matter what's on the talk page. While patrollers or other editors can then undo inappropriate edits, it is still best for everyone concerned to try to come up with guidelines and content that will meet readers' expectations from the beginning.

Another factor is the overall content hosted on UESP. We only host the books that have appeared in the game (or with the game, in the case of PGE) and I doubt that is going to change in the near future; the out-of-game books only appear on TIL. UESP should not ignore information just because it's not hosted on the site, but nevertheless what is present on the site shapes the site. One goal for the Lore section is to add full links to all of the books on the site: someone reading one of the books should be able to easily jump to more complete information about anything discussed in the book. Therefore, a top priority is to make sure that all of the topics covered by the in-game books are documented. It's also important that the summary articles be designed with that use in mind. Many (if not most) readers are likely to pull up a summary article after reading a related book, and therefore the summary article has to acknowledge all of the related books. We can't just decide that Book X is all incorrect and therefore refuse to include any facts from Book X in articles, because we will have readers who have only ever read Book X and therefore expect to see that information in articles. Instead, we have to include any "false" facts, but then explain (no matter how briefly) why the facts are false.

In other words, UESP's overall focus on game content inevitably means that UESP's Lore section has to place a higher priority on in-game books than out-of-game books. Places such as Hogithum Hall are not a priority for UESP -- the place is never mentioned anywhere in the game, therefore people whose only ES experience comes from the games will never do a search on UESP for Hogithum Hall. On the other hand, [[Lore:Ius, Animal God|Ius, Animal God]] is a priority for UESP. Whether or not Ius was a joke, Daggerfall readers are going to encounter this book; they are going to do searches for Ius. So we need to have an article on Ius, even if Ius is not truly considered to be part of the lore. We need to include Ius on pages such as [[Lore:Gods I]] and [[Lore:Gods by Pantheon]] because readers who have read the in-game book will expect to see Ius listed there (for example, someone who read the book a week ago and now wants to find it again, but only remembers it was something about an animal god -- that reader will expect to be able to find Ius if they scan through a list of the known gods). In that context, what is or is not in the game provides a very real set of guidelines for what readers will expect to find on UESP, and therefore for what the editors of UESP should try to make available.

As a semi-aside, I also wanted to squeeze in a response to one point made in other discussions. Yes, Kirkbride's work can be considered a unified work of literature. However, that does not automatically mean that UESP's purpose should be to document Kirkbride's literary vision. I am quite sure that the vast majority of UESP's readers have never heard of Kirkbride; I myself only began to realize his role in the games' development and lore within the last year. In other words, to most readers on the site, he is only relevant to the extent that what he has written appears in the game -- and therefore to those readers what he has written outside of the game is not relevant. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, the site's articles still need to be written so they make sense to such readers. Therefore, the logistical reality is that out-of-game content included because it fits into Kirkbride's overall vision needs to always be accompanied by some explanation of why the information is relevant. You cannot just assume that "Kirkbride said X" is a sufficient explanation for readers -- although "the game Daggerfall said X" is a sufficient explanation, given the site's focus on documenting games.

On the other hand, UESP's readers clearly also include people who are knowledgeable in Lore. The new editors whose interest in the Lore section precipitated these discussions are also readers (welcome everyone!), whose interests and expectations should be accomodated by the site. They should be able to use UESP as a useful reference tool. If we don't make our articles useful to all sections of the community, then the likely alternative is that people who are knowledgeable in Lore will find another website where their views can be summarized (since TIL is not a wiki and is not set up for community-written summary articles). That would lead to unnecessary fractures within the community, not to mention duplicated effort. In general, the biggest limitation to a wiki's content is manpower: finding editors who are willing to take the time to write new content. Therefore new content, backed by new editors who are willing to continue adding new content, should only be disallowed if the content clearly diminishes the site's quality and usefulness.

Also, readers fundamentally come to a game website to learn information about the game that they could not figure out in-game. If someone was solely interested in reading the in-game books, that person wouldn't really need a website. People turn to websites to find out what else is known and what else is available. Although our articles should prioritize and organize the available information on a topic, we shouldn't censor relevant information. Why not let our readers have access to everything that is known about the topic, and let each reader decide for himself/herself which sections to read and which theories to believe. Note, however, than providing access to all the information does not imply that the articles should be undifferentiated information dumps. Well-written and well-edited articles make value judgments about which information is most useful, in part by deciding what type of "access" is appropriate for that information: direct quotation of a text; paraphrasing a text; mentioning a few key differences about a text; adding a link to the text in the "See Also" section; adding a link to a discussion that mentions the text; etc.

====Proposed Guidelines====
The following are some strawman guidelines. These can hopefully be used as a starting point to come up with a set of guidelines to which everyone can agree.
* '''Multi-topic articles''' such as [[Lore:People_A]], [[Lore:Dictionary A]], and [[Lore:First Era]] should not contain any information from out-of-game sources, and also should not contain any controversial points.
** Basically, any article that contains snippets about multiple different topics should stick to basic, universally accepted facts about those topics.
** If there are any facts that need additional explaining, then the topic needs to have its own article (e.g., [[Lore:Vivec (god)]] instead of just a snippet on [[Lore:Gods_V]]).
** This is in part just a logistical issue. Having references appear on multi-topic pages is awkward. Discussions about a topic belong on that topic's discussion page, rather than on a multi-topic talk page. It's not an attempt to limit what's covered overall on the site -- just a question of where the content belongs.
* '''In-game sources''' (including PGE) should be the primary focus of articles, including summarizing those books and explaining the meaning of those books.
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has been '''written by a game developer''' can be used as a source for UESP articles.
** This includes additional books, drafts of in-game books, developer interviews, etc.
** Any information derived from out-of-game content must have a reference. The reference needs to include a link to the out-of-game content. I think it would also be useful to include some standard phrase in all out-of-game references (e.g., "Out-of-game content") that links to an explanation of the relevance (including limitations, pitfalls, reservations, etc.) of out-of-game content. A disclaimer, in other words.
** Out-of-game content should only be used when it helps to explain in-game content. This is a somewhat subjective limitation, but I don't think that UESP needs to start documenting every fact mentioned in out-of-game content.
*** Or, alternatively, out-of-game content should be included (i.e., a summary of the content, or details quoted from the content) only when it is necessary to prevent UESP articles from ''contradicting'' the accepted lore. Emphasis on contradicting: it must not just be that UESP's information would otherwise be incomplete.
** In cases where UESP's information is incomplete (instead of contradictory), a link to the out-of-game content can be included in the notes section of an article, instead of summarizing or quoting the content in the article. This makes the content available to only those readers who are interested. The note would be fairly minimal, e.g., "Other sources that describe Vivec include: Book X, Book Y".
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has '''''not'' been written by a game developer''' in general does not belong in UESP articles.
** Talk page discussions can link to any content. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information is relevant to the article, then it can be added to the article -- but the talk page discussion needs to happen first.
* '''Original research''' should be avoided in UESP articles.
** Original research is a core principle of wikipedia, reflecting that the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is to summarize what's already known, rather than to come up with new information.
** The implication is that even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material, not just an editor's forum post, for example).
** Exceptions to this rule may be possible, but those exceptions need to be discussed on the talk page. If everyone on the talk page can agree that the inferred conclusion is indeed logical and valid, then it can be added. In some cases, everyone may find a watered-down version of the statement acceptable. But a consensus has to be reached before original research belongs in an article.

Given the level of disagreement so far, I think it may be best to start by just seeing whether there are any ''strong'' objections to any of these points. If anyone has a disagreement, your comments will be more useful if you can state what specifically is problematic about the guideline ''and'' come up with a modified version of the guideline that you would find acceptable. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==== Hear, hear ====

What objections I have to the main points are in large part assuaged by the details, and possibilities for exception and discussion. This is the sort of thing I was looking for. (-An approving Temple-Zero, clothed in an anonymous IP address)[[User:24.97.239.147|24.97.239.147]] 18:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Proposal (Sload)===

*'''Multi-topic articles''' should be handled differently. Alphabetical directories are, for the most part, useless due to their incredibly low singal-to-noise-ratio.
:*Multi-topic articles like "List of Emperors of the Third Empire" would be useful, as there is not enough to say about these people otherwise. I'm trying to think of a similar example in which we know enough about a group of people to make a list.
:*Otherwise, they should link to something relevant to that person. Going off People A, Ada'Soom Dir-Kamal is a redirect to Kamal, Agnorith to List of Emperors of the Third Empire#Kintyra II, Akorithi and Aubk-i to Warp of the West.
:*Authors should link to their work. Authors of multiple books, such as Waughin Jarth, should be a disambuguation page saying "Waughin Jarth is the author of..."
:*If a character could be filed under multiple topics, but is not significant enough to deserve their own page, discussion should be held to decide how that situation is handled.
*'''In-game and out-of-game sources''' are the same thing and should not be treated differently. Out-of-game lore is significant to our understanding of lore and ''absolutely cannot under any circumstances be ignored.''
:*This includes anything by any of the seven people mentioned in my first essay, especially Ted Peterson and Michael Kirkbride.
:*Any information must have a reference to its source, whether a UESP book, a TIL obscure text, a forum post by one of the seven above. If an obscure text is still included in TESF's archive, its original post, rather than its TIL copy, is preferable.
:*No reference to whether a source is out-of-game is necessary. This suggests doubt in the source. Further, all out-of-game sources will be obvious by their location; that is, not at UESP.
:*Content, whether in-game or out-of-game, is not always relevant. For example, though MK has told a wonderful story about guars in southern Morrowind being striped, guars are not significant enough ''in lore'' that they deserve their own page to hold that information, and it isn't significant to an article about the province of Morrowind. Similarly, in-game books which are just stories about otherwise non-characters, like ''Banker's Bet'' or one of the countless others, do not contain significant information, and the UESP need not catalog their characters.
:*Note on roleplays: In a roleplay in which a developer participated in, only their contributions are canon. This especially applies to the Trial of Vivec. Ted Peterson participated in Loranna's RP, but as I understand its only significant details were made canon by the third pocket guide.
*'''Fan works''' should not be included in the UESP by any stretch of the imagination, such as "monkeytruth" like Albides' "Orc Creation Myth." Though these have a place in the community, they are not canon lore.
*'''Original research''' is unacceptable by all stretches of the imagination.
:*Exceptions are certainly possible for certain widely accepted but not confirmed interpretations of especially difficult works. Adventurous Putty's interpretation of the Tsaesci Creation Myth comes to mind. They should be clearly refered to as non-canon interpretations, reflecting their status.

I have provided an example article, a revision of Tsaesci, [[User:Sload/Tsaesci|here]]. It covers everything a wouldbe loremaster should know about them, their basic history, the confoundingness of their creation myth, Putty's interpretation, and the conflict with the Pale Pass quest, which Kirkbride was adamant about.

I intend to argue in favor of this counter proposal soon. UESP has so much to gain and so little to lose. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 00:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with almost all of Nephele's suggestions, but I'm still opposed to the inclusion of "Out-of-game content that has been written by a game developer". If such material material was written while the developer was at Bethesda then it is material that has been excluded deliberately; if it was written after they had left the company then it has the same status as fanfiction. Those in favour of including this material claim it's essential in making other information clear and unambiguous. I say that if in-game Lore is confusing it's because that's how Bethesda want it for their own purposes.
::Having said all that, Nephele's suggestion for differentiating between in- and out-of-game material is a good start towards a compromise. I would accept the inclusion of unofficial sources if they were referred to in a separate section of a page. So, the article on Vivec (god) might have a section at the bottom of "Other Theories" (or something similar) and then go on to mention the forum roleplay about Hogithum Hall, making clear that the material is not from the games.
::If that doesn't sound like much of a compromise, I'd remind the reader that my preferred solution is to ignore unofficial material entirely. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The way to keep saying that they were excluded is oversimplified and inaccurate, and I think you know it. Lore is meant to be complex and confusing, but understandable. The obscure texts are the only thing that make it so, in many cases. They are necessary in large part because animators aren't fantasy artists, and the realities of game design in a chaotic corporate setting can wreak havoc on a simple piece of concept art, much less the more complex details of Nirn.
:::But I will say that when you hold an absolute position, you can't expect much of a compromise.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Not at all. I've put forward the two options that I see. If you have a third explanation I'd be happy to read it. And I have suggested a compromise. I'd also be happy to hear your response to it. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some overdue feedback on some specifics from Sload's comments:
:::::*I was not trying to single out out-of-game sources and say that we only want references for out-of-game sources. We also want to add comprehensive references for in-game sources.
::::::However, in-game sources are not identical to out-of-game sources. If nothing else, there is the logistical reality that in-game sources are hosted on UESP and out-of-game sources are not. It's perhaps minor, but yet very relevant for how UESP treats the articles. Most importantly, it means that UESP readers and UESP editors can usually find in-game content easily, for example using UESP's search function. Therefore, if an in-game source is missing a reference, it is reasonable to expect that patrollers or other editors can identify the source.
::::::On the other hand, finding out-of-game sources is not so easy. Many of UESP's editors and readers are not familiar with the sites that host out-of-game sources. Google searches are not reliable: most searches will come up with countless non-ES hits; critical ES sites are excluded from Google (Bethesda explicitly requests that its site not be indexed by search engines, so any content hosted by Bethesda or found anywhere in the official forums cannot be found using Google). Finally, an important characteristic of many out-of-game sources is that there are multiple versions: whether the out-of-game source is an early draft of something that appeared in game, or whether it's something that was first posted on the forums, and has now been copied to TIL. So simply saying "Source: Where were you when the dragon broke" is not sufficient -- a reference needs to be an explicit link to the exact text.
::::::All of this means, to me, that extra emphasis is needed on making sure that content from out-of-game sources is accompanied by a proper reference. In most cases, that reference has to be provided by the original contributor. That's the only person who knows for sure which book and even which version of the book he/she was reading; that person should already have at hand a link to the book that was used while compiling the UESP article.
:::::* Sload's suggestion that we eliminate the alphabetical lists such as [[Lore:People_A]], etc. has merit. However, it is really a separate issue from that being discussed here -- and I think we have enough on our plates with the issue at hand. Whatever we do with the alphabetical lists, there will still be summary lists on the site -- [[Lore:Third Era]], for example. And there will still be summary sections of articles that appear elsewhere -- the introductory blurb from [[Lore:Khajiit]] that appears on [[Oblivion:Khajiit]] and [[Morrowind:Khajiit]], for example. So as part of this discussion, we still need to decide what content can appear in such summary discussions -- as proven by the discussion that [[#Why my proposal is different|subsequently erupted]]. So I think it should be tabled for now.
:::::--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 12:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Counter Proposal===
Having read and considered the various arguments, I feel I am willing to shift my position from my earlier posts. Apologies if this is just repeating or reiterating things that have been said above.

====An Important Fact====
'''Without the Elder Scrolls games, the entire Lore of Tamriel would not exist outside the minds of a small group of people in Maryland.'''

Is there anybody who does not agree with this (geography notwithstanding)?

Given that Fact, I think it is perfectly logical to focus on the in-game material in preference to, but not to the exclusion of, other material. Personally, I would place lore material in one of four categories:

1. In-Game References. These have to be the starting point. The Lore is based on the Game, so the Game must take priority when discussing the Lore.

2. Other BethSoft Material. By this I mean out-of-game material produced by an individual (or individuals) ''in their capacity as a BethSoft employee''. This can support, expand upon, clarify, or contradict in-game references. One obvious example here is the PGE, but I would also include here interview responses and works such as the books written by MK ''in his capacity as a BethSoft employee''.

3. Other Developer Material. By this I mean other material that is produced by individuals who have been involved in the development of the Elder Scrolls world, but which was not produced in any official capacity. Here, I would include those works by both Kirkbride and Goodall, for example, that were produced after they ceased to be involved in Elder Scrolls development. I would also include in this section RPs such as Hogithum Hall, as the involvement of developers in a RP on the official forums does tend to give it a kind of 'semi-official' status.

4. Non-developer material. Stuff created by fans, including fanfiction and RP, as well as interpretations of various aspects of Lore. These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles.

My preference and my suggestion is for Lore pages to be organised along the lines of the following template:

First, a summary section describing the subject as it is defined within the games. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this summary should only include category 1 material (in-game references). Where the subject is listed on multi-topic articles, this summary could be transcluded, with a 'see article for more details' line (as is done with a number of articles currently).

Second, one or more sections expanding upon the details contained in the summary. This should focus on category 1 material, but can also include category 2 material where such material ''expands upon or clarifies'' the category 1 material.

Third, a section summarising other category 2 material, such as that material that directly contradicts category 1 material, with links to the original source. I don't see any need to go into too much detail - those who are interested can click on the supplied links.

Fourth, a 'Notes' or 'See Also' section with links to any category 2 material that is relevant but which is not required to provide a complete description of the subject. So, category 2 material that merely supports and reinforces the category 1 material should go here. ''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here.

Any disputed material should be discussed on the relevant talk page, to come to some sort of consensus about (a) whether it should be included, and (b) where and how it should be added to the article. And the key word here is '''consensus'''.

Finally, not everybody here is a Loremaster, so if the 'canonicity' of material added by a Loremaster is disputed, the onus should be on the Loremaster to provide the necessary links and references to prove the validity of the material. It's the same for Lore articles as it is for other pages on the site - if somebody else disputes your edit, it is up to you to provide evidence that your edit was correct and valid.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 10:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT) (forgot to login)

: That's the kind of solution I was trying to describe above, but Gaebrial has done it more clearly and with more detail - thanks. I can support this compromise as I think it's the best of both worlds. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind. For example the absence of the legions, the counselors, the ban on levitation and other such things should be taken with a fair amount of skepticism because they're products of a games development, not so much of world. Though if in-game material takes preference it will be impossible to argue against this because #1 makes the game the most important source.

:: There should be no distinction between the in-game sources, out-of-game sources, interviews and obscure texts. Their value should be argued on the merits of the actual writing in Tamriel and not it's origins outside of Tamriel. If not, it's possible to say that books such as 'The Amulet of Kings' which don't even make sense historically are more reliable then say the Nu-Mantia intercept which resolves most consistency issue's around the Amulet of Kings.

:: Any sort of tiered system will have these problems whenever a lower-graded texts conflicts with higher-graded material while being more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting then the higher=graded material.

:: Putting the Onus on the lore master using the obscure text somewhat negates the whole point of this discussion because rather then deciding now how to handle the obscure text it gets redirected to a hundred different places.

:: Although it is good practice to source all information, the onus shouldn't just fall on the lore master but anybody who adds or corrects or removes information. [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 06:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:::Taking the above a point at a time...
:::-''The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind.''
:::But without the games there would not be an 'image of Tamriel'. Without the games, we would not be having this discussion.
:::-''(rest of paragraph 1)'' (I won't repeat it in its entirety)
:::The removal of spells (for example) has been largely explained away by the passing of laws. Yes, it's a cop-out to explain limitations brought about by the game engine or they way they have coded the world, and this could probably be mentioned as such on those pages comparing the games (e.g. levitation being removed from Oblivion because of the way the cities were created). However, on the ''Lore'' pages, the laws banning the use of certain spells (Passwall and Levitate are the two that spring to mind) are what should be mentioned - we shouldn't be stating that the Levitate spell was removed from Oblivion on the ''Lore'' page, but that the Levitate spell was banned by the relevant Act. I'm not sure how else you would handle these things, but if you've got any specific ideas, I'd be happy to hear them.
:::-''Paragraph 2''
:::Under what criteria is the Nu-Mantia intercept classed as official? Simply because it was written by MK? Did he write it as an Elder Scrolls developer, or as a private individual? What was its purpose? If we can prove that it was written to be an official Elder Scrolls document, then we can use it more or less as a 'primary' source (category 2 above). If we can't prove this, it has to remain as 'semi-official' (category 3), and should be noted accordingly in any article.
:::-Paragraph 3 - ''more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting''
:::Not to mention less official.
:::Incidentally, I don't see a tiered system as causing problems, as long as it is made clear that one exists, why it exists, and why a particular text is treated as more 'reliable' than another.
:::-''Paragraph 4''
:::I'm not sure I understand your point here.
:::-''Paragraph 5''
:::I agree. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was isolating Loremasters in particular. Anybody who makes an edit that is subsequently challenged must provide evidence that their edit was correct.

:::As I said before, the whole point about disputed material is '''consensus'''. If the ''consensus'' is that a particular text is not official and should not be mentioned in an article, then it doesn't get mentioned. If certain people want to include that text, they need to give reasons why it is official enough to be included, and if the ''consensus'' changes based on their reasons, then the text can be included.

:::I would also like to introduce another 'c' word - '''compromise'''. I think that 'traditionalists' in the community who would rather not use ''any'' out-of-game resources have, in general, shifted their position to one of compromise. I don't think I've seen any movement in the positions of the 'loremasters' - the message I'm getting is "we'll keep arguing our point until you come around to our way of thinking".
:::--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No compromise in the "Loremaster Camp?" What? What you meant was "we'll keep arguing our point until you actually read our posts." I've been making mewling noises over compromise for pages now. Do you think I co-authored Sload's proposal? Obviously I prefer it, but I liked Nephele's as well. I may be mistaken, but that applies to older users who want to see things change as well.
::::(And Nu-Mantia wasn't written by MK alone, and it really needs to be taken as truth because without it, Oblivion's plot doesn't make a lick of sense and is crazier than Sheogorath's cheese fetish and worse than the Eragon movie)[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I have read your posts. All of them. And the comments you have made on your edits. I have also read the comments on your user page. Your attitude comes across as "I'm a Loremaster, so you should let me add what I want to add to the Lore section in the way that I want, without questioning it". I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how it appears.

::::: As Sload said on your user page: ''I believe that paw-prints can change this if you will only let him. I implore all parties involved not to let this chance to create a wonderful encyclopedia of lore slip through their fingers.'' I think that most members of this community would welcome any move to improve the site's content, but you have to abide by the guidelines that are in place, that underpin and structure the site. That is, this site focuses on and emphasises the in-game content above any other. If you wish to argue that the in-game content is clarified and explained by certain out-of-game content, then fine, but that is how it should be described on the UESP - it should not be given equal billing to in-game content because '''the focus of this site is on in-game content'''.

::::: <big>'''''If you're happy with the proposals, why are we still arguing about things?'''''</big>

::::: By the way, I've read Nu-Mantia, and B's analysis/interpretation of it. I agree that it explains inconsistencies surrounding Chim el-Adabal*, and I've previously heard the theory that everything the 'hero' has done so far in the ES games has weakened the barriers between Mundus and Oblivion. However, the fact that it nicely explains everything and was written (or largely written) by MK doesn't make it an official source, and therefore it should not be given equal prominence with official sources. Is this so hard to understand and accept?

::::: <nowiki>*</nowiki> Apropos of nothing (as people like to say around here), Chim el-Adabal sounds interestingly Arabic. From what I can remember, '''''a'''l-Adabal'' means something like 'manners' or 'rules' - as in ''al-Adabal-Mufrad'' and ''al-Adabal-Shar'iyah''. Apologies to scholars if I've misremembered.

::::: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Why are we still arguing? You tell me (after you fix your font size, of course). I have largely stopped, except for one specific response 2000 words ago. But see, it doesn't matter how many of my comments you read when you persist in acting like they don't exist. ie, the 'why no compromise?' complaints, or this insufferable rehashing of 'not official,' which has been going on for the last week, and if you have read my posts, should seem counterproductive right now, so I won't respond further.
:::::I am still awaiting secondary comments from Sload and Nephele, thought I suppose in the meantime I will ask why. if you list categories 3 and 4, you never mention them in the body text, because it seems incomplete. Although it is also possible that 72 kilobytes of text (as my browser warns me) is swimming before my eyes.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The font size was deliberate. I'm sorry that you think that saying something is 'not official' is insufferable. I don't think stating the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Accurate and Verifiable|site policy]] is counterproductive to a discussion about the contents of the site. However, I do agree that maybe we should step back and await comments from others.

I also agree that this discussion is getting a bit long and difficult to follow. To answer your question, I said "''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here." in the fourth section of my proposed template, and I said "These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles." of category 4 material.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 11:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'll be willing to try any compromise. Just don't make the hurdles so high that any inclusion of out-of-game material is a hassle. Having edited a lot of lore articles in recent days, I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources. Any time I read a gamebook, things jump out at me and scream to be included to support points and enrich pages. If everyone just did some of that when reading source books, I believe that our Lore pages will be in better shape shortly. If nothing else, the "filling the holes" outside material can give some clues on how things hang together, whether you agree with a particular source or not. The more we work on lore namespace, the better it gets. i know that's a truism, but it does apply. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

'''Gaebrial,''' I'll refrain from addressing each comment individually because I don't think there will be any end to this discussion if you keep repeating that the games are the most important source of information, while I say that they are also a flawed source of information and as such they shouldn't trump any other flawed source of information. So instead I'll comment on your largest objection against the obscure texts and the compromises you suggested.

Discussing the validity of a text every time it gets used is a waste of time. All Obscure texts have the same properties, they don't appear in the game and they are written in-character by a developer so they can all be decided about right now - which I garnered was the impression of this discussion.

You don't consider these text to be less reliable for only the reason that they don't appear in the game. However the games already use materials that are unreliable, contradictive and incomplete. So being in the game means nothing for their reliability. Yet texts that are written by the same developer, that clarify and expand existing concepts, are considered less reliable then the already contradictive, incomplete materials that happen to be in the game, how can that position ever hold? As such a tiered system of reliability based on a texts presence in or with the game is completely out of place.

Before Oblivion there was period where the devs posted freely on the forums and talked about Tamriel. They did this with understanding that their out of character posts would be taken as their uninformed opinion on the matter while in character posts could be considered as much part of lore as anything else. Their in character material was written with this in mind so it should not be considered any less reliable.

As such on ESF:Lore there is a consensus that they are accepted as equal to other materials. While I realize that the ESF:Lore isn't the UESPWiki but it is the source for most of the lore expertise so it should count for some.

While I would also love to reach a compromise,I do not see a middle any ground. Either the texts are used on an equal basis, or they are not. You might feel that offering to push back the debate to the actual articles is a compromise, it not only delays this debate and decision, it multiplies it in every article that it touches on! Just as a tiered system can not be seen as a compromise because the criteria used do not say anything about reliability.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 05:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:'''Proposal''' I just saw that rpeh posted on til summarizing this discussion as "it must just be flagged as it is" while not an accurate summary, it does seem like the thing everybody can accept.

:I don't think explicitly mentioning this is aethestically pleasing, but perhaps something can be done with the reference symbols. I don't know how the wiki works but stuff like [] or {} to mark the differences in source. Alternativly it can be completely ignored as the sources are listed at the bottom of the article anyway.

:06:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::Having had some discussions in a more efficient manner in other places I can see the use of this tiered system when it's used to facilitate the reader who may or may not be familiar with all the material rather then as a system to describe a sources accuracy.

::I reckon this proposal will work with the following change: The fourth section should be a full fledged explanation rather then a notes section because most of the texts in the 3th category are often too complex or too large to merely link too. The reader wouldn't see the forest for the trees.

::[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 07:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::: It looks like we can agree that ''some'' variant of Gaebrial's system can be used. It's clear that nobody's going to be 100% happy but if we can come up with a good system then maybe we can at least please most of the people most of the time.
::: To step back for a minute: any system is going to have to work for all the pages in all the ways they work. That means as standalone articles, as transclusions into alphabetical lists and as transclusions into game pages. As I see it, that means there will have to be a section, preferably at the top of the article, that tells the brief, in-game theory. Without wanting to be dogmatic, this is going to ''have'' to be the case because otherwise we're going to cause inordinate confusion to the site's readers, most of whom read the material through the game pages and who really aren't interested in the intricacies of the lore.
::: After that, the difference between the two viewpoints comes down to the prominence that can be given to non-game material. Do we have two different detailed sections - one without OOG lore and one with? Do we use Gaebrial's sections idea to lead to tiers of information?
::: If we can agree on an introductory section with '''no''' out-of-game material then I suppose I can agree to the inclusion of such material in a second section, but with a couple of caveats. First, all OOG material must be ''fully'' cited. That doesn't just mean a link to TIL - it means also describing the place and time that the source was first presented, meaning that people can judge for themselves whether or not they want to trust it. Secondly, only material that doesn't break the POV of the Lore space can be used. That means "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "Vehk's Teachings" would be acceptable but ''not'' interviews with developers.
::: On a personal note, I'd like to thank Proweler for joining the debate and being apparently agreeable to compromise. It looks like we can get things moving again now. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

=== A proposal ===

I could go through and give comments to the individual points, but bear with me for a second. After having followed the discussion above, my take is that the conflict boils down to this:

Both sides don't want to have their viewpoints of ''Lore'' diminished.

Let me try to explain this with an example of one of the greatest mysteries of the TES series, the "Disappearance of the Dwarves". We were given many clues, books, fragments, even quests, stumbled over mysterious ruins where machines and Animunculi still functioned. The debate over what happened to the Dwemer occupied players for many years.

As it stands now, the ES forum presents it as this: We know what happened to the Dwarves. (We're done with that, go away. ;))

The wiki mentions many clues, but not the answer.

If you're a player, would you just have the answer presented to you, a "cheat" so to speak? Would you not equally feel cheated if only clues were presented, if an answer exists? I propose that all in-game clues are presented, the scholars involved, Fyr, Yagrum Bagarn, Demnevanni etc. followed by

"Kagrenac was devoted to his people, and the Dwarves, despite what you may have read, were a pious lot-he would not have '''sacrificed so many of their golden souls to create Anumidum's metal body''' if it were all in the name of grand theater. Kagrenac had even built the tools needed to construct a Mantella, the
'''Crux of Transcendence'''." - Skeleton Man's Interview (my emphasis)

One without the other is either boring, or incomplete or false. We need both, the puzzle pieces and the accepted answer. I propose a peer-reviewed article incorporating the base principles suggested in Nephele's write-up, and then the other "sides" can see if they're satisfied. I feel the theoretical discussion has gone far enough, we need to see what such a new article looks like. After all, that's what the wiki offers to its users, articles. I shall attempt to write [[Lore:Disappearance of the Dwarves|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] as an outline of such an article, any help and critique is very welcome. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not going to post a full response right now because I'm hoping others will respond first, but I will say that if you're writing an article based on disputed material you should do it in a sandbox instead of the Lore space. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
With all the dirt flying and Benould's renovations, the Lore section IS a sandbox right now. /gigglesnort The sourcing and formatting refute present policies often enough, never mind what we decide here. No one seemed to mind when Martin's mother was listed as Gemile, and that family tree is bloody old. A new standard is and good, but bend all our stubs into knots over the scruples of it.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

=== Have your cake ===

An opportunity has been lost here.

I am not interested in dealing with the sort of people I will find here. I should have taken some good advice, this just isn't worth it.

Nephele, I greatly respect what I have seen from you and I would have liked to have known you. Temple-Zero and Benould, there is no point pursuing this further. Rpeh, I am sure you will be satisfied. UESP is defended against us fools who actually know what we're talking about.

Be seeing you. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 01:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
: This is exactly what Gaebrial meant when he talked about compromise. You are sticking rigidly to your view that there is no difference between in- and out-of-game texts and refuse to countenance any kind of distinction being made. If you won't move from that belief, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Discussion is about compromise and those of us who were opposed to ''any'' inclusion of unofficial texts have already made a big move in your direction.
: To portray me as "satisfied" that UESP has lost somebody who could have been a useful editor is utterly untrue, but you don't seem to have understood any of the comments above on the suitability of material, the nature of our readership or our willingness to compromise. I'm not sure that an editor so unwilling so listen to the community would find themselves at home here in any case. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::To clarify something; Sload made this edit only a few minutes after he had been discussing with Rpeh on IRC, which was basically a reiteration of what has been stated here. This has led me to believe that no compromise is being sought by Sload. I apologize to Nephele, Benould and Gaebrial in advance, I know you worked hard on compiling a good proposal, but I have to vote for not having out-of-game sources at all (or only be an exception). Had we agreed on a compromise I still think it wouldn't have made any difference on the discussion on individual pages. Both parties would still have end up having lengthy discussions on every controversial edit. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 04:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::What's Daveh's opinion? Just out of curiosity.
::: It would seem Sload is not alone in thinking that a compromise is not reachable. I looked at the discussion at Til and saw that other lore-guru's/masters/khans like Albides and Sload think that TES lore is not complete without the Obscure Texts. Their main argument seems to be that many holes in the in-game lore, holes that are filled up by the Obscure texts. Secondly many of the "higher mysteries" of TES (like the Dreamsleave, the Eantiamorph and Chim) are only briefly mentioned in the ingame books. We need the Obscure texts to explain them. Some, like Sload and Albides, have accused the people who came up with a compromise as either being biased or flat-out wrong. Others have thanked Nep~hele (and others) for coming up with a proposal for compromise, but have said that a compromise is still not an option.
::: The main question, that I haven't seen anyone here asking himself, is if these people are right. They do know more about lore then we do so who knows? Are the loremasters living in an ivory tower and do they fight about dogma like a bunch of die-hard Christian theologians or is what they say right? Discussions about these sort of topics have popped up at the ES forums from time to time and have generally not lasted long. The end result was always that the loremaster'stance was taken as being canon. (examples : http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=738606&hl=cult and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=855895&st=60&p=12524154&#entry12524154)

::: ''Encylopedias, such as UESP are built on objective truths. If solid proof isn't found, then subjective opinions such as yours can't go into them.''

:::The following qoute was postec on TIl by Michaelsuarez, a member of UESP. The TES lore, with it's many different and conflicting sources isn't much different from your standard historical discussion. Deciding which sources take precedence over others, combining sources to form theories, use new sources to overthrow older theories. In the scholarly field of history, these sort of things happen all the time. In history, unlike the natural sciences, all knowledge is subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.
::: Many people think that nationalism is one of the reasons the First World War started. Many people do not realize however is that this is not the absolute truth. It's just a subjective truth. A group of scholars interpeted the sources and were of the opinion that there was a connection between the two. There is evidence to support this theory, but unlike the natural sciences historical evidence can be interpeted in a number of different ways. An historian, using the same sources, can come to a radically different interpetation.
:::This is also the case with TES lore. The Dissapearance of the Dwarves, the Night Mother, Pelinal Whitestrake, the nature of the Daedra Lords, these things can't be taken directly from the source material, they must be interpeted and combined with different sources. The result is not an objective truth, but a subjective one. UESP is a source of subjective knowledge without maybe even knowing it. Take for example lore:Dark Brotherhood. The second theory about the formation of the DB is clearly wrong. It states that the DB was formed after the murder of the lats potentate (2e 421). There is however solid proof that the DB was already formed in 2e 358-360. I could add this to the article, but under the current guidelines that is not allowed, because it is my personal opinion, not solid fact.

::: I'm still in for a compromise, but I'm not sure if both sides seem to be ready for this.

:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 07:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

===A Rat’s Viewpoint===

Alright, I have been involved with these discussions to some extent, but I haven’t actually posted my opinion here. I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before I decided to charge into no-man’s land. I’ve actually been preparing these comments since before Sload posted his position. Once we attracted Temple-Zero I saw this conversation happening, though I am a bit surprised it came up early. I’m going to attempt to flush out the issues and then propose a compromise.

====The Facts====
# The Lore Community considers MK’s out of game writings to be canon. This is important because they are the experts on Lore. Their opinions matter.
#The UESP doesn’t have a license to MK’s out of game works, and since they are not truly part of a larger work, we’d need them. I have talked to a few people (not MK or Bethesda), and I can definitely see that there may be trouble getting the license. This is not a showstopper. We can link to TIL as necessary. This has its downsides, since we can’t control the material that’s on TIL, but it could fulfill the need for sources.
#If we get a lot of out-of-game sources, we need people that know the material. Right now, I only see one long term person (Benould). Temple-Zero has been around a bit, and I think he can be trusted to stay, but I’d rather see at least one more person.
#The Lore Section as it currently stands needs major help. It is nothing compared to either the Morrowind or the Oblivion section in terms of detail.
#We are not owned by Bethesda, though we do have an important relationship with them. It is in our best interest to not piss them off. This is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I think it needed to be said.

====My Positions====
#In general, in-game content needs to be preferred. Basically, if Akatosh appears and explained the Dragon Break differently in ESV, we’d accept that version even over MK’s objections. This does have its limits. We can’t count up the number of NPCs in the Imperial City and call that its lore population.
#MK and other Developer’s work can be accepted as expert testimony. In a void of information, their work can bridge gaps.
#We can’t split articles based on OOG info or not. That’s going to cause too many organizational difficulties.

====Proposal====
#We need to cite information, where it is in game or not. That means we need to investigate getting a citation add-on if we haven’t already. This is critical in expanding the Lore section due to conflicting view points that take place both in and out of the games. This obviously means both IG and OOG source will be included.
#Fan information does not belong on the wiki.

====Why my proposal is different====
I believe both Nephele’s and Gaebrial’s proposals lend themselves to problems with keeping IG and OOG sources separate. That’s going to take a lot of work on a section as big as Lore. It is different from Sload in that preference is given to the in game sources. Overall, I think it is a very workable solution that I hope can please everyone. That being said, if anyone wants to add anything to this, talk here, I'm willing to change some portions. -[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is a workable solution, if we can get consensus behind it. Whether to host or link is a separate discussion, let alone negotiations with the involved parities. I think (short) quotes and links will suffice. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm sorry but I can't support this. It looked like we were heading for a compromise but this seems to be a step back. As I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348967&oldid=348958 said] earlier we ''must'' have a section that contains ''no'' unofficial material so that the pages can be used in gamespaces. Anything else is not appropriate for the types of user we typically see on the site. I think the fact that one group of people has been ready to move so far in this debate has caused you to forget how strongly we feel. My preference is still for '''no''' OOG material at all but this proposal puts in-game and unofficial on almost the same level. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::For what it's worth (and I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion), ex-developper Douglas Goodall made the following statement in his [[General:Douglas Goodall Interview|interview]]: ''"Books that are actually published in one of the Elder Scrolls games have precedence over ramblings on the forums."''. I think he has a point there. Which is not to say we should be ignoring all non-game sources, but I do think it makes sense to keep material that is not game-sourced outside of the game namespaces. In other words, keep it in the Lore namespace only. That means that any material which gets transcluded onto gamespace pages should only include information seen in the games. However, the gamespace pages should have links back to the Lore namespace, where the other material can be seen. The reasons for this are the same as the reasons why we don't discuss the details of a Morrowind quest on an Oblivion page, even if it is somehow related. (E.g.: [[Oblivion:A Rat Problem]] and [[Morrowind:Exterminator (Fighters)]]. The pages link to eachother, but say very little - you want the whole story, go to the linked page.) The same should go for the Lore namespace and any of the game namespaces. Thus [[Morrowind:Vivec (god)]] should really be about Vivec ''as he relates to the game of Morrowind''. Any information about Vivec that does not relate to the game of Morrowind or which cannot be seen in any of the in-game sources should stay on [[Lore:Vivec (god)]]. This means that the first section of the Lore page, which is transcluded on the Morrowind page, needs to include only material seen in the game. Anything else should be in the non-included part of the article (and of course, properly sourced, but I think we've gone over that enough). --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 01:13, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wait, the sticking point is what part gets transcluded onto to OB game pages, Rpeh? Some fancy noinclude can handle that, right? (Editors note: Most Lore articles, at least in part, also appear on game pages; the multi-purpose part that Nephele mentioned earlier) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Noinclude tags aren't going to work when the text that needs to be excluded is inextricably merged into every paragraph in the article though. More than two or three pairs of noinclude tags will make the article impossible to edit. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:25, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: What part and how much of an article does the transclusion entail, anyways? If the topic is so obscure that oog lore is needed for a passable summary, what is it doing in the namespace? That 'probable reader' thing works both ways.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 01:32, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

(Outdent)But your main concern is that OOG is found in OB pages, right? I agree that the confusion would be big if OOG is sitting on an OB page. In case of Amulet of Kings, the OB article probably would have to be severed from Lore, but OB content is very mature at this point. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, just a few pages that won't be transcluded. I don't see this to be a show-stopper, either have separate pages, IFEQ or noincludes. OB shouldn't stop Lore from being acurate, OB should just be accurate to what's in the game, with links to the Lore article for those that are interested. OB articles wouldn't really deal with references anyways, the main sourcing there as in MW would be links. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 02:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree, more or less, with everybody. I can support Ratwar's proposal, with the modification mentioned by Rpeh & Lurlock - that where a Lore page is transcluded onto non-Lore pages, the bit that is transcluded must contain only information from 100% official, in-game, sources. The rest of the Lore article can contain information from out-of-game sources if required, as long as these sources (in fact, all sources) are properly referenced and cited.
: I also agree with TZ's point that if the topic of a Lore article is so obscure that it cannot be summarised without using out-of-game resources, it shouldn't be transcluded onto non-Lore pages. If there is a need for a game-namespace page on the same subject (e.g. Amulet of Kings), then as Benould says, the two articles should be kept separate, possibly with links in the game-namespace article to the Lore article 'for further information' for those who are interested in such.
: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 02:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think the two-page idea is quite right. Nearly, but not quite. In the case of the Amulet of Kings, the Oblivion article doesn't need to mention the unofficial material at all, but definitely benefits from some of the history surrounding the item. On the other hand the Lore page has got to mention the Oblivion version of the story to be a complete story of the... well... lore surrounding it. Whichever version of the story you want to believe, lore means "the body of knowledge, esp. of a traditional, anecdotal, or popular nature, on a particular subject" so to exclude one version of events would be a mistake.
:: It's worth saying that there are only a few pages where this will be an issue, but on those pages, I think we have to take the two sections approach. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 04:16, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't support any proposal to change lore pages so that they fit in the other namespaces, or as the case is here, not improve the lore pages so that they fit into the gamespaces. I am fine with a two page idea, but I think the separating the page into sections is a recipe for an organizational nightmare. New editors aren't going to know the rules since it isn't obvious. With two pages, the game information only part (which I currently think should be a subpage of the main Lore article) could have messages explaining its existence. Doing this on regular pages would simply cause more confusion.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 19:41, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::::How many pages are we talking about here? [[Oblivion:Mannimarco]] is severed from Lore, Akatosh redirects to [[Oblivion:Nine Divines]], [[Oblivion:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]] transcludes. Is there any other conflicting stuff that does get transcluded into the Oblivion gamespace, since that's where the big pot-holes are, that the OOG content is attempting to fill. I hope we're not squabbling over a non-existing problem, or one that is very minor. Can a tech-savvy person please make a list and get us an overview? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:06, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::As I've said before, the lore section is chaotic and incomplete right now. The style guide is often ignored, and there are obscure text links in there that have nothing to do with this debate. If we limit any new standards to future edits regarding oog lore, and those subject to case-by-case review, is there that much of a problem?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 21:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nobody is claiming the Lore space is anything but a mess at the moment, but it doesn't need unofficial material to fix the problem. This proposal seems to have got back to treating unofficial material the same as official, and as such I don't support it. In general, I'm not going to support any proposal that doesn't make a clear distinction between official and unofficial material. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You mean besides the external link icon and the linkt hat opens a new tab, bringing you to a page with a proper disclaimer?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

(outdent) Although there are technical issues related to references in introductory material, in my opinion this fundamentally just comes down to good writing style. Any encyclopedia-style article should start with broad, general-interest information -- basic facts that everyone takes for granted. The first sentence of an article is the one sentence that all readers are likely to read, therefore it should be relevant to all readers; similarly, the first paragraph is the most-read paragraph; the first section is the most-read section. Knowledgeable readers may well only skim over the introduction, but readers who are completely new to the topic are likely to only read the introduction. So it should contain information that you're sure everyone wants to know.

In Elder Scrolls terms, this means that any well-written article will start with facts that are covered by nearly every book on the subject, or
at least is not contradicted by any book: facts upon which all readers and editors will agree, and facts which are the most fundamental to defining that topic. If it's information that everybody agrees upon, then it's invariably going to be content that is not based solely upon out-of-game books. It's also content that is unlikely to need any citations (in other words, multiple sources that are already referenced later in the article are all relevant, so listing them again would just be redundant).

That type of structure then naturally leads itself to the technical wiki details that have been discussed. Since the introductory content is universally accepted, it is equally relevant to Lore articles, summary articles, Oblivion articles, Morrowind articles, etc. And since references are not critical for supporting the information, we can get away without including the references on every page that uses the content. Overall, wiki styles were adopted to accomodate what naturally occurs in well-written articles: first, write the article; then, see how that article can be used on the wiki. If a well-written article really doesn't follow this pattern, then we shouldn't try to force it to fit -- and there are already examples where related articles are not transcluded copies of one another. But the majority of articles do fit this pattern, and therefore guidelines are developed that are appropriate for the majority of articles.

The length of any introductory, non-controversial, and therefore non-referenced content will vary widely from one article to another. In an article that is only five sentences long, the "introduction" might be the entire five sentences; or for an obscure topic, perhaps it would only be a single sentence distilling the only fact upon which everyone agrees. And no matter how controversial the topic, there has to always be some amount of basic content upon which everyone can agree ("The Amulet of Kings is a necklace worn by the Emperors of Cyrodiil"; "Direnni tower is a structure located on Isle of Balfiera"; "Numantia is an obscure word mentioned in religious texts such as Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes"). The introductory sentence(s)
should probably be in a separate paragraph from subsequent content -- but again for reasons of basic writing style. A transition from widely-known to more detailed information is generally significant enough to warrant a change of paragraphs.

As the article gets longer, the introductory content will also be longer. For page-length articles, it might be one or two paragraphs in length. Or in
lengthy articles, the introduction might be its own section, separated from the rest of the article by a level-two header.

As a result, I'm not really sure why the concept that articles should start by covering content from in-game books is so controversial. If you'd rather think of it as starting with content common to all books (in-game and out-of-game), then so be it; the result is still the same. (If the absolutely only mention of a topic is in out-of-game books, then it's arguable whether the topic needs an article on UESP; in any case, such articles will be the exception, not the rule.) As long as contributors place their articles' content in a logical order, then other editors on the site can work out the technical details (e.g., where to place a noinclude tag, whether to transclude the article).

:(Quick technical points in response to Ratwar:
:* We don't need to host any of the content; all that's necessary is that links to the content be included in articles. Licensing is therefore not relevant to the question of what should or should not be discussed in articles.
:* We already have a citation/reference extension that has been installed on thesite, and is being used widely in any revisions made to the Lore page. At some point we may need to discuss some details of the specific format used for references but, again, that's really not relevant to the immediate issues at hand.)

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 12:45, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

=== Resolution? ===
Debate seems to have stopped. How is this question resolved? A decision of all the admins? A proposal to the community? It's time to make a decision. I support Ratwar's proposal as it does not share the fatal flaws of some others, which would split sources and make the criteria for citations too byzantine and arguable to be easily navigated by users who aren't very familiar with the site. This would handicap the rejuvenation of the lore section and besides, it is the place of uesp to present a comprehensive picture of everything that is Elder Scrolls. This is the UNOFFICIAL Elder Scrolls Site, it is not the place to make such judgements over material. These resources are essential. Their use can have limits and qualifications, but forcing them into narrow categories and supporting roles overcomplicates editing and discourages their implementation. This makes any sort of obscure text editing difficult and clouds the true issue over their trustworthiness suitability to the topic.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 13:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Not only the debate has stopped. Any momentum that existed to improve the Lore namespace has stopped as well. What looked liked a consensus has been abandoned over posturing. I am disappointed. There may be no editors left to implement the changes that are so vigorously discussed above. "Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I have been absent from the internet as much as uesp lately. If we can get this resolved soon, then I am all for a (perhaps official) lore project.[[User:24.31.156.165|24.31.156.165]] 22:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT) Temple-Zero

:So we call a vote? Or just try and see where the ship goes? [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 12:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===We're not ready for guidelines...===
:''Preamble:'' This has been a long, difficult discussion, but ultimately I think it was necessary and for the best. It may also have been inevitable that it would be an intense discussion: the two groups contributing clearly have different perspectives, yet both are deeply invested in the Elder Scrolls community and therefore unlikely to just walk away or give up. These guidelines could not be developed without input from both groups (in other words, if these guidelines had been written two months ago, they would have had to be rewritten). Even if we can't yet finalize some guidelines, the discussion to date has been valuable: hopefully everyone has gained insights into the opposing perspectives. Or at least, it should be clear to everyone just how strongly held some of these beliefs are.

At this point, I don't think it is possible to reach a resolution; I don't see any workable compromise that will be acceptable to everyone involved right now. Progress was made and it seems like near-compromises were reached on some major issues -- but nevertheless multiple posts late in the discussion still include absolute negatives such as "I cannot support this." Furthermore, we've reached a stalemate. Not only the discussion has stalled; as pointed out by Benould it is also a major obstacle preventing any progress from being made on the Lore pages. I think part of the problem is that we've reached the limits of what can be accomplished through discussion. Most of this has essentially been theoretical arguments about what might happen, but with very few real examples to illustrate the points. We need practical arguments at this point. It's particularly imperative in this situation, given that the contributors have such different perspectives and, even more importantly, differing familiarity with the wiki and even each other. I'm willing to bet that this conversation is riddled with countless misunderstandings that are only exacerbating the problems: are we really all interpreting these proposals the same way? I know I'm not completely sure about the details of some proposals. The best way to clarify the proposals is to turn them into concrete examples. We need to see what happens in reality when we try to re-organize an article (is it possible to separate in-game content from out-of-game, or is it too awkward? Which specific obscure texts are relevant, in what context, and why?) Which means we need to get back to editing articles -- and I think we also all simply need a break from this discussion. Remind ourselves of why we even care about this discussion.

With that in mind, I'm basically going to suggest some ''temporary'' measures to break the stalemate, placing a top priority on simply making it possible for editors to get back to working on articles -- even if those articles are not written to a common set of guidelines. Towards that end, I think it's worth remembering a few fundamentals:
* [[UESPWiki:Content Over Style|Content Over Style]] is one of this wiki's guidelines. If disagreements about style (i.e., guidelines) are preventing content from being added to the site, then the process has gone very wrong. Any content added to the site can later be revised to meet a given set of guidelines, but creating the content in the first place may not be possible (especially if knowledgeable editors have been lost). Although this debate is not purely about style it has nevertheless resulting in stopping ''any'' content from being added to Lore articles.
* Any guidelines that are adopted are guidelines, not absolute rules. Exceptional cases may well exist where the guidelines do not work. The guidelines can not and should not be written to encompass those exceptions. Probably each exception needs to be considered on an individual basis, and that probably can't be done until a first draft of the article has been written. The guidelines should instead focus on the majority of articles. Guidelines should provide the standard way to tackle a situation, or the method that should always be tried first.
* Wiki decisions are never final. New contributors, new circumstances, or new content; any one of these can make it necessary to revisit any decision. In particular with a substantial issue like this, it is probably inevitable that any guidelines that are adopted will need to be tweaked -- whether we spend another day or whether we spend another year in discussions. Given that any conclusions are going to be temporary and imperfect, we shouldn't let this process drag on to the point where it prevents progress from being made.

And because I like to be long-winded ;), before getting to the real ideas, I'd like to share a few other perspectives that have crossed my mind.
* This discussion is not taking place on "neutral" territory, where TIL and UESP contributors on equal footing. Rather, it is taking place on UESP -- because it is about the standards to adopt for UESP content. The UESP contributors are undeniably more familiar with how the wiki works, how editors are likely to alter articles, and how UESP's readers are likely to react. The UESP contributors also have to live with the consequences of this discussion, no matter how it turns out; not only live with the consequences, but even enforce and maintain any standards. Therefore, expecting an impartial (or "fair"?) conclusion may not exactly be realistic.

* I doubt UESP will ever be an appropriate place to document every nuance of the lore. Nevertheless, I think that revamping the Lore articles on UESP will help the lore community nearly as much as it helps UESP. Several comments have suggested that UESP's articles will be most useful for "educating" newcomers to the lore discussions -- providing the fundamentals that are necessary before diving into the more advanced content discussed, for example, on TIL's forums. Also, UESP's articles can become a vital way to introduce new people to the lore -- but UESP's readers will only discover links to obscure texts if they are willing to the read the articles in the first place. If articles are not written at a level accessible to non-experts, then those non-experts will give up.
** A good analogy is perhaps to treat UESP articles as the equivalent of an introductory college Physics class ("Physics 101"). Such a class focuses on over-simplified but widely accepted concepts (Newtonian laws of motion; conservation of mass; events are predictable not random). It might mention advanced theories (Einstein and relativism; quantum mechanics) but only in very simplified terms. Students have to master the outdated 19th centry theories before they can possibly move on to the 20th century physics -- physics that in some ways completely invalidates the 19th century physics they just learned. Trying to teach freshmen students physics by putting them in graduate seminars would be a complete failure. Any information targeting a broad audience that is unfamiliar with the topic needs to cover the content at a sufficiently simplified level so that the audience can understand it.

* The Lore articles are going to be full of contradiction and controversy, even if (perhaps especially if) we stick to only in-game content. With in-game content alone, there are going to be difficult decisions about how to prioritize different sources, which ones to emphasize, which ones to discount. The obvious issues involve the games's "historical" texts (Is PGE1 biased? Is Mysterious Akavir based on hearsay or facts? How to deal with fragments of text and questionable translation, e.g., ''[[Lore:Father of the Niben|Father of the Niben]]''). But beyond that there are also dozens of "fictional" texts from the game that contain snippets of information. Are the descriptions of Black Marsh from ''[[Lore:The Argonian Account|The Argonian Account]]'' accurate? Is ''[[Lore:The Refugees|The Refugees]]'' simply fiction, or is this reliable evidence that Mankar Camoran is the son of Camoran Usurper and his Bosmeri mistress? We already have to make judgment calls about whether to treat such pieces of information as factual, despite being embedded in fiction. The judgment calls don't seem fundamentally different when, for example, evaluating Kirkbride's RP posts and identifying a few factual points even if the majority of the content is not relevant to UESP. We can't eliminate quality-based decisions by declaring a category of Elder Scrolls content off limits. Conversely, any standards that are adopted for evaluating the relevance of in-game content can probably also be applied to evaluating out-of-game content. The fact that the content does not appear in the game may be an additional criterion used in any evaluation, but it cannot be the only criterion.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 13:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::You make a good point about non-experts and using UESP as a sort of lore dictionary (something I very much wish it to be). The crucial obscure texts are exactly that- Metaphysics 101 with more difficult language. Teaching the topics they cover without referencing them would be nightmarish, and I am speaking as one who learned lore largely from the explanations of others, going to find the sources afterwards. How can we write intelligible articles that will be useful to probable readers if we are encumbered in what thoughts we can express and how we can justify them? I have been resorting to byzantine and evasive wording in some of my edits, trying to pass off knowledge gleaned from unofficial sources as the natural conclusions of in-game books. This is not helpful to anyone.
::Anyways, I think we're on something like the same page. I await your proposal. [[User:24.31.156.165|24.31.156.165]] 14:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)Temple-Zero

====Anti-Guideline Proposal====
The priorities, in my opinion, are to:
* Make it possible to get back to editing Lore articles before losing all of the momentum and interest.
* Accept that there are going to be mistakes, so try to make it possible to come back later and find any articles that need to be revised.

To that end, there is only one guideline that seems vitally important:
:'''''Any content that comes from a non-UESP source must have a reference.'' That reference must be a functioning link to the source material. The reference should be provided by the editor who added the content.'''

Rationale:
* Although ultimately we want references for all content, including content from in-game books, in the short-term it is more important that offsite content have valid references (see, for example, my comments under [[#Counter-Proposal (Sload)|Counter-proposal (Sload)]]).
* This requirement should not be a hindrance; it does not place any limits on what content can be added to articles. It's also been part of every proposal to date, so I think it's reasonable to say that we've reached a consensus on this point. (Whether or not the same treatment extends to in-game books may have been debated, but everyone has agreed that out-of-game books need proper references).

* Despite the appearance of consensus on this issue, it is so fundamental to what I'm going to say next that I think it still needs some additional emphasis.
** Functioning references are particularly important to enable any type of progress on Lore articles, because those references provide some critical traceability. With proper references, any articles containing links to particular out-of-game sources can later be identified. We all know that we eventually need some type of guidelines for that content, so the only way to encourage content to be added in the absence of such guidelines is to provide a mechanism to later apply any guidelines. When guidelines are eventually adopted, we can search for content that does not meet those guidelines and modify it as necessary -- whether that entails revising the reference format; adding details such as when and why it was written; adding links to a [[#Source critique|source critique]]; or, deleting content that is deemed unsuitable for UESP. Mistakes can be tolerated if we know that we can later fix the mistakes.
** That search capability requires that the references be actual, working links. Although there is no "What Links Here" feature for external links, it is actually possible to mimic that function through database queries. In other words, I can create the equivalent of "What Links Here" lists (I've done it a few times in the past for other types of external links). It's also possible to use Google to find such pages, using the link: keyword in Google.
** Patrollers (or any other editors) who cannot verify a contribution based on in-game content should add a [[Template:VN|VN]] tag to request that a reference be provided. In addition, even if there is a reference, a VN tag can be added if the other editor cannot see how the reference supports the provided facts. If a reference is not provided within a reasonable amount of time (i.e., a week), the content should be moved from the article to its talk page. It cannot be added back into the article until a supporting reference has been provided.

* A corollary of this one guideline is : '''If content cannot be supported by a link to a supporting source, then it does not belong on the site.''' Such content is original research, which does not belong on an encyclopedia. Again, all proposals have contained restrictions of some sort on original research, so this isn't really a unilateral decree.

Other than that, I don't think we're ready to adopt any other guidelines. In other words, because I do not see a consensus developing over limits on what can be added to Lore articles, I'm saying that '''we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time'''. As long as a link can be added providing a source for the statement (and as long as the statement is relevant to the article, of course), the statement is acceptable -- no matter what the source's category, classification, officialness, or canonicity may be.

Before anyone gets upset/angry (or even elated) at that statement, please take the time to hear me out and hear why I'm advocating such a one-sided position in violation of all rules about consensus.
* First, and most importantly, this is '''temporary'''. It is not the basis for any final guidelines; it is not a consensus. It is just a way to get moving again, even if it's movement in the wrong direction. Although it's not too different from Ratwar's proposal, the fundamental difference is that I'm acknowledging that it's unlikely to be acceptable as a final set of guidelines.
* Why is my proposal so one-sided?
** Adding out-of-game sources is fundamentally a change from what's been done on UESP. We can't expect to evaluate any suggested changes if we return to our past "business as usual" -- if we keep doing the same thing, then we can only end up with the same result. So I opted in favor of the radical extreme instead of the conservative extreme.
** The best way to really evaluate what has been suggested (good, bad, or ugly) is to let it happen. If this really will be a disaster, then there's no better way to prove it than by letting the disaster happen. Any problems that arise will be solid evidence that can then be discussed as a reality rather than a theoretical example. We can point to specific articles, specific sentences, specific references; we can be sure that everybody is discussing the same facts, not just interpreting proposals differently.
* How is this different from what was happpening before?
** Ultimately, it may not be any different. But it is my pretty firm belief that UESP (or at least the Lore section of UESP) was healthier three weeks ago than it is now. It may well have been harder on the patrollers than the current stagnation. But if making patrolling easy was our top priority on UESP, the only logical conclusion would be to shut down editing and turn UESP into a static site, not a wiki. A wiki is healthy when articles are being modified and when new editors are contributing, so I'd rather go back to what was happening before.
** If there are patrollers who thought that the situation was previously unacceptable, those patrollers are free to ignore all edits that get made to Lore articles.
** I'm also hoping that everyone has learned something from this process, and that editors will consider the various opposing opinions when editing and perhaps allow those opinions to temper their actions.
* Why edit Lore articles instead of just sandboxes?
** Editing sandbox articles as examples has already been suggested several times, but it hasn't led anywhere. The only example that we have so far is Sload's -- but Sload was not provided with any feedback on that sandbox example.
** The Lore namespace is currently dying; resuming progress on Lore articles is more important than details of how the articles are written.
** Working on real articles will be more beneficial to everyone. Any system needs to work with collaboratively-written articles, which is not truly possible on personal sandboxes. Patrollers need to be able to point out information that is missing references; multiple editors need to each contribute the puzzle pieces that they think belong on the article. Articles need to cross-reference each other. Transclusions into other namespaces need to be tested.
** Nevertheless, this will need some amount of tolerance from everyone if it is going to work with "real" Lore articles. If a patroller sees an edit containing controversial material, that doesn't mean we need to start a debate immediately on the merits of that content. The only requirement I'm emphasizing here is that the content needs a reference. As long as the reference is there, give the contributor some freedom to create an article that shows why that content is useful. Don't start debates over every individual edit, but instead think of them as eventual examples for this general debate.
* Some editing suggestions
** Use this freedom to include any sources ''very wisely''. The edits made over the next few weeks will, in one way or another, determine whether or not out-of-game sources can remain in the Lore articles. Abusing this opportunity will only convince other editors that out-of-game sources are frivolous, irrelevant, or otherwise unacceptable.
** Try to find examples where you think the obscure texts are indispensable for the content. Make it as obvious as possible why the out-of-game content contributes useful and relevant information. Find ways to prove that ''UESP articles'' need to have this additional content: examples that are useful for "typical" UESP readers will be far more significant.
** Even better: try to edit articles incorporating proposals and ideas with which you ''disagreed''. Make a good faith effort to write an article, and see how many compromises are really necessary. For example, can you write an article that first summarizes the in-game content, and then moves on to out-of-game content? If the resulting article is truly unacceptable (at least in your opinion), post it anyway and then explain on the talk page why the proposals didn't work. Ask for advice on how to fix the article. Find out whether your interpretation of the proposal was accurate.
** Be over-zealous about adding references. The most important point is to put a link to the source in the article. If nothing else, copy and paste the URL from your browser directly into the article. The format of the link can be fixed by other editors; the reference tags can be added by other editors. Just make sure to include the raw information. Without that information, other editors are far more likely to lose patience with this experiment.
** This doesn't require the creation of "important" or "substantial" articles. We need examples of typical Lore articles, because the guidelines are supposed to encompass typical situations, not the exceptional or unusual articles.
* Is there a timetable for establishing real guidelines?
** I don't think it will help to set a fixed timetable about when to restart the discussion about guidelines. Rather, I think it should happen once editors start to feel like there are enough examples to start drawing conclusions. And once the editors have the energy and motivation to resume. It might take a couple months; it might take a few days.
** Another possibility is that editors will feel compelled to resume this discussion when they have simply had enough of the chaos. Every aggravation is likely to accelerate the pressure to adopt new guidelines. And realistically, the more irritated editors are, the more likely it is that any guidelines will be end up being strict or even punitive (whether or not that's the actual intent).
** Conversely, honest efforts on everyone's part to make this experiment work will increase the chances of success: increase the chances that we can work together to create some articles that are real examples of high-quality, properly-written Lore articles that are useful to everyone in the Elder Scrolls community. If we can create some examples that illustrate what works and what doesn't work, coming back and writing some guidelines should (I hope!) be less arduous.

If anyone is still angry after reading to this point, could I at least ask that you take a day to think things over? I've spent more than a few days thinking this over before posting it, and my thoughts have changed over that time. I honestly hope that these suggestions will help us to move forward, rather than deepen the rifts that have developed.

In the meantime, as I've said more than a few times, I really think editors should feel free to return to editing Lore articles right away. I don't think we can afford to wait another week or two just debating whether or not it's acceptable to make edits; if we wait that long we may never be able to recover. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 16:18, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Another suggestion: on articles such as White Gold Tower, Nede, Disappearance of the Dwarves, it might be a good idea for an editor who plans on major changes based on far-flung and unofficial sources to state his claims and references in the talk pages, and wait a day or so for critiques. I plan to do this in the case of the former, where Rpeh has moved a paragraph anyway. It saves having to write a heavily-cited section twice, and makes debating the issue easier. If this is a sandbox sort of thing someone tell me, because I think adding a talk page heading called "Needed Conversations" is a nice, obvious way to go fishing for a consensus. In addition, is a lore Project needed? [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with almost all of Nephele's post but not with the conclusion "we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time". The idea that UESP can start basing its content on forum posts is utterly ludicrous and is clearly unacceptable.

:Let's clear one thing up here: the impression some people will have picked up from the discussion is that the "Lore Community" is united in their acceptance of MK's fanfiction as canon. They aren't. We have attracted elements of the pro- group but even a few minutes spent on Bethesda's Lore forum will show there is an anti- fanction too. If there really was a consensus on these forum posts then I would reluctantly go along with their inclusion, but there isn't and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

:Apart from anything else, the unofficial material is unnecessary. As Benould said above, "I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources." [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348882&oldid=348880] and he's right. For instance, I was able to replace a speculative paragraph about White Gold Tower with an informative one supported by sources that won't have our users scratching their heads and wondering what on earth it's talking about. [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore_talk:White_Gold_Tower&oldid=348616].

:I'm not going to rehash what I've said before so I'll simply restate my belief that a compromise along Gaebrial's [[#Counter-Counter_Proposal|proposal]] is the only way this will work. If it comes down to a choice between including any and all external sources or excluding them totally, my vote is unhesitatingly for the latter. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:30, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Summary of the discussion so far, in brief [http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/140577/wiki_mash_4 form] --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 05:38, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The "anti-MK faction" is currently made up of a fascinating individual who charges that the Trial of Vivec RP was a malicious attack on Linda Carter wherein the developers staged the violent rape of wonder woman and should be fearful of the litigous wrath of her US senator hisband. Lady Nerevar is on ueso somewhere under a similar moniker, she could tell you all about it. No, I suppose we're not ready for guidelines. But we need Nephele's temporary solution because right now editing lore is like trying to practice penmanship by spraypainting graffiti on an underpass swarming with armed guards, and wondering why it's not very clear. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::::The only guideline, and therefore the only proposal derived from consensus in my above statement is the statement that "Any content that comes from a non-UESP source must have a reference."

::::The remainder, and in particular the statement "we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time," is '''not based on consensus.''' It is '''not a guideline.''' Rather it is just a basic distillation of the facts; it is an admission of defeat. As such, it's not a matter of who agrees or disagrees, or personal preferences about what ultimately should happen. Personally, I don't like the facts myself, but I don't see any way to change them. To reiterate:
::::* We do not have a consensus.
::::* We are not making any progress towards a consensus.
::::* Without a consensus, there is no justification for unilaterally enforcing one set of standards.
::::If there really is agreement with everything in my post other than that one sentence, then it seems like there must be an agreement on these basic facts.

::::We can't break a stalemate over reaching a consenus using a vote. In particular, [[UESPWiki:Consensus#Reaching Consensus|Reaching Consensus]] says: " Avoid turning a discussion into a vote: it is far better to find a solution that everyone likes than to simply impose a majority opinion." This is not a minor stylistic issue being discussed (e.g., is blue or yellow a better color for a table?) It is not even a situation where there is a clear majority; if there were just one lone dissenter, then perhaps we could proceed (in the process, alienating that one editor). The consensus article suggests getting more people's opinions -- but I think we've already done that. Nearly every active admin and patroller has contributed; everyone who has been active on Lore articles has contributed; it's listed on the [[UESPWiki:Community Portal#Active Discussions|CP's active discussions]].

::::If we're not willing to allow edits to Lore articles to continue in the absence of an agreement over guidelines, then the other alternative is to basically disallow any editing until we reach an agreement. That's basically what has happened over the last couple weeks, and without something to break the ice that situation is going to persist indefinitely. I think it's fundamentally against our existing guidelines (such as Content Over Style) to allow this discussion to shut down an entire section of the wiki. It's also worth remembering that we're talking about a game-related website: allowing questionable or biased content to appear on some wiki pages for a couple of months is not the end of the world. It's not going to cause anyone's death; given that it's the Lore section, it's not even going to cause anyone's game character to die or fail a quest or lose an artifact. Without a new TES game scheduled for release in the next couple months, we're not even really risking giving new readers a bad impression of the site. The only real negative consequences are if we individually '''choose''' to turn this into a crisis that damages the wiki. If we make people's opinions on this one issue the only thing that matters, and divide the entire community based upon this discussion, then we are only hurting ourselves.

::::If you want to change the facts, then you need to find a way to reach a consensus. No such suggestions have been forthcoming in the last couple weeks, but if you have been holding back on suggestions, by all means, contribute them. Or at least some new ideas on how to approach the situation; again, none have been put forward. Without new, constructive ideas this discussion is dead. Repeating the same positions from earlier in the discussion is not introducing new ideas.

::::I've just tried to find a way to break the stalemate -- with the eventual goal of returning to this discussion and actually establishing a consensus. I'm not imposing any limits on what that eventual consensus will be. In fact, it's pretty clear from what's previously been said that any eventual consensus will place some limits on what is acceptable source material. I'm just trying to allow new information to be introduced and allow new perspectives to develop, because I think it's the only way to stop going in circles.

::::If you want to shut down even this attempt at progress, then I just basically give up. I'm out of ideas; everyone else is out of ideas. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 13:04, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Nephele as far as I'm concerned this isn't an attempt to "break the stalemate", it's capitulation. You're "solving" the problem by ignoring one side in the debate. As Gaebrial has pointed out, one group has made several attempts at compromise and had them rebuffed or ignored. We have moved from a position of "Absolutely no non-game sources" to "include them, but in their own section to emphasise the difference in sources" so that our material stays accessible to everybody. Don't tell me and those that share my point of view that we're causing this problem when we've already moved so far.

:::::I have never said I want to disallow edits to Lore articles, and a simple [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=500&namespace=130 look at the recent changes page] will show you that editing has continued: not at a particularly high rate, but then the old Tamriel namespace never got a huge proportion of the edits either.

:::::Invoking the Content over Style policy isn't appropriate. This entire debate is ''about'' content. We exclude content all the time: when people post additions to game articles about cheats, or about how mods change a quest they get deleted so why should content added to Lore by "mods" be any different?

:::::You say no suggestions have been forthcoming? I thought I'd already made about three but let me try one more. I can see why Temple Zero et al don't want to write two versions of the same article - especially when they consider one to be wrong. So let them add a ''separate section'' for their version and put a <code><nowiki>{{peer review}}</nowiki></code> template on the whole article (yes I know the template is supposed to go on the talk page, but ''tempora mutandur''). That will flag an article for attention by an editor to go through and improve the non-external sources section.

:::::I had an interesting discussion with Proweler on IRC the other day in which we agreed that the wiki is probably not the best place for this kind of thing anyway. He (and his associates) want the answers. We're not in the business of subjectivity and so should be happy with the questions. It's the attempt to get the wiki to do something it's not really intended for that is at the root of these problems. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, Nephele, for the summary of ideas brought forward; I felt my suggestions were very well represented and summarized. I kind of have reached my limit, whether writing anything is worth the hassle. Rpeh's example with the White Gold Tower: As it stands now I'm not sure that it even would pass muster in [[wikipedia:Reader's Digest|Reader's Digest]] in its limitedness and scope. Not that TZ's entry was specifically clear, but it mainly suffered from not being able to link to anything, let alone a supporting, broader article on towers here on the wiki. I don't think I can write a meaningful article on the towers, without outside sources. It doesn't make much sense to take the abandoned article on [[User:Benould/Porsche|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] out of my sandbox, as things are now. What I see is a tyranny of Oblivion-centric players, which should not be. Oblivion was/is a popular game, but its lore should not limit the Lore namespace Period. Rpeh, my suggestion that many things can be argued with in-game material was in the context of getting the editing process going. Many things will come from in-game sources, obviously, some will not. What you're missing Rpeh is that this is alienating productive editors, so I can't see how you can agree with everything, and then not endorse a return to editing, with NEW content being added. There's been little new in Lore, Prowler is fighting with the Pantheon, a few formating changes, that's about it. If you want to just push code around to make it seem alive, eh, maybe down the line there will be others taking up the torch. Sorry my attempt at bridge-building & humor has failed. I wish you all the best, --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Rpeh, I believe the sentiment of your last paragraph warrants the term 'capitulation' better than Nephele's proposal. Lore wasn't good enough (compared to the other namespaces, an embarassment) before all this started, and now all progress at a badly-needed status quo shakeup has stopped. If we are not to include obscure texts, than uesp will still serve its original function, which was valuable in its own way, except for the title, which is misleading and presumptuous. We would need to slap permanent incomplete tags on many pages. What is uesp if it can't be comprehensive? [[User:24.97.239.147|24.97.239.147]] 19:14, 25 August 2008 (EDT) Temple-Zero

::::::::Benould, If you reread what I said, it pretty clearly allows the addition of new material including from unofficial sources. Temple-Zero, ditto. I'm not going to respond further until you've actually read my proposal and responded to it. This isn't about being Oblivion-, Morrowind-, Daggerfall- or anything else-centric but you're missing the point that the Lore section ''must'' be accessible to game players who are interested in the Lore only insofar as it affects their game. You risk turning Lore into a Loremaster-centric area that is incomprehensible to anybody outside the Lore forums or TIL. If I'm alienating new editors by asking them to remember that not everybody knows as much lore as they do then so be it. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Rpeh, excuse me but nothing is clear here and reading your proposal doesn't help it. If I have to spell it out, so be it. You backed out of a compromise at the very last second once, and went back to square one. You summarized your comments to Nephele's proposal with "Absolutely not", and said if it can't be your solution, you'd rather have no outside sources at all, as late as yesterday. You call the interested editors a Lore clique. You've engaged in extended back-and-forth in a very combative manner over edits that included outside sources with TZ. You lobbed off a section in White-Gold Tower where I just had asked for clarification and references, taking the article back to Oblivion-content only. Where is the goodwill, trust, where is anything clear here? Actions speak louder than words, I only see stone-walling. Sorry, I don't see the suggested "I'm willing to compromise". I worked hard for a compromise to happen, to bring new blood into content creation for Lore, defended you and sought understanding for your position, for no-one to lose face but I'm tired now. All the best, hope you guys can hash it out, for the better of the wiki. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:03, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Source critique ==

This is a proposal to add a template with a source critique to ''each and every'' source; book, fragment, obscure, ingame or out-of-game. If we're treating them like historical sources, as Apophis2412 was getting at, they have to be critiqued. This is necessary and what rpeh was asking for, Proweler was hinting at and incorporates some of all proposals. The TIL has some of it with its categorization into Historical/Fiction/Lore etc, [http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/ here] for example, our book description/author and bylines have some of it, but neither are really extensive to the level of detail that is needed. That way, every single page where the texts are used doesn't have to make that judgment call.

An example of why Source critique is needed:

The [http://www.imperial-library.info/interviews/skelm.shtml Skeleton's Man Interview] for example is sourced only to a now defunct [http://www.m0use.net/~skelm/ Hall of Adventurers] at m0use.net, no date, no further details. From what I could gather, it is a Teaser, in-character by MK and others at the time of the release of "Redguard", while working on MW. Somewhere, somehow it should be mentioned that its quoting [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=482103&st=20&p=6918676&#entry6918676 here] ended the discussion about the disappearance of the Dwarves in the forums.

Source critique would describe how this text came about, identify the writer and as in-character if applicable, category - as mentioned, and viewpoint/skew/bias. It would also allow a brief judgment, with clarifications. Just a quick write-up, things can be added, although the entry should be brief.

Example: "2920" - A fictional but well-researched retelling of the events of the last year of the First Era,
*by Carlovac Townway Writer:Ted ? - in-game: OB, MW (however we called it OGG, IG)
*Main characters are the Tribunal, Reman III. Potentate
*Spans from the war of the Reman Empire with Morrowind to the assassination of Reman by the Morag Tong.
*Keywords: First Era, Night Mother (anything not mentioned previously)

All relevant words are hyperlinked and indexed, so if I were to look up information in search about the Morag Tong, it'll pop up under Sources. Any discussions would be on the talk page of the source, so things are transparent for future researchers.

If deemed useful, creating this source critique would depend heavily on both communities, and can be applied here as well as the TIL (if they want that, of course). Such a joint effort could build *gasp* bridges, educate, create interest in the Lore sources and help every single Lore article. It would also let us discuss the texts, which is the Hobby part of it ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think I understand what you're saying, and what I get out if it is this: Rather than a project to add critiques to every solitary source, make a once-size-fits-all template so that any issue regarding the source may be addressed with ease, and perhaps a source with a critical template could be flagged in its reference text. Consensus in the talk pages would be very important, however.

:And I like the thinking behind Ratwar's proposal, as it seems to benefit from being a fresh perspective in terms of identifying the true issues and pitfalls of using all sources. I'm reasonably certain the obscure texts do not require licenses. MK exerts unofficial control over his writing and its being hosted on TIL, and anything put on a forum generally isn't restricted by anythinge except courtesy. But I am not asking for the obscure texts to be hosted anyway, especially as the external link is all the disclaimer you will need in many cases.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 15:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'd be fine just external links, but what I was trying to say is that for us to host them, we'd need some kind of 'okay' from MK (or the other author in question). --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

UESPWiki talk:Lore

2008-08-25T21:53:15Z

Benould: /* Anti-Guideline Proposal */ at the limit

{| class=wikitable style="float:right"
! Related Discussions
|-
|
* [[:Category:Archive-Tamriel|Archived discussions about the Tamriel namespace]]
|}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==Sources for Lore Articles==
:''The first section of this discussion (everything up to my contribution at [[#Nephele|Nephele]]) was originally posted at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]]. I've moved it all here because it is general discussion about the Lore namespace, rather than discussion specifically about what belongs on the [[Lore:Main Page|Main Page]] of the Lore section. Also, any guidelines that are adopted as a result of this discussion will be posted on [[UESPWiki:Lore]]; this keeps the discussion together with the guidelines.'' --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
===The Case for Kirkbride===

As most readers of this page are indubitably aware at this point, there has been something of a tempest in a teapot regarding the contributions of the user Temple-Zero. I admit readily that I involved myself in this community fully at his behest, and that I agree with his principles fully. This essay is an attempt to explain and justify the position he and I are taking in a non-bombastic way.

There are a few people who have significantly contributed to the "lore" of the TES series in an official context - Ken Rolston, Kurt Kuhlmann, Marilyn Wasserman, Douglas Goodall, Gary Noonan, Ted Peterson, and Michael Kirkbride. Of these, the latter two's contributions have been by far the most significant, with Peterson writing proliferously for the series and Kirkbride being the primary force behind worldbuilding and lore since 1996. The difficulty that arises is that Kirkbride has contributed, as of today, 20 works which have not appeared in TES games, in addition to several collaborations with other writers. Others have contributed similarly, though not to nearly the same extent. These works have been archived by The Imperial Library [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/ on this page]. There appears to be some disagreement over whether these qualify as "lore."

The argument many members of this community have put forth is that something is not "lore" unless explicitly endorsed by Bethesda Softworks (or one of the associated companies involved in the production of TES games) by appearing in a game. Though this may sound like a simple and successful way to organize lore into "canon" and "non-canon," this line of reasoning is specious and not accepted by any prominent member of the lore community.

The idea that Bethesda is the source of canon does not hold up with Bethesda's own policy. "Ius, the Animal God" is not serious lore, its own author readily admits that. ''Arena'' is not an accurate depiction of Tamriel except insofar as it has the provinces right and the cities are kind of accurate. Even the Pocket Guide was ignored when creating ''Oblivion'', something which would be inexplicable if not for one of the texts some editors argue should not be treated as lore. If the games are conflicting, how can it be ''them'' that is canon, and the texts which repair this conflict not?

The reality is that Mr. Kirkbride is the primary moving force for TES lore. He was the primary author of the First Pocket Guide to the Empire, Varieties of Faith, and every single creation myth except the Khajiit's, he drew the art which inspired the design of virtually every aspect of Morrowind's visuals - from the Ministry of Truth to corpus beasts to the Telvanni mushroom towers - he is the voice of Vivec and the author the Thirty-Six Lessons, and the man behind Mankar Camoran. Almost every major character from the lore is either his creation or someone he expanded on immeasurably - from Pelinal and Alessia to Tiber Septim and Zurin Arctus to Sotha Sil and Almalexia. The only major exceptions are the events of ''2920'' and Barenziah and her children, which are Peterson's invention. Dismissing him as a "dev," or one of many in a large group of contributors, is folly. Similarly, dismissing half his corpus as "forum posts" is equally unwise.

You cannot fully understand ''The Thirty-Six Lessons of Vivec'' without "Vehk's Teachings," or grasp their ultimate implications without "A Letter from the Fifth Era of Tamriel." You cannot account for Oblivion's plot-holes without "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "From the Many-Headed Talos." The story of the Alessian Revolt is not complete without the "Lament for Pelinal," and the in-game version of "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is missing half its text. "Lord Vivec’s Sword-Meeting With Cyrus the Restless" is a sequel to ''TESA: Redguard'' and his contributions in the Trial of Vivec bring the story of ''Morrowind'' and ''Tribunal'' to a close. "The Imperial Census of Daedra Lords" gives invaluable information on the Daedra, and "Cosmology" gives equally important information on the metaphysical geography of the TES universe. I can continue to describe the significance of the eleven other texts at hand, but I think my point is made.

When Temple-Zero says "TES is literature" he means it. The view that has developed slowly from the gestations of the lore community sees Kirkbride as an author like any other, and his works as a story that has developed over more than a decade. Lore is ultimately just the cataloging of this story for ease of understanding. If UESP ignores such significant contributions to this story because they aren't included in the video game that allowed this story to exist, then UESP's lore section remains crippled and useless as it so much is currently. The obscure texts are not unsourced and non-canon, they are ''essential'' to our understanding of this universe and stories within it. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 08:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with your argument. In my personal opinion, this edit should form the foundation of our discussions on how to proceed from here. What is the purpose of the wiki "Lore" section is maybe the bigger issue, what audience are we trying to reach? Without a basic agreement on these two issues, Lore namespace will remain piece-meal; with a varying, sometimes dubious quality. Much more can be said, but as many probably agree, we need to discuss this in the community. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed. If UESP aims only to inform the average player of the basics of the games' backstory, then it can settle with in-game sources. But it could be more than that, it could be a source players newly interested in lore could go to learn about things unhindered by the poetics of the in-game sources, or by their conflicting narratives, and also providing background as to how consensus was formed and links to the original sources. The obscure texts are essential to our understanding of this.

::Certainly treating these sources with scorn will only alienate the lore community from this website, making it useless by virtue of not being taken seriously. As will comments that suggest that the lore community is somehow insigificant, along the lines of insinuating that we can go off and "discuss" in our "forums" as if you have any audience but us. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 20:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Does wiki have some sort of charter? Because unless reluctance to include non-canon material is in writing somewhere, its inclusion seems very much in keeping with the nature of the site, in some ways. UESP doesn't judge, it only reflects and records. In the articles dealing with aspects of the games, every conceivable detail finds a place- useful, interesting, or not. This allows it to be used as an open-ended resource for a variety of purposes. It is not a targeted runthrough of the subject with clear goals in mind. It is wiki's job to show or reference everything, EVERYTHING that there is to be seen, a database of details to minor to be explored in something as cursory and efficient as a walkthrough. The entirety of Elder Scrolls, just as Wikipedia tries to be the sum of all knowledge. Withholding lore does not make sense in such a place. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::But like Wikipedia, we do not appreciate faulty inceptions in our articles, which brings us back to the non-canon discussion that took place earlier. We want verified, sourced material straight from the horses, in this case Bethesda's, mouth. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 23:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
This site isn't about Bethesda. It's about Elder Scrolls. What is your fascination with this faceless corporation? You aren't affiliates. It's hard for me to take this viewpoint seriously when no one explains it, only reiterates it. It's not that hard- I've heard one passable justification before now.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 23:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:A faceless corporation? While not every person at Bethesda may have contributed anything to the ES lore, the current canon we hold is what has been agreed upon by the developers at Bethesda. Yes, there are developers who may have contributed the major part to the lore, but that does not mean that what they say outside the official sources is inrefutably true. We don't know what happens inside Bethesda, for all we know the developers vote for every plot arch before they continue upon it. What Kirkbride says outside an official source may be what he would have written, but as he doesn't say "This is official" we can't take it for canon without placing question marks to its validity. There has not been stated on the site that unofficial sources can never be used, the major issue has been with you automatically taking them for true. You have been jumping to conclusions right from the beginning and are taking a very cynical approach to anyone who questions the validity of such sources. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 03:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Question: If what is found under [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text Obscure Texts at TIL] is mostly contract work done for Bethesda, how can it not be considered part of the Lore, even by the old standards - only Bethesda sanctioned material? What is contract work there, what isn't? Do we have any written standards on what is admissible? Anyone care to enlighten me? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

First, apologies for the length of this post but I think we have a lot to talk about.

I think there are three areas of disagreement: the perspective of the articles, the sources for them, and the degree to which conclusions should be drawn.

To quote the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Perspective|Style Guide]], "Within Lore articles, it is more appropriate to write from the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe. The articles are still expected to be encyclopedia-style, but designed as if they were reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel. Gameplay details should be avoided in Lore articles; game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen." Although the section is still marked as a proposed guideline, it's been up there for months and nobody has ever argued against it, That means that additions like [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Nede&curid=12249&diff=347662&oldid=347661&rcid=351122 this one] should not be made because it's pretty clear that a citizen of Tamriel wouldn't know what the developers have been saying. The previous version of the text is perfectly accurate, neutral and fits with the required style; the new edit simply pushes a personal viewpoint. The average citizen is much more likely to believe a more "impressive" history - in our own universe the Romans' version of history held that they were directly descended from Trojan refugees, rather more lofty than "Another Italic tribe that happened to get lucky".

As a little bit of background, the reason for the Lore space being different in perspective is that we had several complaints about the site being written from an all-seeing, all-knowing point of view, with some believing it spoiled the games. We decided that it was almost impossible to avoid doing this in the gamespaces but that the Lore space would be an ideal place to write from a citizen's viewpoint. I'm well aware that most of the pages don't quite work like that at the moment; most focus has been on "finishing" the game pages (inasmuch as such a thing is possible). A few pages have been rewritten in the new style, however - [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3ADark_Brotherhood&diff=313090&oldid=313020 my edit] to the Dark Brotherhood page was intended to act as an example of how even the game sections of Lore pages can fit with the style. Since then, the article has grown and become much better through the additions made by people like Apophis2412 that have been made in the same style. In his case, opposing theories were presented with equal prominence, which is the correct way to write when there is disagreement.

As far as source material is concerned, I don't think anybody will be massively shocked when I say that I strenuously oppose the inclusion of sources from outside the games. My main reason for this is simply - where do you draw the line? Material that MK wrote in an official capacity for Bethesda? Material written by MK for fun? Material improvised by devs in a roleplay? What about somebody like Douglas Goodall? We [[General:Douglas_Goodall_Interview|know]] that he isn't a fan of the way things have developed so what if he wrote some lore that brings things back to his way of thinking? I know that's a hypothetical question, but it's one that is worth asking.

The "obscure texts" are material that, for whatever reason, has ''not'' been put in the games. Obviously, anything that appeared after SI came out can't really be included anywhere, but for the rest of it, it was available and yet not included for whatever reason. You say that the fact the in-game "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is half the size of the other means that we have to use the latter; I say that half the material was deliberately cut so we have to use the former.

The points you make about the games being internally inconsistent is a good one, but then we already know that they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon retconned]* once, with the Warp in the West, so I don't see that it's a deal breaker. There are things going on that your typical citizen of Tamriel doesn't know about, as I'm sure they'd admit.

::

* ''the irony of linking this particular post to a WP article flagged for containing original material has not escaped me.''

Let me give you another piece of history from the site. We've had several edit wars about the ranks of people in Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=190339&oldid=187427] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=202684&oldid=201953] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=207839&oldid=202712] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=220731&oldid=207842] for just four such examples on one page) The site policy on this is that we always use the values from the data files, which gives us a quick and easy way to decide any issue like this that comes up. By drawing an analogous line and saying that only texts that appear in the games (plus the PGE, which at least comes with them) can be used, questions about the legitimacy of material are answered easily.

This brings me to the last point - conclusions. There have been several cases where edits are presented as facts where they are actually extrapolation ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AKhajiit&diff=332997&oldid=332990] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AGods_A&diff=331035&oldid=320426] are two examples). This for me is the most disturbing trend in recent edits. If this kind of content appears regularly we're going to be lost in a wasteland of unverifiable pages that will undoubtedly be the subject of edit warring. Even having said that, there are instances where extrapolation ''can'' be acceptable. Lurlock recently [[Morrowind_talk:Camonna_Tong#Gap_in_the_Ranks|posted]] a theory to explain why there is a huge gap in the ranks in the Morrowind Camonna Tong, the basis for which is that there are people living in Vvardenfell (and Cyrodiil) that we don't see. In this case, it's pretty easy to prove. In the case of Oblivion, for example we have the [[Oblivion:Night Mother Rituals!|Night Mother Rituals]] edition of the Black Horse Courier being written by one Agnes Earheardt. Since no NPC in the game has that name there must be people we don't see - QED. On the other hand, his suggestion that the unseen people outnumber the seen by 50 times is just a guess. It's an informed guess and he gives his reasons for making it, but it's a guess nonetheless. Personally, my guess would be more like 75 times, but I'm not going to put that on an article either.

In conclusion, this is a potentially very exciting time for the site. The Lore section has always been the poor relation of the site and I'd love to see it spruced up, but not by including material of dubious veracity. In any case, all material should be supported with citations. Benould gave a [[User_talk:Temple-Zero#References|good example]] of how to do that, and it should happen with all these edits so people can find the supporting material quickly and easily.

–[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Just to follow up Rpeh's comments on source material, I am also opposed to the inclusion of non-game material. If we are going down the path of including everything that a developer (or whatever you want to call them) has said in a 'semi-official' capacity, where do you draw the line? For example, if you include Gary "Wormgod" Noonan's forum posts as 'official', do you also count the 'Morrowind Advanced' mod as official, because he wrote it? I would argue that, despite being written by a BethSoft developer, it is very much an unofficial mod as it is not officially supported and distributed by BethSoft. I would could forum posts and other 'semi-official' works in the same manner. Just because somebody who works for BethSoft happens to say something about something somewhere, it doesn't make it official. What if MK posted something along the lines of "Actually, Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon" - does that become official canon simply because MK said it? --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should concentrate less on determining what 'canon' means in the context of TES's "spaghetti lore" and more on the usefulness of this wiki. As the lore community — an important part of our audience — sees MK's views as taking precedence over in-game material as well as over material by other developers, we should edit the Lore section with this in mind. That is, we might want to write something to the effect of "source X says Y, Michael Kirkbride says Z" whenever such contradictions occur — and link to a "Michael Kirkbride" article where we explain that the lore community sees him as having a "privileged" status among the developers. If we simply ignore MK's forum posts/Obscure Texts (and by "ignore" I refer to not writing anything about it; I'm not referring to not treating it as the absolute truth), we will miss an important part of TES lore. Treating MK-Lore as absolute truth would be better than this in ''my'' opinion, but as it seems that a great deal of this wiki's editors are opposed to such an approach, we might find the compromise I've just presented as being a good solution instead. [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:If I had been asked about this a few days ago I would have probably been of the opinion not to consider these texts canon. I do not like Mk's texts very much and they're not a part of "my ES world". (The only one I really like is "Fall of Ald-Ruhn") However the recent discussion on this site has changed my opinon a bit: How much I may dislike them, they are still a part of the Elder Scrolls however and thus cannot be ignored. Since this site's goal is to be a major source of information about Elder Scrolls this site does not have the luxury to simply ignore them.

:Vallagar has some interesting points. We could of course add a section to each article dedicated to sources not found within the game. I'm saying that we don't add information coming from these outside texts to the main part of the article but rather devote a seperate section of the article to it. I'm also of the opinion that we must still seperate the dev-texts from the in-game sources but that we atleast allow people to find out what is inside them. Perhaps we can even put a disclaimer on the top of the lore page, explaining UESP's and the community's opinion on this and let the reader decide wether they want to consider it canon.

: I also agree with Sload when he says that this might be a great opportunity for UESP to improve it's lore section and thus make it a lore site comparable to TIL. On the other hand, one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints.

: The biggest problem I see at the moment with these outside texts is deciding what is a credible source and what is not. If we include MK's texts, do we also include Ken Rolston's texts about Caius Coscades? If we consider the RP: Trial of Vivec, a credible source, does that make Ted Peterson's RP's also a viable source of information? And what do we do about texts like these: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=754160&hl= and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=607899&hl= ??
:Are they lore or just a jest?

: Another problem is the very nature of Mk's texts. Texts like "Short life of Uriel Septim" or "On: Morrowind" are your standard historical texts. You can take information straight from the text and add it to the UESP article. They aren't much open to interpetation. MK's works (like "Sithis" or "The 36 sermons") are more of a theological nature. In some ways you can compare them to the Bible. The difference with normal texts is that can't take information straight from the article but have to interpete what the texts says.

:If the discussion on what is and what is not canon cannot be easliy decided then it might be an idea for UESP to make use of a system of canonicity levels like the Star Wars Franchise uses. See here for an example: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database

:[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 08:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)Apophis2412

:: To quote Apophsis2412: '''''one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints'''''
:: I think we need to be careful that we are not simply duplicating TIL - the UESP doesn't exist to simply regurgitate stuff that is found elsewhere on the web, but to fill its own niche. I think the above quote also answer's Valaggar's question about the usefulness of the wiki - UESP is viewed primarily as a 'gameplay hints' site, not a 'lore' site.
:: (Maybe we should have chosen something other than 'Lore' as the title for the moved 'Tamriel' domain, or even not bothered moving it)
:: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: True, but one must not forget that this site also has articles about lore that Til doesn't have, like our articles about all the factions (MW Great Houses for example), and the articles about important people (Vivec, Almalexia, Sotha Sil for example).
:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 09:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: First, I see a trend among all the responses above that I would like to reply to. You are all coming to the same set of concerns from a variety of angles, whether questions of style or 'UESP doesn't do lore.' You are very skeptical that we should consider the texts official and question our rationale for using them. Well, you have some valid concerns, but I have to ask you, is that enough to completely ignore them? Pretend they never existed and scrub the many insights they have provided from the sight and ban their discussion? This sounds like an extreme portrayal of the situation, but it is what you seem to be asking. Sload, Benould, and I argue that obscure texts should be acknowledged valid as citations, evidence, and sources. We don't ask that you put them on the site and grant them pride of place, only that they be given their intended status of aids to understand ES lore. When you respond to this pointing out the unclear semantics of the situation and possible slippery slopes and negative effects, you follow a course of reasoning that will only be satisfied by their complete and absolute banishment. Is this what you really want? If so, then you should probably contest our claims that you might as well not have a lore section, because we are indeadly earnest on that point.

::::Rpeh: That is an interesting post, because I can't really highlight any irreversible conflicts. Those are concerns, but not principled objections to the material itself. We are arguing for the basics here, and if your concerns are the qualifications we have to work with, then that's fine and dandy, because we're getting somewhere. But if we are to resolve this, then you're going to have to realize that some things are a little slippery for the rule of thumb, though everyone can submit to the rule of law. You all act like you fear the rabble that will tramp through the site if we relax these constrictions (there aren't enough of us to constitute a mob) and point to areas where trespasses may occur. Well, that's where admins come in, to separate the shades of grey, and from your reluctance, I'm beginning to think you aren't very optimistic about your chances. You have to use your judgment to draw the line, that is what you are there for. And it will be much easier when the editors are working for you, not against you. This is the messy part of the revolution, I hope. How you categorize the sources as does not matter, as you won't be including or describing them on the site. They will only be used as references, and you will be admirably placed to view the content and decide if it is a joke, or too vague. When you cite something on Uesp, you are not crediting a source, you are pointing to a point of information or insight within that source. Decide if that is valid, and nevermind the package. That doesn't matter, and it's downright ridiculous to complain about the confusion from obscure texts when the game's lore and internal continuity is more tangled up by far. The site seems to handle it all admirably, however. Maybe you just need someone as knowledgeable in lore as most of the admins are with the games.

::::And because I'm up to that part: "What happens if Ted Peterson says Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon?" Because Ted Peterson knows less about lore than Michael Kirkbride does. It seems to me the only reason official material is worthy of such respect is because of the convenience of copyright. In substance it is often less reliable, and needs to be rationalized and updated in other, unofficial contexts.

::::Valaggar has some good ideas, but I bet Rpeh would find them all lacking in terms of the requirements of the style guide. Well, I had read that quote he provided before, but assumed it meant something else, because I don't see uesp's posts as anything remotely like 'in-character.' In practice, it doesn't seem like a style so much as a guide of what to leave out. Console commands and easter egg notes have an exception? It seems like you are touting the objectives of a goal no one pays any heed towards fulfilling. But I can say that if you believe it is grounds to stifle all candidness about the origins of sources and conflicts in lore to the point of their being left out, consider this the first objection.

::::Apophis, I will try to answer your concerns. The beauty of the obscure texts is that they ARE unofficial. They are not sitting there in your face and asserting the authority of their canon truth. They are there as references, an invitation to explore the subject more closely. They ask that you view the content inside and judge that, not the format in its entirety. If Ted Peterson wrote a poem that was a joke about T Rex's getting it on and sprinkled it with the birth dates of all the Septim Emperors, some of the details would be worth examining. I wouldn't want to put it up next to some of the more serious texts, but it would still be there, informing our thinking. The writers own Tamriel, the company just owns the game. If you must categorize the different levels of non-canon lore, then gut it up and use your judgment.

::::Gaebrial, don't be a defeatist.

::::In conclusion, I don't think I ask for much. Right of footnote, essentially. I leave it to the admins to flood the lore section with prods, flags, and disclaimers if they want to. Linked articles on the nuances of the sources and prominent theories that cannot be drawn by a simple reading of explicit text? Analyses on bias, conflicts and retcons in the real world context of the subject? we can handle it. Resolving disputes is impossible when we differ on such a fundamental level. Meet me here, and I will work towards resolving any of the concerns you have brought up as they arrive. I can't work with you until we are working with the same material. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::If Lore is supposed to be as seen as by an average citizen, follow that thought for a second. The situation here reminds me of Temple dogma, which should be familiar to anyone who has played Morrowind. There is the Temple doctrine that described the situation and the death of Nerevar, the Apotheosis of the Almsivi, and most people were happy with that for 3000 years. There were dissenting voices that were tossed into the Ministry of Truth, or that went into hiding. There was also the oral tradition of the Ashlanders and the report of Sul, which were ridiculed. Although some of these diverging opinion existed in form of texts and books, they were hidden in the Secret Library, marked not safe for public consumption. When things got out of hand with Dagoth Ur, these very people and documents were needed to bring about a solution. The higher ranks were, begrudgingly, able to adjust to the new "truth", Vivec gave 3 different sources, and admitted to murder, yet the god Vivec did not. The clincher is. no-one believes you that Almalexia is dead after the Tribunal Main Quest, and that she went mad and killed Sotha Sil, even if this is clearly the case.

:::::I liken these afore mentioned "Obscure Texts" to the oral traditions of the Ashlanders, and the texts of the Dissident Priests, alternative views of history, that may very well prove crucial to the understandings, even if they're not accessible to the average citizen of Cyrodiil. In-game dogma ''only'' may not be sufficient, I believe the Obscure texts are a helpful addition, and they are sufficiently limited in scope, no flood gates needed. Anyways, I am glad we're taking this discussion now, Lore namespace will be better for it, one way or another. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 11:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Temple-Zero, I don't believe you've responded to any of my three points. To go through a paragraph at at time... First, Yes I do indeed think that anything outside the games should not be included for the reasons already stated. You obviously feel the obscure texts are worthy of consideration and I feel exactly the opposite. Material that hasn't appeared in the games shouldn't be used as a source because Bethesda haven't considered it worthy of inclusion. However, I obviously disagree with your point about killing the Lore section. I think it should be a section about Lore ''as it relates to the games'' whereas you're talking about opening it up to any other material. I don't believe that is an invalid choice. As others have stated, we're not trying to create a duplicate of TIL.
::::::Second, "that's where admins come in"? I've been trying to keep the more speculative material off the site and haven't exactly had a very nice response. I'm not complaining about confusion from the obscure text, I'm saying there will be confusion about what is acceptable and what isn't and there's only one way to resolve that.
::::::Paragraph three... I don't know what it means. That quote isn't what Gaebrial wrote so I'm not sure how it fits. However, you've inadvertently proved my point - you seem to say that if Ted Peterson says something that contradicts Michael Kirkbride then we should ignore the former. In other words, you're picking and choosing from source material based on your beliefs. That is exactly my problem with including material not from the games.
::::::Fourth, I admitted that the Lore space isn't right in terms of style at the moment but I'm darn sure there aren't any console codes or easter eggs in that namespace. If you've found some then, to use an expression of yours, delete with extreme prejudice!
::::::Fifth, Valaggar's suggestion is interesting but it's not a solution as it simply moves the problem to another place. If such a system was used I would give any of the current obscure texts the lowest possible "reliability" score whereas you seem to regard them as just as reliable a source as the in-game books. So instead of reverting each others textual edits we end up reverting each others scores.
::::::Sixth, it's the willingness to include anything at all that I find disturbing. A joke about T Rex should be treated as just that and it should only "inform our thinking" insofar as it shows what a funny guy Ted Peterson is.
::::::So that's my position: No non-game material. It just isn't going to work. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

To comment on the qeustion what would happen when Ted Peterson would declare Vivec to be love child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon. The Imperial Library has always used the following standard for the obscure texts. They must be verifiably written by a developer and they must be in character. The latter is most important in this case because being written in character will take the dev-author out of the equation. At which point the fictional author will be patted on the back for cracking a great joke.

I'd put in right in place but this wiki style debate system doesn't make that easy.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===Nephele===
There have been multiple debates over the last week or so about what content belongs on UESP's articles, and in particular whether or not to include information from books that have never appeared in an Elder Scrolls game. Some of the other discussions have taken place at:
* [[Lore talk:Vivec (god)#Non-Canon Material - Hogithum Hall]]
* [[User talk:Temple-Zero]]
* The discussion previously at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]] has been moved here, as explained above
One term that's been used a few time is "canon", although in my opinion that seems overly dogmatic. I don't think we're trying to establish any universal standards -- the goal is only to establish guidelines for UESP. Other websites, in particular TIL and the Lore section of the Official Forums, will have their own standards and guidelines that are appropriate for their sites.

These are comments that I started writing a few days ago, so some of the ideas predate much of the other discussion. But I've also tried to update these comments based on what I've seen elsewhere, and in particular I've tried to incorporate other people's ideas and preferences into the proposed guidelines. I know it's long, so if you want, just skip to the [[#Proposed Guidelines|Proposed Guidelines]]. But the rest of includes a lot of rationale and responses to what's been said before.

====Background/Perspectives====

The basic problem here is, I believe, establishing what is "true" in the Elder Scrolls universe. The in-game content is not always sufficient to establish the facts: the content is not comprehensive, it's at times contradictory, and is also likely to contain mistakes (evidenced by changes in books between games, plus occasional obvious typos/mistakes, etc.). So do we limit UESP articles to incomplete (or possibly even incorrect) information? Or do we try to expand the articles to include additional information? And, if so, what additional information?

I think in most cases there is no single universally valid answer to the questions: whether it's that the developers wanted to give themselves "wiggle room" to incorporate future plot twists, or whether it's that they wanted a rich and complex mythos, the fact is that the Elder Scrolls literature contains contradictions. Ultimately, each fan is free to make his or her own decisions about which versions he or she likes most; each of the millions of fans will come up with an individualized storyline, whether or not a website says "this is the unique and official storyline."

There is a pretty wide variety of types of content that end up being used in the community as sources for lore. The first few that come to mind are:
# Content that has appeared in game, including content from books, notes, and dialogues.
# Pocket Guides to the Empire (PGE). They have not appeared in-game, but have been released as printed content purchased with (specific editions of) the game.
# Drafts of in-game content/PGE, some of which have been made available, for example on TIL.
# Other books written by the game developers (in particular Michael Kirkbride) that have been posted on TIL but have never appeared in-game.
# Articles written by librarians at TIL
# Discussions on forums between community members
Reliability is not guaranteed with any type of source -- even in-game content. But also it cannot all be considered equally valid or authoritative -- somewhere a line has to be drawn. UESP has tended to only include #1 and #2; the discussion is about whether some of the other types of content should also be used as sources for UESP articles.

Clearly these different types of sources are not all equally authoritative. But even what we mean by "authoritative" is subject to debate. When it comes to establishing the "true" facts about any topic, there are at least two different standards:
* What was the intended meaning when the information was originally written?
* What will be the interpretation in future Elder Scrolls games?
So we can ask, for example, "Who are the [[Lore:Nede|Nedes]]?" One way to try to reconcile the differing accounts is to turn to the people who wrote the information and find out what they meant at the time. However, we are also assuming that there will be future ES games, with new books some of which may provide new information about the Nedes, so we would like to not add information that ends up being proven wrong by future games. The basic paradox is that what will appear in future games is not necessarily consistent with the once-intended meaning.

Although the developers of any future Elder Scrolls games will presumably want to maintain continuity, they also want to (even have to) be given the creative freedom to come up with new, original ideas. Would any of us want to play TES5 if we could predict exactly what would happen in the game? New information will be added, some of which may intentionally diverge from what's previously been stated and some of which may accidentally diverge. Since Michael Kirkbride is no longer directly responsible for developing ES games, there is no guarantee that his perspective will be integrated into any new game. The lore added by Oblivion seems to confirm that the developers do not consider themselves 100% constrained by MK's vision of the lore. I think it's safe to assume that future games will feel more constrained by facts that have appeared in-game -- or at least they cannot undo what has previously appeared in a game. But I think anything else is subject to developer whim.

On the other hand, completely eliminating all out-of-game sources of information is very limiting. The person who originally wrote a given text is clearly qualified to provide useful information about the text. Was a particular word a typo? Was the text meant to be a joke, a metaphor, or a literal history? Was the text written independently from other texts on the topic or were the facts in the texts coordinated? Facts about the game's development cannot be changed by future game-writers (even if the facts are not taken into account when writing the new games). And some information that is currently only available out-of-game probably will be incorporated into the game in future. Writing articles ignoring those facts leads to inaccurate articles -- even while writing articles incorporating all out-of-game facts will also lead to inaccurate articles. We can't predict the future, so we can't know for sure what out-of-game information will become part of the games, but there are probably cases where we can be reasonably certain about what to expect.

This problem is not unique to Elder Scrolls games. Apophis2412 posted a very interesting link to [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon Star Wars' canon]. However, in the case of Star Wars, the person responsible for much of their lore (i.e., Lucas) owns the franchise, guaranteeing that his ideas will be honoured. Also, with the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database Holocron continuity database] there are some clear statements about will and will not allowed be in future Star Wars releases. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues are similar, and we do ultimately have to come up with some type of similar ranking -- whether it's explicitly stated, or whether each of has our own personal ranking.''

====Lore on UESP====

Decisions about what content gets added to UESP articles need to be based upon the characteristics of UESP: Who are UESP's readers? What content do the readers look for and expect to find on the site? What are the site's overall objectives? How will the wiki nature of the site affect article content? Therefore, what sources are used on UESP articles can not be decided based upon abstract principles. Also, since UESP and TIL are two different websites with different purposes, the content and guidelines on each site will reflect each site's purpose. The two sites should complement each other -- not contradict one another, but also not be identical to each other. So, what works best for TIL is not automatically appropriate for UESP.

UESP, for better or for worse, has tended to focus pretty much on what happens in the games. This has in part developed because we have been putting a lot more time into the game-specific versions of the site. Nevertheless, the majority of our readers are here to find out how to the play games and no matter how much we develop the Lore namespace, that is likely to remain true. Therefore, the Lore articles should be accessible to (and useful for) people who have only ever read one or two books (or perhaps even no books -- but are just trying to understand the story behind a quest line). They should also be accessible to people who have read every single book in-game, and are only now starting to reach out to the web to find out more about those books. These people are not the same audience as the typical TIL reader.

Taking into account readers' expectations is even more important on a wiki than a typical website. If readers think information is missing from an article, they'll end up trying to add it to the article -- no matter what the site's guidelines say, no matter what's on the talk page. While patrollers or other editors can then undo inappropriate edits, it is still best for everyone concerned to try to come up with guidelines and content that will meet readers' expectations from the beginning.

Another factor is the overall content hosted on UESP. We only host the books that have appeared in the game (or with the game, in the case of PGE) and I doubt that is going to change in the near future; the out-of-game books only appear on TIL. UESP should not ignore information just because it's not hosted on the site, but nevertheless what is present on the site shapes the site. One goal for the Lore section is to add full links to all of the books on the site: someone reading one of the books should be able to easily jump to more complete information about anything discussed in the book. Therefore, a top priority is to make sure that all of the topics covered by the in-game books are documented. It's also important that the summary articles be designed with that use in mind. Many (if not most) readers are likely to pull up a summary article after reading a related book, and therefore the summary article has to acknowledge all of the related books. We can't just decide that Book X is all incorrect and therefore refuse to include any facts from Book X in articles, because we will have readers who have only ever read Book X and therefore expect to see that information in articles. Instead, we have to include any "false" facts, but then explain (no matter how briefly) why the facts are false.

In other words, UESP's overall focus on game content inevitably means that UESP's Lore section has to place a higher priority on in-game books than out-of-game books. Places such as Hogithum Hall are not a priority for UESP -- the place is never mentioned anywhere in the game, therefore people whose only ES experience comes from the games will never do a search on UESP for Hogithum Hall. On the other hand, [[Lore:Ius, Animal God|Ius, Animal God]] is a priority for UESP. Whether or not Ius was a joke, Daggerfall readers are going to encounter this book; they are going to do searches for Ius. So we need to have an article on Ius, even if Ius is not truly considered to be part of the lore. We need to include Ius on pages such as [[Lore:Gods I]] and [[Lore:Gods by Pantheon]] because readers who have read the in-game book will expect to see Ius listed there (for example, someone who read the book a week ago and now wants to find it again, but only remembers it was something about an animal god -- that reader will expect to be able to find Ius if they scan through a list of the known gods). In that context, what is or is not in the game provides a very real set of guidelines for what readers will expect to find on UESP, and therefore for what the editors of UESP should try to make available.

As a semi-aside, I also wanted to squeeze in a response to one point made in other discussions. Yes, Kirkbride's work can be considered a unified work of literature. However, that does not automatically mean that UESP's purpose should be to document Kirkbride's literary vision. I am quite sure that the vast majority of UESP's readers have never heard of Kirkbride; I myself only began to realize his role in the games' development and lore within the last year. In other words, to most readers on the site, he is only relevant to the extent that what he has written appears in the game -- and therefore to those readers what he has written outside of the game is not relevant. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, the site's articles still need to be written so they make sense to such readers. Therefore, the logistical reality is that out-of-game content included because it fits into Kirkbride's overall vision needs to always be accompanied by some explanation of why the information is relevant. You cannot just assume that "Kirkbride said X" is a sufficient explanation for readers -- although "the game Daggerfall said X" is a sufficient explanation, given the site's focus on documenting games.

On the other hand, UESP's readers clearly also include people who are knowledgeable in Lore. The new editors whose interest in the Lore section precipitated these discussions are also readers (welcome everyone!), whose interests and expectations should be accomodated by the site. They should be able to use UESP as a useful reference tool. If we don't make our articles useful to all sections of the community, then the likely alternative is that people who are knowledgeable in Lore will find another website where their views can be summarized (since TIL is not a wiki and is not set up for community-written summary articles). That would lead to unnecessary fractures within the community, not to mention duplicated effort. In general, the biggest limitation to a wiki's content is manpower: finding editors who are willing to take the time to write new content. Therefore new content, backed by new editors who are willing to continue adding new content, should only be disallowed if the content clearly diminishes the site's quality and usefulness.

Also, readers fundamentally come to a game website to learn information about the game that they could not figure out in-game. If someone was solely interested in reading the in-game books, that person wouldn't really need a website. People turn to websites to find out what else is known and what else is available. Although our articles should prioritize and organize the available information on a topic, we shouldn't censor relevant information. Why not let our readers have access to everything that is known about the topic, and let each reader decide for himself/herself which sections to read and which theories to believe. Note, however, than providing access to all the information does not imply that the articles should be undifferentiated information dumps. Well-written and well-edited articles make value judgments about which information is most useful, in part by deciding what type of "access" is appropriate for that information: direct quotation of a text; paraphrasing a text; mentioning a few key differences about a text; adding a link to the text in the "See Also" section; adding a link to a discussion that mentions the text; etc.

====Proposed Guidelines====
The following are some strawman guidelines. These can hopefully be used as a starting point to come up with a set of guidelines to which everyone can agree.
* '''Multi-topic articles''' such as [[Lore:People_A]], [[Lore:Dictionary A]], and [[Lore:First Era]] should not contain any information from out-of-game sources, and also should not contain any controversial points.
** Basically, any article that contains snippets about multiple different topics should stick to basic, universally accepted facts about those topics.
** If there are any facts that need additional explaining, then the topic needs to have its own article (e.g., [[Lore:Vivec (god)]] instead of just a snippet on [[Lore:Gods_V]]).
** This is in part just a logistical issue. Having references appear on multi-topic pages is awkward. Discussions about a topic belong on that topic's discussion page, rather than on a multi-topic talk page. It's not an attempt to limit what's covered overall on the site -- just a question of where the content belongs.
* '''In-game sources''' (including PGE) should be the primary focus of articles, including summarizing those books and explaining the meaning of those books.
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has been '''written by a game developer''' can be used as a source for UESP articles.
** This includes additional books, drafts of in-game books, developer interviews, etc.
** Any information derived from out-of-game content must have a reference. The reference needs to include a link to the out-of-game content. I think it would also be useful to include some standard phrase in all out-of-game references (e.g., "Out-of-game content") that links to an explanation of the relevance (including limitations, pitfalls, reservations, etc.) of out-of-game content. A disclaimer, in other words.
** Out-of-game content should only be used when it helps to explain in-game content. This is a somewhat subjective limitation, but I don't think that UESP needs to start documenting every fact mentioned in out-of-game content.
*** Or, alternatively, out-of-game content should be included (i.e., a summary of the content, or details quoted from the content) only when it is necessary to prevent UESP articles from ''contradicting'' the accepted lore. Emphasis on contradicting: it must not just be that UESP's information would otherwise be incomplete.
** In cases where UESP's information is incomplete (instead of contradictory), a link to the out-of-game content can be included in the notes section of an article, instead of summarizing or quoting the content in the article. This makes the content available to only those readers who are interested. The note would be fairly minimal, e.g., "Other sources that describe Vivec include: Book X, Book Y".
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has '''''not'' been written by a game developer''' in general does not belong in UESP articles.
** Talk page discussions can link to any content. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information is relevant to the article, then it can be added to the article -- but the talk page discussion needs to happen first.
* '''Original research''' should be avoided in UESP articles.
** Original research is a core principle of wikipedia, reflecting that the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is to summarize what's already known, rather than to come up with new information.
** The implication is that even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material, not just an editor's forum post, for example).
** Exceptions to this rule may be possible, but those exceptions need to be discussed on the talk page. If everyone on the talk page can agree that the inferred conclusion is indeed logical and valid, then it can be added. In some cases, everyone may find a watered-down version of the statement acceptable. But a consensus has to be reached before original research belongs in an article.

Given the level of disagreement so far, I think it may be best to start by just seeing whether there are any ''strong'' objections to any of these points. If anyone has a disagreement, your comments will be more useful if you can state what specifically is problematic about the guideline ''and'' come up with a modified version of the guideline that you would find acceptable. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==== Hear, hear ====

What objections I have to the main points are in large part assuaged by the details, and possibilities for exception and discussion. This is the sort of thing I was looking for. (-An approving Temple-Zero, clothed in an anonymous IP address)[[User:24.97.239.147|24.97.239.147]] 18:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Proposal (Sload)===

*'''Multi-topic articles''' should be handled differently. Alphabetical directories are, for the most part, useless due to their incredibly low singal-to-noise-ratio.
:*Multi-topic articles like "List of Emperors of the Third Empire" would be useful, as there is not enough to say about these people otherwise. I'm trying to think of a similar example in which we know enough about a group of people to make a list.
:*Otherwise, they should link to something relevant to that person. Going off People A, Ada'Soom Dir-Kamal is a redirect to Kamal, Agnorith to List of Emperors of the Third Empire#Kintyra II, Akorithi and Aubk-i to Warp of the West.
:*Authors should link to their work. Authors of multiple books, such as Waughin Jarth, should be a disambuguation page saying "Waughin Jarth is the author of..."
:*If a character could be filed under multiple topics, but is not significant enough to deserve their own page, discussion should be held to decide how that situation is handled.
*'''In-game and out-of-game sources''' are the same thing and should not be treated differently. Out-of-game lore is significant to our understanding of lore and ''absolutely cannot under any circumstances be ignored.''
:*This includes anything by any of the seven people mentioned in my first essay, especially Ted Peterson and Michael Kirkbride.
:*Any information must have a reference to its source, whether a UESP book, a TIL obscure text, a forum post by one of the seven above. If an obscure text is still included in TESF's archive, its original post, rather than its TIL copy, is preferable.
:*No reference to whether a source is out-of-game is necessary. This suggests doubt in the source. Further, all out-of-game sources will be obvious by their location; that is, not at UESP.
:*Content, whether in-game or out-of-game, is not always relevant. For example, though MK has told a wonderful story about guars in southern Morrowind being striped, guars are not significant enough ''in lore'' that they deserve their own page to hold that information, and it isn't significant to an article about the province of Morrowind. Similarly, in-game books which are just stories about otherwise non-characters, like ''Banker's Bet'' or one of the countless others, do not contain significant information, and the UESP need not catalog their characters.
:*Note on roleplays: In a roleplay in which a developer participated in, only their contributions are canon. This especially applies to the Trial of Vivec. Ted Peterson participated in Loranna's RP, but as I understand its only significant details were made canon by the third pocket guide.
*'''Fan works''' should not be included in the UESP by any stretch of the imagination, such as "monkeytruth" like Albides' "Orc Creation Myth." Though these have a place in the community, they are not canon lore.
*'''Original research''' is unacceptable by all stretches of the imagination.
:*Exceptions are certainly possible for certain widely accepted but not confirmed interpretations of especially difficult works. Adventurous Putty's interpretation of the Tsaesci Creation Myth comes to mind. They should be clearly refered to as non-canon interpretations, reflecting their status.

I have provided an example article, a revision of Tsaesci, [[User:Sload/Tsaesci|here]]. It covers everything a wouldbe loremaster should know about them, their basic history, the confoundingness of their creation myth, Putty's interpretation, and the conflict with the Pale Pass quest, which Kirkbride was adamant about.

I intend to argue in favor of this counter proposal soon. UESP has so much to gain and so little to lose. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 00:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with almost all of Nephele's suggestions, but I'm still opposed to the inclusion of "Out-of-game content that has been written by a game developer". If such material material was written while the developer was at Bethesda then it is material that has been excluded deliberately; if it was written after they had left the company then it has the same status as fanfiction. Those in favour of including this material claim it's essential in making other information clear and unambiguous. I say that if in-game Lore is confusing it's because that's how Bethesda want it for their own purposes.
::Having said all that, Nephele's suggestion for differentiating between in- and out-of-game material is a good start towards a compromise. I would accept the inclusion of unofficial sources if they were referred to in a separate section of a page. So, the article on Vivec (god) might have a section at the bottom of "Other Theories" (or something similar) and then go on to mention the forum roleplay about Hogithum Hall, making clear that the material is not from the games.
::If that doesn't sound like much of a compromise, I'd remind the reader that my preferred solution is to ignore unofficial material entirely. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The way to keep saying that they were excluded is oversimplified and inaccurate, and I think you know it. Lore is meant to be complex and confusing, but understandable. The obscure texts are the only thing that make it so, in many cases. They are necessary in large part because animators aren't fantasy artists, and the realities of game design in a chaotic corporate setting can wreak havoc on a simple piece of concept art, much less the more complex details of Nirn.
:::But I will say that when you hold an absolute position, you can't expect much of a compromise.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Not at all. I've put forward the two options that I see. If you have a third explanation I'd be happy to read it. And I have suggested a compromise. I'd also be happy to hear your response to it. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some overdue feedback on some specifics from Sload's comments:
:::::*I was not trying to single out out-of-game sources and say that we only want references for out-of-game sources. We also want to add comprehensive references for in-game sources.
::::::However, in-game sources are not identical to out-of-game sources. If nothing else, there is the logistical reality that in-game sources are hosted on UESP and out-of-game sources are not. It's perhaps minor, but yet very relevant for how UESP treats the articles. Most importantly, it means that UESP readers and UESP editors can usually find in-game content easily, for example using UESP's search function. Therefore, if an in-game source is missing a reference, it is reasonable to expect that patrollers or other editors can identify the source.
::::::On the other hand, finding out-of-game sources is not so easy. Many of UESP's editors and readers are not familiar with the sites that host out-of-game sources. Google searches are not reliable: most searches will come up with countless non-ES hits; critical ES sites are excluded from Google (Bethesda explicitly requests that its site not be indexed by search engines, so any content hosted by Bethesda or found anywhere in the official forums cannot be found using Google). Finally, an important characteristic of many out-of-game sources is that there are multiple versions: whether the out-of-game source is an early draft of something that appeared in game, or whether it's something that was first posted on the forums, and has now been copied to TIL. So simply saying "Source: Where were you when the dragon broke" is not sufficient -- a reference needs to be an explicit link to the exact text.
::::::All of this means, to me, that extra emphasis is needed on making sure that content from out-of-game sources is accompanied by a proper reference. In most cases, that reference has to be provided by the original contributor. That's the only person who knows for sure which book and even which version of the book he/she was reading; that person should already have at hand a link to the book that was used while compiling the UESP article.
:::::* Sload's suggestion that we eliminate the alphabetical lists such as [[Lore:People_A]], etc. has merit. However, it is really a separate issue from that being discussed here -- and I think we have enough on our plates with the issue at hand. Whatever we do with the alphabetical lists, there will still be summary lists on the site -- [[Lore:Third Era]], for example. And there will still be summary sections of articles that appear elsewhere -- the introductory blurb from [[Lore:Khajiit]] that appears on [[Oblivion:Khajiit]] and [[Morrowind:Khajiit]], for example. So as part of this discussion, we still need to decide what content can appear in such summary discussions -- as proven by the discussion that [[#Why my proposal is different|subsequently erupted]]. So I think it should be tabled for now.
:::::--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 12:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Counter Proposal===
Having read and considered the various arguments, I feel I am willing to shift my position from my earlier posts. Apologies if this is just repeating or reiterating things that have been said above.

====An Important Fact====
'''Without the Elder Scrolls games, the entire Lore of Tamriel would not exist outside the minds of a small group of people in Maryland.'''

Is there anybody who does not agree with this (geography notwithstanding)?

Given that Fact, I think it is perfectly logical to focus on the in-game material in preference to, but not to the exclusion of, other material. Personally, I would place lore material in one of four categories:

1. In-Game References. These have to be the starting point. The Lore is based on the Game, so the Game must take priority when discussing the Lore.

2. Other BethSoft Material. By this I mean out-of-game material produced by an individual (or individuals) ''in their capacity as a BethSoft employee''. This can support, expand upon, clarify, or contradict in-game references. One obvious example here is the PGE, but I would also include here interview responses and works such as the books written by MK ''in his capacity as a BethSoft employee''.

3. Other Developer Material. By this I mean other material that is produced by individuals who have been involved in the development of the Elder Scrolls world, but which was not produced in any official capacity. Here, I would include those works by both Kirkbride and Goodall, for example, that were produced after they ceased to be involved in Elder Scrolls development. I would also include in this section RPs such as Hogithum Hall, as the involvement of developers in a RP on the official forums does tend to give it a kind of 'semi-official' status.

4. Non-developer material. Stuff created by fans, including fanfiction and RP, as well as interpretations of various aspects of Lore. These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles.

My preference and my suggestion is for Lore pages to be organised along the lines of the following template:

First, a summary section describing the subject as it is defined within the games. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this summary should only include category 1 material (in-game references). Where the subject is listed on multi-topic articles, this summary could be transcluded, with a 'see article for more details' line (as is done with a number of articles currently).

Second, one or more sections expanding upon the details contained in the summary. This should focus on category 1 material, but can also include category 2 material where such material ''expands upon or clarifies'' the category 1 material.

Third, a section summarising other category 2 material, such as that material that directly contradicts category 1 material, with links to the original source. I don't see any need to go into too much detail - those who are interested can click on the supplied links.

Fourth, a 'Notes' or 'See Also' section with links to any category 2 material that is relevant but which is not required to provide a complete description of the subject. So, category 2 material that merely supports and reinforces the category 1 material should go here. ''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here.

Any disputed material should be discussed on the relevant talk page, to come to some sort of consensus about (a) whether it should be included, and (b) where and how it should be added to the article. And the key word here is '''consensus'''.

Finally, not everybody here is a Loremaster, so if the 'canonicity' of material added by a Loremaster is disputed, the onus should be on the Loremaster to provide the necessary links and references to prove the validity of the material. It's the same for Lore articles as it is for other pages on the site - if somebody else disputes your edit, it is up to you to provide evidence that your edit was correct and valid.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 10:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT) (forgot to login)

: That's the kind of solution I was trying to describe above, but Gaebrial has done it more clearly and with more detail - thanks. I can support this compromise as I think it's the best of both worlds. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind. For example the absence of the legions, the counselors, the ban on levitation and other such things should be taken with a fair amount of skepticism because they're products of a games development, not so much of world. Though if in-game material takes preference it will be impossible to argue against this because #1 makes the game the most important source.

:: There should be no distinction between the in-game sources, out-of-game sources, interviews and obscure texts. Their value should be argued on the merits of the actual writing in Tamriel and not it's origins outside of Tamriel. If not, it's possible to say that books such as 'The Amulet of Kings' which don't even make sense historically are more reliable then say the Nu-Mantia intercept which resolves most consistency issue's around the Amulet of Kings.

:: Any sort of tiered system will have these problems whenever a lower-graded texts conflicts with higher-graded material while being more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting then the higher=graded material.

:: Putting the Onus on the lore master using the obscure text somewhat negates the whole point of this discussion because rather then deciding now how to handle the obscure text it gets redirected to a hundred different places.

:: Although it is good practice to source all information, the onus shouldn't just fall on the lore master but anybody who adds or corrects or removes information. [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 06:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:::Taking the above a point at a time...
:::-''The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind.''
:::But without the games there would not be an 'image of Tamriel'. Without the games, we would not be having this discussion.
:::-''(rest of paragraph 1)'' (I won't repeat it in its entirety)
:::The removal of spells (for example) has been largely explained away by the passing of laws. Yes, it's a cop-out to explain limitations brought about by the game engine or they way they have coded the world, and this could probably be mentioned as such on those pages comparing the games (e.g. levitation being removed from Oblivion because of the way the cities were created). However, on the ''Lore'' pages, the laws banning the use of certain spells (Passwall and Levitate are the two that spring to mind) are what should be mentioned - we shouldn't be stating that the Levitate spell was removed from Oblivion on the ''Lore'' page, but that the Levitate spell was banned by the relevant Act. I'm not sure how else you would handle these things, but if you've got any specific ideas, I'd be happy to hear them.
:::-''Paragraph 2''
:::Under what criteria is the Nu-Mantia intercept classed as official? Simply because it was written by MK? Did he write it as an Elder Scrolls developer, or as a private individual? What was its purpose? If we can prove that it was written to be an official Elder Scrolls document, then we can use it more or less as a 'primary' source (category 2 above). If we can't prove this, it has to remain as 'semi-official' (category 3), and should be noted accordingly in any article.
:::-Paragraph 3 - ''more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting''
:::Not to mention less official.
:::Incidentally, I don't see a tiered system as causing problems, as long as it is made clear that one exists, why it exists, and why a particular text is treated as more 'reliable' than another.
:::-''Paragraph 4''
:::I'm not sure I understand your point here.
:::-''Paragraph 5''
:::I agree. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was isolating Loremasters in particular. Anybody who makes an edit that is subsequently challenged must provide evidence that their edit was correct.

:::As I said before, the whole point about disputed material is '''consensus'''. If the ''consensus'' is that a particular text is not official and should not be mentioned in an article, then it doesn't get mentioned. If certain people want to include that text, they need to give reasons why it is official enough to be included, and if the ''consensus'' changes based on their reasons, then the text can be included.

:::I would also like to introduce another 'c' word - '''compromise'''. I think that 'traditionalists' in the community who would rather not use ''any'' out-of-game resources have, in general, shifted their position to one of compromise. I don't think I've seen any movement in the positions of the 'loremasters' - the message I'm getting is "we'll keep arguing our point until you come around to our way of thinking".
:::--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No compromise in the "Loremaster Camp?" What? What you meant was "we'll keep arguing our point until you actually read our posts." I've been making mewling noises over compromise for pages now. Do you think I co-authored Sload's proposal? Obviously I prefer it, but I liked Nephele's as well. I may be mistaken, but that applies to older users who want to see things change as well.
::::(And Nu-Mantia wasn't written by MK alone, and it really needs to be taken as truth because without it, Oblivion's plot doesn't make a lick of sense and is crazier than Sheogorath's cheese fetish and worse than the Eragon movie)[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I have read your posts. All of them. And the comments you have made on your edits. I have also read the comments on your user page. Your attitude comes across as "I'm a Loremaster, so you should let me add what I want to add to the Lore section in the way that I want, without questioning it". I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how it appears.

::::: As Sload said on your user page: ''I believe that paw-prints can change this if you will only let him. I implore all parties involved not to let this chance to create a wonderful encyclopedia of lore slip through their fingers.'' I think that most members of this community would welcome any move to improve the site's content, but you have to abide by the guidelines that are in place, that underpin and structure the site. That is, this site focuses on and emphasises the in-game content above any other. If you wish to argue that the in-game content is clarified and explained by certain out-of-game content, then fine, but that is how it should be described on the UESP - it should not be given equal billing to in-game content because '''the focus of this site is on in-game content'''.

::::: <big>'''''If you're happy with the proposals, why are we still arguing about things?'''''</big>

::::: By the way, I've read Nu-Mantia, and B's analysis/interpretation of it. I agree that it explains inconsistencies surrounding Chim el-Adabal*, and I've previously heard the theory that everything the 'hero' has done so far in the ES games has weakened the barriers between Mundus and Oblivion. However, the fact that it nicely explains everything and was written (or largely written) by MK doesn't make it an official source, and therefore it should not be given equal prominence with official sources. Is this so hard to understand and accept?

::::: <nowiki>*</nowiki> Apropos of nothing (as people like to say around here), Chim el-Adabal sounds interestingly Arabic. From what I can remember, '''''a'''l-Adabal'' means something like 'manners' or 'rules' - as in ''al-Adabal-Mufrad'' and ''al-Adabal-Shar'iyah''. Apologies to scholars if I've misremembered.

::::: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Why are we still arguing? You tell me (after you fix your font size, of course). I have largely stopped, except for one specific response 2000 words ago. But see, it doesn't matter how many of my comments you read when you persist in acting like they don't exist. ie, the 'why no compromise?' complaints, or this insufferable rehashing of 'not official,' which has been going on for the last week, and if you have read my posts, should seem counterproductive right now, so I won't respond further.
:::::I am still awaiting secondary comments from Sload and Nephele, thought I suppose in the meantime I will ask why. if you list categories 3 and 4, you never mention them in the body text, because it seems incomplete. Although it is also possible that 72 kilobytes of text (as my browser warns me) is swimming before my eyes.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The font size was deliberate. I'm sorry that you think that saying something is 'not official' is insufferable. I don't think stating the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Accurate and Verifiable|site policy]] is counterproductive to a discussion about the contents of the site. However, I do agree that maybe we should step back and await comments from others.

I also agree that this discussion is getting a bit long and difficult to follow. To answer your question, I said "''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here." in the fourth section of my proposed template, and I said "These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles." of category 4 material.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 11:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'll be willing to try any compromise. Just don't make the hurdles so high that any inclusion of out-of-game material is a hassle. Having edited a lot of lore articles in recent days, I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources. Any time I read a gamebook, things jump out at me and scream to be included to support points and enrich pages. If everyone just did some of that when reading source books, I believe that our Lore pages will be in better shape shortly. If nothing else, the "filling the holes" outside material can give some clues on how things hang together, whether you agree with a particular source or not. The more we work on lore namespace, the better it gets. i know that's a truism, but it does apply. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

'''Gaebrial,''' I'll refrain from addressing each comment individually because I don't think there will be any end to this discussion if you keep repeating that the games are the most important source of information, while I say that they are also a flawed source of information and as such they shouldn't trump any other flawed source of information. So instead I'll comment on your largest objection against the obscure texts and the compromises you suggested.

Discussing the validity of a text every time it gets used is a waste of time. All Obscure texts have the same properties, they don't appear in the game and they are written in-character by a developer so they can all be decided about right now - which I garnered was the impression of this discussion.

You don't consider these text to be less reliable for only the reason that they don't appear in the game. However the games already use materials that are unreliable, contradictive and incomplete. So being in the game means nothing for their reliability. Yet texts that are written by the same developer, that clarify and expand existing concepts, are considered less reliable then the already contradictive, incomplete materials that happen to be in the game, how can that position ever hold? As such a tiered system of reliability based on a texts presence in or with the game is completely out of place.

Before Oblivion there was period where the devs posted freely on the forums and talked about Tamriel. They did this with understanding that their out of character posts would be taken as their uninformed opinion on the matter while in character posts could be considered as much part of lore as anything else. Their in character material was written with this in mind so it should not be considered any less reliable.

As such on ESF:Lore there is a consensus that they are accepted as equal to other materials. While I realize that the ESF:Lore isn't the UESPWiki but it is the source for most of the lore expertise so it should count for some.

While I would also love to reach a compromise,I do not see a middle any ground. Either the texts are used on an equal basis, or they are not. You might feel that offering to push back the debate to the actual articles is a compromise, it not only delays this debate and decision, it multiplies it in every article that it touches on! Just as a tiered system can not be seen as a compromise because the criteria used do not say anything about reliability.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 05:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:'''Proposal''' I just saw that rpeh posted on til summarizing this discussion as "it must just be flagged as it is" while not an accurate summary, it does seem like the thing everybody can accept.

:I don't think explicitly mentioning this is aethestically pleasing, but perhaps something can be done with the reference symbols. I don't know how the wiki works but stuff like [] or {} to mark the differences in source. Alternativly it can be completely ignored as the sources are listed at the bottom of the article anyway.

:06:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::Having had some discussions in a more efficient manner in other places I can see the use of this tiered system when it's used to facilitate the reader who may or may not be familiar with all the material rather then as a system to describe a sources accuracy.

::I reckon this proposal will work with the following change: The fourth section should be a full fledged explanation rather then a notes section because most of the texts in the 3th category are often too complex or too large to merely link too. The reader wouldn't see the forest for the trees.

::[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 07:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::: It looks like we can agree that ''some'' variant of Gaebrial's system can be used. It's clear that nobody's going to be 100% happy but if we can come up with a good system then maybe we can at least please most of the people most of the time.
::: To step back for a minute: any system is going to have to work for all the pages in all the ways they work. That means as standalone articles, as transclusions into alphabetical lists and as transclusions into game pages. As I see it, that means there will have to be a section, preferably at the top of the article, that tells the brief, in-game theory. Without wanting to be dogmatic, this is going to ''have'' to be the case because otherwise we're going to cause inordinate confusion to the site's readers, most of whom read the material through the game pages and who really aren't interested in the intricacies of the lore.
::: After that, the difference between the two viewpoints comes down to the prominence that can be given to non-game material. Do we have two different detailed sections - one without OOG lore and one with? Do we use Gaebrial's sections idea to lead to tiers of information?
::: If we can agree on an introductory section with '''no''' out-of-game material then I suppose I can agree to the inclusion of such material in a second section, but with a couple of caveats. First, all OOG material must be ''fully'' cited. That doesn't just mean a link to TIL - it means also describing the place and time that the source was first presented, meaning that people can judge for themselves whether or not they want to trust it. Secondly, only material that doesn't break the POV of the Lore space can be used. That means "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "Vehk's Teachings" would be acceptable but ''not'' interviews with developers.
::: On a personal note, I'd like to thank Proweler for joining the debate and being apparently agreeable to compromise. It looks like we can get things moving again now. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

=== A proposal ===

I could go through and give comments to the individual points, but bear with me for a second. After having followed the discussion above, my take is that the conflict boils down to this:

Both sides don't want to have their viewpoints of ''Lore'' diminished.

Let me try to explain this with an example of one of the greatest mysteries of the TES series, the "Disappearance of the Dwarves". We were given many clues, books, fragments, even quests, stumbled over mysterious ruins where machines and Animunculi still functioned. The debate over what happened to the Dwemer occupied players for many years.

As it stands now, the ES forum presents it as this: We know what happened to the Dwarves. (We're done with that, go away. ;))

The wiki mentions many clues, but not the answer.

If you're a player, would you just have the answer presented to you, a "cheat" so to speak? Would you not equally feel cheated if only clues were presented, if an answer exists? I propose that all in-game clues are presented, the scholars involved, Fyr, Yagrum Bagarn, Demnevanni etc. followed by

"Kagrenac was devoted to his people, and the Dwarves, despite what you may have read, were a pious lot-he would not have '''sacrificed so many of their golden souls to create Anumidum's metal body''' if it were all in the name of grand theater. Kagrenac had even built the tools needed to construct a Mantella, the
'''Crux of Transcendence'''." - Skeleton Man's Interview (my emphasis)

One without the other is either boring, or incomplete or false. We need both, the puzzle pieces and the accepted answer. I propose a peer-reviewed article incorporating the base principles suggested in Nephele's write-up, and then the other "sides" can see if they're satisfied. I feel the theoretical discussion has gone far enough, we need to see what such a new article looks like. After all, that's what the wiki offers to its users, articles. I shall attempt to write [[Lore:Disappearance of the Dwarves|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] as an outline of such an article, any help and critique is very welcome. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not going to post a full response right now because I'm hoping others will respond first, but I will say that if you're writing an article based on disputed material you should do it in a sandbox instead of the Lore space. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
With all the dirt flying and Benould's renovations, the Lore section IS a sandbox right now. /gigglesnort The sourcing and formatting refute present policies often enough, never mind what we decide here. No one seemed to mind when Martin's mother was listed as Gemile, and that family tree is bloody old. A new standard is and good, but bend all our stubs into knots over the scruples of it.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

=== Have your cake ===

An opportunity has been lost here.

I am not interested in dealing with the sort of people I will find here. I should have taken some good advice, this just isn't worth it.

Nephele, I greatly respect what I have seen from you and I would have liked to have known you. Temple-Zero and Benould, there is no point pursuing this further. Rpeh, I am sure you will be satisfied. UESP is defended against us fools who actually know what we're talking about.

Be seeing you. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 01:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
: This is exactly what Gaebrial meant when he talked about compromise. You are sticking rigidly to your view that there is no difference between in- and out-of-game texts and refuse to countenance any kind of distinction being made. If you won't move from that belief, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Discussion is about compromise and those of us who were opposed to ''any'' inclusion of unofficial texts have already made a big move in your direction.
: To portray me as "satisfied" that UESP has lost somebody who could have been a useful editor is utterly untrue, but you don't seem to have understood any of the comments above on the suitability of material, the nature of our readership or our willingness to compromise. I'm not sure that an editor so unwilling so listen to the community would find themselves at home here in any case. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::To clarify something; Sload made this edit only a few minutes after he had been discussing with Rpeh on IRC, which was basically a reiteration of what has been stated here. This has led me to believe that no compromise is being sought by Sload. I apologize to Nephele, Benould and Gaebrial in advance, I know you worked hard on compiling a good proposal, but I have to vote for not having out-of-game sources at all (or only be an exception). Had we agreed on a compromise I still think it wouldn't have made any difference on the discussion on individual pages. Both parties would still have end up having lengthy discussions on every controversial edit. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 04:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::What's Daveh's opinion? Just out of curiosity.
::: It would seem Sload is not alone in thinking that a compromise is not reachable. I looked at the discussion at Til and saw that other lore-guru's/masters/khans like Albides and Sload think that TES lore is not complete without the Obscure Texts. Their main argument seems to be that many holes in the in-game lore, holes that are filled up by the Obscure texts. Secondly many of the "higher mysteries" of TES (like the Dreamsleave, the Eantiamorph and Chim) are only briefly mentioned in the ingame books. We need the Obscure texts to explain them. Some, like Sload and Albides, have accused the people who came up with a compromise as either being biased or flat-out wrong. Others have thanked Nep~hele (and others) for coming up with a proposal for compromise, but have said that a compromise is still not an option.
::: The main question, that I haven't seen anyone here asking himself, is if these people are right. They do know more about lore then we do so who knows? Are the loremasters living in an ivory tower and do they fight about dogma like a bunch of die-hard Christian theologians or is what they say right? Discussions about these sort of topics have popped up at the ES forums from time to time and have generally not lasted long. The end result was always that the loremaster'stance was taken as being canon. (examples : http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=738606&hl=cult and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=855895&st=60&p=12524154&#entry12524154)

::: ''Encylopedias, such as UESP are built on objective truths. If solid proof isn't found, then subjective opinions such as yours can't go into them.''

:::The following qoute was postec on TIl by Michaelsuarez, a member of UESP. The TES lore, with it's many different and conflicting sources isn't much different from your standard historical discussion. Deciding which sources take precedence over others, combining sources to form theories, use new sources to overthrow older theories. In the scholarly field of history, these sort of things happen all the time. In history, unlike the natural sciences, all knowledge is subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.
::: Many people think that nationalism is one of the reasons the First World War started. Many people do not realize however is that this is not the absolute truth. It's just a subjective truth. A group of scholars interpeted the sources and were of the opinion that there was a connection between the two. There is evidence to support this theory, but unlike the natural sciences historical evidence can be interpeted in a number of different ways. An historian, using the same sources, can come to a radically different interpetation.
:::This is also the case with TES lore. The Dissapearance of the Dwarves, the Night Mother, Pelinal Whitestrake, the nature of the Daedra Lords, these things can't be taken directly from the source material, they must be interpeted and combined with different sources. The result is not an objective truth, but a subjective one. UESP is a source of subjective knowledge without maybe even knowing it. Take for example lore:Dark Brotherhood. The second theory about the formation of the DB is clearly wrong. It states that the DB was formed after the murder of the lats potentate (2e 421). There is however solid proof that the DB was already formed in 2e 358-360. I could add this to the article, but under the current guidelines that is not allowed, because it is my personal opinion, not solid fact.

::: I'm still in for a compromise, but I'm not sure if both sides seem to be ready for this.

:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 07:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

===A Rat’s Viewpoint===

Alright, I have been involved with these discussions to some extent, but I haven’t actually posted my opinion here. I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before I decided to charge into no-man’s land. I’ve actually been preparing these comments since before Sload posted his position. Once we attracted Temple-Zero I saw this conversation happening, though I am a bit surprised it came up early. I’m going to attempt to flush out the issues and then propose a compromise.

====The Facts====
# The Lore Community considers MK’s out of game writings to be canon. This is important because they are the experts on Lore. Their opinions matter.
#The UESP doesn’t have a license to MK’s out of game works, and since they are not truly part of a larger work, we’d need them. I have talked to a few people (not MK or Bethesda), and I can definitely see that there may be trouble getting the license. This is not a showstopper. We can link to TIL as necessary. This has its downsides, since we can’t control the material that’s on TIL, but it could fulfill the need for sources.
#If we get a lot of out-of-game sources, we need people that know the material. Right now, I only see one long term person (Benould). Temple-Zero has been around a bit, and I think he can be trusted to stay, but I’d rather see at least one more person.
#The Lore Section as it currently stands needs major help. It is nothing compared to either the Morrowind or the Oblivion section in terms of detail.
#We are not owned by Bethesda, though we do have an important relationship with them. It is in our best interest to not piss them off. This is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I think it needed to be said.

====My Positions====
#In general, in-game content needs to be preferred. Basically, if Akatosh appears and explained the Dragon Break differently in ESV, we’d accept that version even over MK’s objections. This does have its limits. We can’t count up the number of NPCs in the Imperial City and call that its lore population.
#MK and other Developer’s work can be accepted as expert testimony. In a void of information, their work can bridge gaps.
#We can’t split articles based on OOG info or not. That’s going to cause too many organizational difficulties.

====Proposal====
#We need to cite information, where it is in game or not. That means we need to investigate getting a citation add-on if we haven’t already. This is critical in expanding the Lore section due to conflicting view points that take place both in and out of the games. This obviously means both IG and OOG source will be included.
#Fan information does not belong on the wiki.

====Why my proposal is different====
I believe both Nephele’s and Gaebrial’s proposals lend themselves to problems with keeping IG and OOG sources separate. That’s going to take a lot of work on a section as big as Lore. It is different from Sload in that preference is given to the in game sources. Overall, I think it is a very workable solution that I hope can please everyone. That being said, if anyone wants to add anything to this, talk here, I'm willing to change some portions. -[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is a workable solution, if we can get consensus behind it. Whether to host or link is a separate discussion, let alone negotiations with the involved parities. I think (short) quotes and links will suffice. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm sorry but I can't support this. It looked like we were heading for a compromise but this seems to be a step back. As I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348967&oldid=348958 said] earlier we ''must'' have a section that contains ''no'' unofficial material so that the pages can be used in gamespaces. Anything else is not appropriate for the types of user we typically see on the site. I think the fact that one group of people has been ready to move so far in this debate has caused you to forget how strongly we feel. My preference is still for '''no''' OOG material at all but this proposal puts in-game and unofficial on almost the same level. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::For what it's worth (and I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion), ex-developper Douglas Goodall made the following statement in his [[General:Douglas Goodall Interview|interview]]: ''"Books that are actually published in one of the Elder Scrolls games have precedence over ramblings on the forums."''. I think he has a point there. Which is not to say we should be ignoring all non-game sources, but I do think it makes sense to keep material that is not game-sourced outside of the game namespaces. In other words, keep it in the Lore namespace only. That means that any material which gets transcluded onto gamespace pages should only include information seen in the games. However, the gamespace pages should have links back to the Lore namespace, where the other material can be seen. The reasons for this are the same as the reasons why we don't discuss the details of a Morrowind quest on an Oblivion page, even if it is somehow related. (E.g.: [[Oblivion:A Rat Problem]] and [[Morrowind:Exterminator (Fighters)]]. The pages link to eachother, but say very little - you want the whole story, go to the linked page.) The same should go for the Lore namespace and any of the game namespaces. Thus [[Morrowind:Vivec (god)]] should really be about Vivec ''as he relates to the game of Morrowind''. Any information about Vivec that does not relate to the game of Morrowind or which cannot be seen in any of the in-game sources should stay on [[Lore:Vivec (god)]]. This means that the first section of the Lore page, which is transcluded on the Morrowind page, needs to include only material seen in the game. Anything else should be in the non-included part of the article (and of course, properly sourced, but I think we've gone over that enough). --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 01:13, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wait, the sticking point is what part gets transcluded onto to OB game pages, Rpeh? Some fancy noinclude can handle that, right? (Editors note: Most Lore articles, at least in part, also appear on game pages; the multi-purpose part that Nephele mentioned earlier) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Noinclude tags aren't going to work when the text that needs to be excluded is inextricably merged into every paragraph in the article though. More than two or three pairs of noinclude tags will make the article impossible to edit. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:25, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: What part and how much of an article does the transclusion entail, anyways? If the topic is so obscure that oog lore is needed for a passable summary, what is it doing in the namespace? That 'probable reader' thing works both ways.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 01:32, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

(Outdent)But your main concern is that OOG is found in OB pages, right? I agree that the confusion would be big if OOG is sitting on an OB page. In case of Amulet of Kings, the OB article probably would have to be severed from Lore, but OB content is very mature at this point. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, just a few pages that won't be transcluded. I don't see this to be a show-stopper, either have separate pages, IFEQ or noincludes. OB shouldn't stop Lore from being acurate, OB should just be accurate to what's in the game, with links to the Lore article for those that are interested. OB articles wouldn't really deal with references anyways, the main sourcing there as in MW would be links. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 02:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree, more or less, with everybody. I can support Ratwar's proposal, with the modification mentioned by Rpeh & Lurlock - that where a Lore page is transcluded onto non-Lore pages, the bit that is transcluded must contain only information from 100% official, in-game, sources. The rest of the Lore article can contain information from out-of-game sources if required, as long as these sources (in fact, all sources) are properly referenced and cited.
: I also agree with TZ's point that if the topic of a Lore article is so obscure that it cannot be summarised without using out-of-game resources, it shouldn't be transcluded onto non-Lore pages. If there is a need for a game-namespace page on the same subject (e.g. Amulet of Kings), then as Benould says, the two articles should be kept separate, possibly with links in the game-namespace article to the Lore article 'for further information' for those who are interested in such.
: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 02:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think the two-page idea is quite right. Nearly, but not quite. In the case of the Amulet of Kings, the Oblivion article doesn't need to mention the unofficial material at all, but definitely benefits from some of the history surrounding the item. On the other hand the Lore page has got to mention the Oblivion version of the story to be a complete story of the... well... lore surrounding it. Whichever version of the story you want to believe, lore means "the body of knowledge, esp. of a traditional, anecdotal, or popular nature, on a particular subject" so to exclude one version of events would be a mistake.
:: It's worth saying that there are only a few pages where this will be an issue, but on those pages, I think we have to take the two sections approach. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 04:16, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't support any proposal to change lore pages so that they fit in the other namespaces, or as the case is here, not improve the lore pages so that they fit into the gamespaces. I am fine with a two page idea, but I think the separating the page into sections is a recipe for an organizational nightmare. New editors aren't going to know the rules since it isn't obvious. With two pages, the game information only part (which I currently think should be a subpage of the main Lore article) could have messages explaining its existence. Doing this on regular pages would simply cause more confusion.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 19:41, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::::How many pages are we talking about here? [[Oblivion:Mannimarco]] is severed from Lore, Akatosh redirects to [[Oblivion:Nine Divines]], [[Oblivion:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]] transcludes. Is there any other conflicting stuff that does get transcluded into the Oblivion gamespace, since that's where the big pot-holes are, that the OOG content is attempting to fill. I hope we're not squabbling over a non-existing problem, or one that is very minor. Can a tech-savvy person please make a list and get us an overview? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:06, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::As I've said before, the lore section is chaotic and incomplete right now. The style guide is often ignored, and there are obscure text links in there that have nothing to do with this debate. If we limit any new standards to future edits regarding oog lore, and those subject to case-by-case review, is there that much of a problem?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 21:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nobody is claiming the Lore space is anything but a mess at the moment, but it doesn't need unofficial material to fix the problem. This proposal seems to have got back to treating unofficial material the same as official, and as such I don't support it. In general, I'm not going to support any proposal that doesn't make a clear distinction between official and unofficial material. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You mean besides the external link icon and the linkt hat opens a new tab, bringing you to a page with a proper disclaimer?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

(outdent) Although there are technical issues related to references in introductory material, in my opinion this fundamentally just comes down to good writing style. Any encyclopedia-style article should start with broad, general-interest information -- basic facts that everyone takes for granted. The first sentence of an article is the one sentence that all readers are likely to read, therefore it should be relevant to all readers; similarly, the first paragraph is the most-read paragraph; the first section is the most-read section. Knowledgeable readers may well only skim over the introduction, but readers who are completely new to the topic are likely to only read the introduction. So it should contain information that you're sure everyone wants to know.

In Elder Scrolls terms, this means that any well-written article will start with facts that are covered by nearly every book on the subject, or
at least is not contradicted by any book: facts upon which all readers and editors will agree, and facts which are the most fundamental to defining that topic. If it's information that everybody agrees upon, then it's invariably going to be content that is not based solely upon out-of-game books. It's also content that is unlikely to need any citations (in other words, multiple sources that are already referenced later in the article are all relevant, so listing them again would just be redundant).

That type of structure then naturally leads itself to the technical wiki details that have been discussed. Since the introductory content is universally accepted, it is equally relevant to Lore articles, summary articles, Oblivion articles, Morrowind articles, etc. And since references are not critical for supporting the information, we can get away without including the references on every page that uses the content. Overall, wiki styles were adopted to accomodate what naturally occurs in well-written articles: first, write the article; then, see how that article can be used on the wiki. If a well-written article really doesn't follow this pattern, then we shouldn't try to force it to fit -- and there are already examples where related articles are not transcluded copies of one another. But the majority of articles do fit this pattern, and therefore guidelines are developed that are appropriate for the majority of articles.

The length of any introductory, non-controversial, and therefore non-referenced content will vary widely from one article to another. In an article that is only five sentences long, the "introduction" might be the entire five sentences; or for an obscure topic, perhaps it would only be a single sentence distilling the only fact upon which everyone agrees. And no matter how controversial the topic, there has to always be some amount of basic content upon which everyone can agree ("The Amulet of Kings is a necklace worn by the Emperors of Cyrodiil"; "Direnni tower is a structure located on Isle of Balfiera"; "Numantia is an obscure word mentioned in religious texts such as Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes"). The introductory sentence(s)
should probably be in a separate paragraph from subsequent content -- but again for reasons of basic writing style. A transition from widely-known to more detailed information is generally significant enough to warrant a change of paragraphs.

As the article gets longer, the introductory content will also be longer. For page-length articles, it might be one or two paragraphs in length. Or in
lengthy articles, the introduction might be its own section, separated from the rest of the article by a level-two header.

As a result, I'm not really sure why the concept that articles should start by covering content from in-game books is so controversial. If you'd rather think of it as starting with content common to all books (in-game and out-of-game), then so be it; the result is still the same. (If the absolutely only mention of a topic is in out-of-game books, then it's arguable whether the topic needs an article on UESP; in any case, such articles will be the exception, not the rule.) As long as contributors place their articles' content in a logical order, then other editors on the site can work out the technical details (e.g., where to place a noinclude tag, whether to transclude the article).

:(Quick technical points in response to Ratwar:
:* We don't need to host any of the content; all that's necessary is that links to the content be included in articles. Licensing is therefore not relevant to the question of what should or should not be discussed in articles.
:* We already have a citation/reference extension that has been installed on thesite, and is being used widely in any revisions made to the Lore page. At some point we may need to discuss some details of the specific format used for references but, again, that's really not relevant to the immediate issues at hand.)

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 12:45, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

=== Resolution? ===
Debate seems to have stopped. How is this question resolved? A decision of all the admins? A proposal to the community? It's time to make a decision. I support Ratwar's proposal as it does not share the fatal flaws of some others, which would split sources and make the criteria for citations too byzantine and arguable to be easily navigated by users who aren't very familiar with the site. This would handicap the rejuvenation of the lore section and besides, it is the place of uesp to present a comprehensive picture of everything that is Elder Scrolls. This is the UNOFFICIAL Elder Scrolls Site, it is not the place to make such judgements over material. These resources are essential. Their use can have limits and qualifications, but forcing them into narrow categories and supporting roles overcomplicates editing and discourages their implementation. This makes any sort of obscure text editing difficult and clouds the true issue over their trustworthiness suitability to the topic.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 13:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Not only the debate has stopped. Any momentum that existed to improve the Lore namespace has stopped as well. What looked liked a consensus has been abandoned over posturing. I am disappointed. There may be no editors left to implement the changes that are so vigorously discussed above. "Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I have been absent from the internet as much as uesp lately. If we can get this resolved soon, then I am all for a (perhaps official) lore project.[[User:24.31.156.165|24.31.156.165]] 22:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT) Temple-Zero

:So we call a vote? Or just try and see where the ship goes? [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 12:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===We're not ready for guidelines...===
:''Preamble:'' This has been a long, difficult discussion, but ultimately I think it was necessary and for the best. It may also have been inevitable that it would be an intense discussion: the two groups contributing clearly have different perspectives, yet both are deeply invested in the Elder Scrolls community and therefore unlikely to just walk away or give up. These guidelines could not be developed without input from both groups (in other words, if these guidelines had been written two months ago, they would have had to be rewritten). Even if we can't yet finalize some guidelines, the discussion to date has been valuable: hopefully everyone has gained insights into the opposing perspectives. Or at least, it should be clear to everyone just how strongly held some of these beliefs are.

At this point, I don't think it is possible to reach a resolution; I don't see any workable compromise that will be acceptable to everyone involved right now. Progress was made and it seems like near-compromises were reached on some major issues -- but nevertheless multiple posts late in the discussion still include absolute negatives such as "I cannot support this." Furthermore, we've reached a stalemate. Not only the discussion has stalled; as pointed out by Benould it is also a major obstacle preventing any progress from being made on the Lore pages. I think part of the problem is that we've reached the limits of what can be accomplished through discussion. Most of this has essentially been theoretical arguments about what might happen, but with very few real examples to illustrate the points. We need practical arguments at this point. It's particularly imperative in this situation, given that the contributors have such different perspectives and, even more importantly, differing familiarity with the wiki and even each other. I'm willing to bet that this conversation is riddled with countless misunderstandings that are only exacerbating the problems: are we really all interpreting these proposals the same way? I know I'm not completely sure about the details of some proposals. The best way to clarify the proposals is to turn them into concrete examples. We need to see what happens in reality when we try to re-organize an article (is it possible to separate in-game content from out-of-game, or is it too awkward? Which specific obscure texts are relevant, in what context, and why?) Which means we need to get back to editing articles -- and I think we also all simply need a break from this discussion. Remind ourselves of why we even care about this discussion.

With that in mind, I'm basically going to suggest some ''temporary'' measures to break the stalemate, placing a top priority on simply making it possible for editors to get back to working on articles -- even if those articles are not written to a common set of guidelines. Towards that end, I think it's worth remembering a few fundamentals:
* [[UESPWiki:Content Over Style|Content Over Style]] is one of this wiki's guidelines. If disagreements about style (i.e., guidelines) are preventing content from being added to the site, then the process has gone very wrong. Any content added to the site can later be revised to meet a given set of guidelines, but creating the content in the first place may not be possible (especially if knowledgeable editors have been lost). Although this debate is not purely about style it has nevertheless resulting in stopping ''any'' content from being added to Lore articles.
* Any guidelines that are adopted are guidelines, not absolute rules. Exceptional cases may well exist where the guidelines do not work. The guidelines can not and should not be written to encompass those exceptions. Probably each exception needs to be considered on an individual basis, and that probably can't be done until a first draft of the article has been written. The guidelines should instead focus on the majority of articles. Guidelines should provide the standard way to tackle a situation, or the method that should always be tried first.
* Wiki decisions are never final. New contributors, new circumstances, or new content; any one of these can make it necessary to revisit any decision. In particular with a substantial issue like this, it is probably inevitable that any guidelines that are adopted will need to be tweaked -- whether we spend another day or whether we spend another year in discussions. Given that any conclusions are going to be temporary and imperfect, we shouldn't let this process drag on to the point where it prevents progress from being made.

And because I like to be long-winded ;), before getting to the real ideas, I'd like to share a few other perspectives that have crossed my mind.
* This discussion is not taking place on "neutral" territory, where TIL and UESP contributors on equal footing. Rather, it is taking place on UESP -- because it is about the standards to adopt for UESP content. The UESP contributors are undeniably more familiar with how the wiki works, how editors are likely to alter articles, and how UESP's readers are likely to react. The UESP contributors also have to live with the consequences of this discussion, no matter how it turns out; not only live with the consequences, but even enforce and maintain any standards. Therefore, expecting an impartial (or "fair"?) conclusion may not exactly be realistic.

* I doubt UESP will ever be an appropriate place to document every nuance of the lore. Nevertheless, I think that revamping the Lore articles on UESP will help the lore community nearly as much as it helps UESP. Several comments have suggested that UESP's articles will be most useful for "educating" newcomers to the lore discussions -- providing the fundamentals that are necessary before diving into the more advanced content discussed, for example, on TIL's forums. Also, UESP's articles can become a vital way to introduce new people to the lore -- but UESP's readers will only discover links to obscure texts if they are willing to the read the articles in the first place. If articles are not written at a level accessible to non-experts, then those non-experts will give up.
** A good analogy is perhaps to treat UESP articles as the equivalent of an introductory college Physics class ("Physics 101"). Such a class focuses on over-simplified but widely accepted concepts (Newtonian laws of motion; conservation of mass; events are predictable not random). It might mention advanced theories (Einstein and relativism; quantum mechanics) but only in very simplified terms. Students have to master the outdated 19th centry theories before they can possibly move on to the 20th century physics -- physics that in some ways completely invalidates the 19th century physics they just learned. Trying to teach freshmen students physics by putting them in graduate seminars would be a complete failure. Any information targeting a broad audience that is unfamiliar with the topic needs to cover the content at a sufficiently simplified level so that the audience can understand it.

* The Lore articles are going to be full of contradiction and controversy, even if (perhaps especially if) we stick to only in-game content. With in-game content alone, there are going to be difficult decisions about how to prioritize different sources, which ones to emphasize, which ones to discount. The obvious issues involve the games's "historical" texts (Is PGE1 biased? Is Mysterious Akavir based on hearsay or facts? How to deal with fragments of text and questionable translation, e.g., ''[[Lore:Father of the Niben|Father of the Niben]]''). But beyond that there are also dozens of "fictional" texts from the game that contain snippets of information. Are the descriptions of Black Marsh from ''[[Lore:The Argonian Account|The Argonian Account]]'' accurate? Is ''[[Lore:The Refugees|The Refugees]]'' simply fiction, or is this reliable evidence that Mankar Camoran is the son of Camoran Usurper and his Bosmeri mistress? We already have to make judgment calls about whether to treat such pieces of information as factual, despite being embedded in fiction. The judgment calls don't seem fundamentally different when, for example, evaluating Kirkbride's RP posts and identifying a few factual points even if the majority of the content is not relevant to UESP. We can't eliminate quality-based decisions by declaring a category of Elder Scrolls content off limits. Conversely, any standards that are adopted for evaluating the relevance of in-game content can probably also be applied to evaluating out-of-game content. The fact that the content does not appear in the game may be an additional criterion used in any evaluation, but it cannot be the only criterion.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 13:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::You make a good point about non-experts and using UESP as a sort of lore dictionary (something I very much wish it to be). The crucial obscure texts are exactly that- Metaphysics 101 with more difficult language. Teaching the topics they cover without referencing them would be nightmarish, and I am speaking as one who learned lore largely from the explanations of others, going to find the sources afterwards. How can we write intelligible articles that will be useful to probable readers if we are encumbered in what thoughts we can express and how we can justify them? I have been resorting to byzantine and evasive wording in some of my edits, trying to pass off knowledge gleaned from unofficial sources as the natural conclusions of in-game books. This is not helpful to anyone.
::Anyways, I think we're on something like the same page. I await your proposal. [[User:24.31.156.165|24.31.156.165]] 14:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)Temple-Zero

====Anti-Guideline Proposal====
The priorities, in my opinion, are to:
* Make it possible to get back to editing Lore articles before losing all of the momentum and interest.
* Accept that there are going to be mistakes, so try to make it possible to come back later and find any articles that need to be revised.

To that end, there is only one guideline that seems vitally important:
:'''''Any content that comes from a non-UESP source must have a reference.'' That reference must be a functioning link to the source material. The reference should be provided by the editor who added the content.'''

Rationale:
* Although ultimately we want references for all content, including content from in-game books, in the short-term it is more important that offsite content have valid references (see, for example, my comments under [[#Counter-Proposal (Sload)|Counter-proposal (Sload)]]).
* This requirement should not be a hindrance; it does not place any limits on what content can be added to articles. It's also been part of every proposal to date, so I think it's reasonable to say that we've reached a consensus on this point. (Whether or not the same treatment extends to in-game books may have been debated, but everyone has agreed that out-of-game books need proper references).

* Despite the appearance of consensus on this issue, it is so fundamental to what I'm going to say next that I think it still needs some additional emphasis.
** Functioning references are particularly important to enable any type of progress on Lore articles, because those references provide some critical traceability. With proper references, any articles containing links to particular out-of-game sources can later be identified. We all know that we eventually need some type of guidelines for that content, so the only way to encourage content to be added in the absence of such guidelines is to provide a mechanism to later apply any guidelines. When guidelines are eventually adopted, we can search for content that does not meet those guidelines and modify it as necessary -- whether that entails revising the reference format; adding details such as when and why it was written; adding links to a [[#Source critique|source critique]]; or, deleting content that is deemed unsuitable for UESP. Mistakes can be tolerated if we know that we can later fix the mistakes.
** That search capability requires that the references be actual, working links. Although there is no "What Links Here" feature for external links, it is actually possible to mimic that function through database queries. In other words, I can create the equivalent of "What Links Here" lists (I've done it a few times in the past for other types of external links). It's also possible to use Google to find such pages, using the link: keyword in Google.
** Patrollers (or any other editors) who cannot verify a contribution based on in-game content should add a [[Template:VN|VN]] tag to request that a reference be provided. In addition, even if there is a reference, a VN tag can be added if the other editor cannot see how the reference supports the provided facts. If a reference is not provided within a reasonable amount of time (i.e., a week), the content should be moved from the article to its talk page. It cannot be added back into the article until a supporting reference has been provided.

* A corollary of this one guideline is : '''If content cannot be supported by a link to a supporting source, then it does not belong on the site.''' Such content is original research, which does not belong on an encyclopedia. Again, all proposals have contained restrictions of some sort on original research, so this isn't really a unilateral decree.

Other than that, I don't think we're ready to adopt any other guidelines. In other words, because I do not see a consensus developing over limits on what can be added to Lore articles, I'm saying that '''we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time'''. As long as a link can be added providing a source for the statement (and as long as the statement is relevant to the article, of course), the statement is acceptable -- no matter what the source's category, classification, officialness, or canonicity may be.

Before anyone gets upset/angry (or even elated) at that statement, please take the time to hear me out and hear why I'm advocating such a one-sided position in violation of all rules about consensus.
* First, and most importantly, this is '''temporary'''. It is not the basis for any final guidelines; it is not a consensus. It is just a way to get moving again, even if it's movement in the wrong direction. Although it's not too different from Ratwar's proposal, the fundamental difference is that I'm acknowledging that it's unlikely to be acceptable as a final set of guidelines.
* Why is my proposal so one-sided?
** Adding out-of-game sources is fundamentally a change from what's been done on UESP. We can't expect to evaluate any suggested changes if we return to our past "business as usual" -- if we keep doing the same thing, then we can only end up with the same result. So I opted in favor of the radical extreme instead of the conservative extreme.
** The best way to really evaluate what has been suggested (good, bad, or ugly) is to let it happen. If this really will be a disaster, then there's no better way to prove it than by letting the disaster happen. Any problems that arise will be solid evidence that can then be discussed as a reality rather than a theoretical example. We can point to specific articles, specific sentences, specific references; we can be sure that everybody is discussing the same facts, not just interpreting proposals differently.
* How is this different from what was happpening before?
** Ultimately, it may not be any different. But it is my pretty firm belief that UESP (or at least the Lore section of UESP) was healthier three weeks ago than it is now. It may well have been harder on the patrollers than the current stagnation. But if making patrolling easy was our top priority on UESP, the only logical conclusion would be to shut down editing and turn UESP into a static site, not a wiki. A wiki is healthy when articles are being modified and when new editors are contributing, so I'd rather go back to what was happening before.
** If there are patrollers who thought that the situation was previously unacceptable, those patrollers are free to ignore all edits that get made to Lore articles.
** I'm also hoping that everyone has learned something from this process, and that editors will consider the various opposing opinions when editing and perhaps allow those opinions to temper their actions.
* Why edit Lore articles instead of just sandboxes?
** Editing sandbox articles as examples has already been suggested several times, but it hasn't led anywhere. The only example that we have so far is Sload's -- but Sload was not provided with any feedback on that sandbox example.
** The Lore namespace is currently dying; resuming progress on Lore articles is more important than details of how the articles are written.
** Working on real articles will be more beneficial to everyone. Any system needs to work with collaboratively-written articles, which is not truly possible on personal sandboxes. Patrollers need to be able to point out information that is missing references; multiple editors need to each contribute the puzzle pieces that they think belong on the article. Articles need to cross-reference each other. Transclusions into other namespaces need to be tested.
** Nevertheless, this will need some amount of tolerance from everyone if it is going to work with "real" Lore articles. If a patroller sees an edit containing controversial material, that doesn't mean we need to start a debate immediately on the merits of that content. The only requirement I'm emphasizing here is that the content needs a reference. As long as the reference is there, give the contributor some freedom to create an article that shows why that content is useful. Don't start debates over every individual edit, but instead think of them as eventual examples for this general debate.
* Some editing suggestions
** Use this freedom to include any sources ''very wisely''. The edits made over the next few weeks will, in one way or another, determine whether or not out-of-game sources can remain in the Lore articles. Abusing this opportunity will only convince other editors that out-of-game sources are frivolous, irrelevant, or otherwise unacceptable.
** Try to find examples where you think the obscure texts are indispensable for the content. Make it as obvious as possible why the out-of-game content contributes useful and relevant information. Find ways to prove that ''UESP articles'' need to have this additional content: examples that are useful for "typical" UESP readers will be far more significant.
** Even better: try to edit articles incorporating proposals and ideas with which you ''disagreed''. Make a good faith effort to write an article, and see how many compromises are really necessary. For example, can you write an article that first summarizes the in-game content, and then moves on to out-of-game content? If the resulting article is truly unacceptable (at least in your opinion), post it anyway and then explain on the talk page why the proposals didn't work. Ask for advice on how to fix the article. Find out whether your interpretation of the proposal was accurate.
** Be over-zealous about adding references. The most important point is to put a link to the source in the article. If nothing else, copy and paste the URL from your browser directly into the article. The format of the link can be fixed by other editors; the reference tags can be added by other editors. Just make sure to include the raw information. Without that information, other editors are far more likely to lose patience with this experiment.
** This doesn't require the creation of "important" or "substantial" articles. We need examples of typical Lore articles, because the guidelines are supposed to encompass typical situations, not the exceptional or unusual articles.
* Is there a timetable for establishing real guidelines?
** I don't think it will help to set a fixed timetable about when to restart the discussion about guidelines. Rather, I think it should happen once editors start to feel like there are enough examples to start drawing conclusions. And once the editors have the energy and motivation to resume. It might take a couple months; it might take a few days.
** Another possibility is that editors will feel compelled to resume this discussion when they have simply had enough of the chaos. Every aggravation is likely to accelerate the pressure to adopt new guidelines. And realistically, the more irritated editors are, the more likely it is that any guidelines will be end up being strict or even punitive (whether or not that's the actual intent).
** Conversely, honest efforts on everyone's part to make this experiment work will increase the chances of success: increase the chances that we can work together to create some articles that are real examples of high-quality, properly-written Lore articles that are useful to everyone in the Elder Scrolls community. If we can create some examples that illustrate what works and what doesn't work, coming back and writing some guidelines should (I hope!) be less arduous.

If anyone is still angry after reading to this point, could I at least ask that you take a day to think things over? I've spent more than a few days thinking this over before posting it, and my thoughts have changed over that time. I honestly hope that these suggestions will help us to move forward, rather than deepen the rifts that have developed.

In the meantime, as I've said more than a few times, I really think editors should feel free to return to editing Lore articles right away. I don't think we can afford to wait another week or two just debating whether or not it's acceptable to make edits; if we wait that long we may never be able to recover. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 16:18, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Another suggestion: on articles such as White Gold Tower, Nede, Disappearance of the Dwarves, it might be a good idea for an editor who plans on major changes based on far-flung and unofficial sources to state his claims and references in the talk pages, and wait a day or so for critiques. I plan to do this in the case of the former, where Rpeh has moved a paragraph anyway. It saves having to write a heavily-cited section twice, and makes debating the issue easier. If this is a sandbox sort of thing someone tell me, because I think adding a talk page heading called "Needed Conversations" is a nice, obvious way to go fishing for a consensus. In addition, is a lore Project needed? [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with almost all of Nephele's post but not with the conclusion "we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time". The idea that UESP can start basing its content on forum posts is utterly ludicrous and is clearly unacceptable.

:Let's clear one thing up here: the impression some people will have picked up from the discussion is that the "Lore Community" is united in their acceptance of MK's fanfiction as canon. They aren't. We have attracted elements of the pro- group but even a few minutes spent on Bethesda's Lore forum will show there is an anti- fanction too. If there really was a consensus on these forum posts then I would reluctantly go along with their inclusion, but there isn't and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

:Apart from anything else, the unofficial material is unnecessary. As Benould said above, "I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources." [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348882&oldid=348880] and he's right. For instance, I was able to replace a speculative paragraph about White Gold Tower with an informative one supported by sources that won't have our users scratching their heads and wondering what on earth it's talking about. [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore_talk:White_Gold_Tower&oldid=348616].

:I'm not going to rehash what I've said before so I'll simply restate my belief that a compromise along Gaebrial's [[#Counter-Counter_Proposal|proposal]] is the only way this will work. If it comes down to a choice between including any and all external sources or excluding them totally, my vote is unhesitatingly for the latter. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:30, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Summary of the discussion so far, in brief [http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/140577/wiki_mash_4 form] --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 05:38, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The "anti-MK faction" is currently made up of a fascinating individual who charges that the Trial of Vivec RP was a malicious attack on Linda Carter wherein the developers staged the violent rape of wonder woman and should be fearful of the litigous wrath of her US senator hisband. Lady Nerevar is on ueso somewhere under a similar moniker, she could tell you all about it. No, I suppose we're not ready for guidelines. But we need Nephele's temporary solution because right now editing lore is like trying to practice penmanship by spraypainting graffiti on an underpass swarming with armed guards, and wondering why it's not very clear. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::::The only guideline, and therefore the only proposal derived from consensus in my above statement is the statement that "Any content that comes from a non-UESP source must have a reference."

::::The remainder, and in particular the statement "we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time," is '''not based on consensus.''' It is '''not a guideline.''' Rather it is just a basic distillation of the facts; it is an admission of defeat. As such, it's not a matter of who agrees or disagrees, or personal preferences about what ultimately should happen. Personally, I don't like the facts myself, but I don't see any way to change them. To reiterate:
::::* We do not have a consensus.
::::* We are not making any progress towards a consensus.
::::* Without a consensus, there is no justification for unilaterally enforcing one set of standards.
::::If there really is agreement with everything in my post other than that one sentence, then it seems like there must be an agreement on these basic facts.

::::We can't break a stalemate over reaching a consenus using a vote. In particular, [[UESPWiki:Consensus#Reaching Consensus|Reaching Consensus]] says: " Avoid turning a discussion into a vote: it is far better to find a solution that everyone likes than to simply impose a majority opinion." This is not a minor stylistic issue being discussed (e.g., is blue or yellow a better color for a table?) It is not even a situation where there is a clear majority; if there were just one lone dissenter, then perhaps we could proceed (in the process, alienating that one editor). The consensus article suggests getting more people's opinions -- but I think we've already done that. Nearly every active admin and patroller has contributed; everyone who has been active on Lore articles has contributed; it's listed on the [[UESPWiki:Community Portal#Active Discussions|CP's active discussions]].

::::If we're not willing to allow edits to Lore articles to continue in the absence of an agreement over guidelines, then the other alternative is to basically disallow any editing until we reach an agreement. That's basically what has happened over the last couple weeks, and without something to break the ice that situation is going to persist indefinitely. I think it's fundamentally against our existing guidelines (such as Content Over Style) to allow this discussion to shut down an entire section of the wiki. It's also worth remembering that we're talking about a game-related website: allowing questionable or biased content to appear on some wiki pages for a couple of months is not the end of the world. It's not going to cause anyone's death; given that it's the Lore section, it's not even going to cause anyone's game character to die or fail a quest or lose an artifact. Without a new TES game scheduled for release in the next couple months, we're not even really risking giving new readers a bad impression of the site. The only real negative consequences are if we individually '''choose''' to turn this into a crisis that damages the wiki. If we make people's opinions on this one issue the only thing that matters, and divide the entire community based upon this discussion, then we are only hurting ourselves.

::::If you want to change the facts, then you need to find a way to reach a consensus. No such suggestions have been forthcoming in the last couple weeks, but if you have been holding back on suggestions, by all means, contribute them. Or at least some new ideas on how to approach the situation; again, none have been put forward. Without new, constructive ideas this discussion is dead. Repeating the same positions from earlier in the discussion is not introducing new ideas.

::::I've just tried to find a way to break the stalemate -- with the eventual goal of returning to this discussion and actually establishing a consensus. I'm not imposing any limits on what that eventual consensus will be. In fact, it's pretty clear from what's previously been said that any eventual consensus will place some limits on what is acceptable source material. I'm just trying to allow new information to be introduced and allow new perspectives to develop, because I think it's the only way to stop going in circles.

::::If you want to shut down even this attempt at progress, then I just basically give up. I'm out of ideas; everyone else is out of ideas. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 13:04, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Nephele as far as I'm concerned this isn't an attempt to "break the stalemate", it's capitulation. You're "solving" the problem by ignoring one side in the debate. As Gaebrial has pointed out, one group has made several attempts at compromise and had them rebuffed or ignored. We have moved from a position of "Absolutely no non-game sources" to "include them, but in their own section to emphasise the difference in sources" so that our material stays accessible to everybody. Don't tell me and those that share my point of view that we're causing this problem when we've already moved so far.

:::::I have never said I want to disallow edits to Lore articles, and a simple [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=500&namespace=130 look at the recent changes page] will show you that editing has continued: not at a particularly high rate, but then the old Tamriel namespace never got a huge proportion of the edits either.

:::::Invoking the Content over Style policy isn't appropriate. This entire debate is ''about'' content. We exclude content all the time: when people post additions to game articles about cheats, or about how mods change a quest they get deleted so why should content added to Lore by "mods" be any different?

:::::You say no suggestions have been forthcoming? I thought I'd already made about three but let me try one more. I can see why Temple Zero et al don't want to write two versions of the same article - especially when they consider one to be wrong. So let them add a ''separate section'' for their version and put a <code><nowiki>{{peer review}}</nowiki></code> template on the whole article (yes I know the template is supposed to go on the talk page, but ''tempora mutandur''). That will flag an article for attention by an editor to go through and improve the non-external sources section.

:::::I had an interesting discussion with Proweler on IRC the other day in which we agreed that the wiki is probably not the best place for this kind of thing anyway. He (and his associates) want the answers. We're not in the business of subjectivity and so should be happy with the questions. It's the attempt to get the wiki to do something it's not really intended for that is at the root of these problems. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 13:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, Nephele, for the summary of ideas brought forward; I felt my suggestions were very well represented and summarized. I kind of have reached my limit, whether writing anything is worth the hassle. Rpeh's example with the White Gold Tower: As it stands now I'm not sure that it even would pass muster in [[wikipedia:Reader's Digest|Reader's Digest]] in its limitedness and scope. Not that TZ's entry was specifically clear, but it mainly suffered from not being able to link to anything, let alone a supporting, broader article on towers here on the wiki. I don't think I can write a meaningful article on the towers, without outside sources. It doesn't make much sense to take the abandoned article on [[User:Benould/Porsche|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] out of my sandbox, as things are now. What I see is a tyranny of Oblivion-centric players, which should not be. Oblivion was/is a popular game, but its lore should not limit the Lore namespace Period. Rpeh, my suggestion that many things can be argued with in-game material was in the context of getting the editing process going. Many things will come from in-game sources, obviously, some will not. What you're missing Rpeh is that this is alienating productive editors, so I can't see how you can agree with everything, and then not endorse a return to editing, with NEW content being added. There's been little new in Lore, Prowler is fighting with the Pantheon, a few formating changes, that's about it. If you want to just push code around to make it seem alive, eh, maybe down the line there will be others taking up the torch. Sorry my attempt at bridge-building & humor has failed. I wish you all the best, --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Source critique ==

This is a proposal to add a template with a source critique to ''each and every'' source; book, fragment, obscure, ingame or out-of-game. If we're treating them like historical sources, as Apophis2412 was getting at, they have to be critiqued. This is necessary and what rpeh was asking for, Proweler was hinting at and incorporates some of all proposals. The TIL has some of it with its categorization into Historical/Fiction/Lore etc, [http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/ here] for example, our book description/author and bylines have some of it, but neither are really extensive to the level of detail that is needed. That way, every single page where the texts are used doesn't have to make that judgment call.

An example of why Source critique is needed:

The [http://www.imperial-library.info/interviews/skelm.shtml Skeleton's Man Interview] for example is sourced only to a now defunct [http://www.m0use.net/~skelm/ Hall of Adventurers] at m0use.net, no date, no further details. From what I could gather, it is a Teaser, in-character by MK and others at the time of the release of "Redguard", while working on MW. Somewhere, somehow it should be mentioned that its quoting [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=482103&st=20&p=6918676&#entry6918676 here] ended the discussion about the disappearance of the Dwarves in the forums.

Source critique would describe how this text came about, identify the writer and as in-character if applicable, category - as mentioned, and viewpoint/skew/bias. It would also allow a brief judgment, with clarifications. Just a quick write-up, things can be added, although the entry should be brief.

Example: "2920" - A fictional but well-researched retelling of the events of the last year of the First Era,
*by Carlovac Townway Writer:Ted ? - in-game: OB, MW (however we called it OGG, IG)
*Main characters are the Tribunal, Reman III. Potentate
*Spans from the war of the Reman Empire with Morrowind to the assassination of Reman by the Morag Tong.
*Keywords: First Era, Night Mother (anything not mentioned previously)

All relevant words are hyperlinked and indexed, so if I were to look up information in search about the Morag Tong, it'll pop up under Sources. Any discussions would be on the talk page of the source, so things are transparent for future researchers.

If deemed useful, creating this source critique would depend heavily on both communities, and can be applied here as well as the TIL (if they want that, of course). Such a joint effort could build *gasp* bridges, educate, create interest in the Lore sources and help every single Lore article. It would also let us discuss the texts, which is the Hobby part of it ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think I understand what you're saying, and what I get out if it is this: Rather than a project to add critiques to every solitary source, make a once-size-fits-all template so that any issue regarding the source may be addressed with ease, and perhaps a source with a critical template could be flagged in its reference text. Consensus in the talk pages would be very important, however.

:And I like the thinking behind Ratwar's proposal, as it seems to benefit from being a fresh perspective in terms of identifying the true issues and pitfalls of using all sources. I'm reasonably certain the obscure texts do not require licenses. MK exerts unofficial control over his writing and its being hosted on TIL, and anything put on a forum generally isn't restricted by anythinge except courtesy. But I am not asking for the obscure texts to be hosted anyway, especially as the external link is all the disclaimer you will need in many cases.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 15:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'd be fine just external links, but what I was trying to say is that for us to host them, we'd need some kind of 'okay' from MK (or the other author in question). --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

UESPWiki talk:Lore

2008-08-25T09:38:25Z

Benould: /* Proposal */ brief summary

{| class=wikitable style="float:right"
! Related Discussions
|-
|
* [[:Category:Archive-Tamriel|Archived discussions about the Tamriel namespace]]
|}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==Sources for Lore Articles==
:''The first section of this discussion (everything up to my contribution at [[#Nephele|Nephele]]) was originally posted at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]]. I've moved it all here because it is general discussion about the Lore namespace, rather than discussion specifically about what belongs on the [[Lore:Main Page|Main Page]] of the Lore section. Also, any guidelines that are adopted as a result of this discussion will be posted on [[UESPWiki:Lore]]; this keeps the discussion together with the guidelines.'' --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
===The Case for Kirkbride===

As most readers of this page are indubitably aware at this point, there has been something of a tempest in a teapot regarding the contributions of the user Temple-Zero. I admit readily that I involved myself in this community fully at his behest, and that I agree with his principles fully. This essay is an attempt to explain and justify the position he and I are taking in a non-bombastic way.

There are a few people who have significantly contributed to the "lore" of the TES series in an official context - Ken Rolston, Kurt Kuhlmann, Marilyn Wasserman, Douglas Goodall, Gary Noonan, Ted Peterson, and Michael Kirkbride. Of these, the latter two's contributions have been by far the most significant, with Peterson writing proliferously for the series and Kirkbride being the primary force behind worldbuilding and lore since 1996. The difficulty that arises is that Kirkbride has contributed, as of today, 20 works which have not appeared in TES games, in addition to several collaborations with other writers. Others have contributed similarly, though not to nearly the same extent. These works have been archived by The Imperial Library [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/ on this page]. There appears to be some disagreement over whether these qualify as "lore."

The argument many members of this community have put forth is that something is not "lore" unless explicitly endorsed by Bethesda Softworks (or one of the associated companies involved in the production of TES games) by appearing in a game. Though this may sound like a simple and successful way to organize lore into "canon" and "non-canon," this line of reasoning is specious and not accepted by any prominent member of the lore community.

The idea that Bethesda is the source of canon does not hold up with Bethesda's own policy. "Ius, the Animal God" is not serious lore, its own author readily admits that. ''Arena'' is not an accurate depiction of Tamriel except insofar as it has the provinces right and the cities are kind of accurate. Even the Pocket Guide was ignored when creating ''Oblivion'', something which would be inexplicable if not for one of the texts some editors argue should not be treated as lore. If the games are conflicting, how can it be ''them'' that is canon, and the texts which repair this conflict not?

The reality is that Mr. Kirkbride is the primary moving force for TES lore. He was the primary author of the First Pocket Guide to the Empire, Varieties of Faith, and every single creation myth except the Khajiit's, he drew the art which inspired the design of virtually every aspect of Morrowind's visuals - from the Ministry of Truth to corpus beasts to the Telvanni mushroom towers - he is the voice of Vivec and the author the Thirty-Six Lessons, and the man behind Mankar Camoran. Almost every major character from the lore is either his creation or someone he expanded on immeasurably - from Pelinal and Alessia to Tiber Septim and Zurin Arctus to Sotha Sil and Almalexia. The only major exceptions are the events of ''2920'' and Barenziah and her children, which are Peterson's invention. Dismissing him as a "dev," or one of many in a large group of contributors, is folly. Similarly, dismissing half his corpus as "forum posts" is equally unwise.

You cannot fully understand ''The Thirty-Six Lessons of Vivec'' without "Vehk's Teachings," or grasp their ultimate implications without "A Letter from the Fifth Era of Tamriel." You cannot account for Oblivion's plot-holes without "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "From the Many-Headed Talos." The story of the Alessian Revolt is not complete without the "Lament for Pelinal," and the in-game version of "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is missing half its text. "Lord Vivec’s Sword-Meeting With Cyrus the Restless" is a sequel to ''TESA: Redguard'' and his contributions in the Trial of Vivec bring the story of ''Morrowind'' and ''Tribunal'' to a close. "The Imperial Census of Daedra Lords" gives invaluable information on the Daedra, and "Cosmology" gives equally important information on the metaphysical geography of the TES universe. I can continue to describe the significance of the eleven other texts at hand, but I think my point is made.

When Temple-Zero says "TES is literature" he means it. The view that has developed slowly from the gestations of the lore community sees Kirkbride as an author like any other, and his works as a story that has developed over more than a decade. Lore is ultimately just the cataloging of this story for ease of understanding. If UESP ignores such significant contributions to this story because they aren't included in the video game that allowed this story to exist, then UESP's lore section remains crippled and useless as it so much is currently. The obscure texts are not unsourced and non-canon, they are ''essential'' to our understanding of this universe and stories within it. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 08:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with your argument. In my personal opinion, this edit should form the foundation of our discussions on how to proceed from here. What is the purpose of the wiki "Lore" section is maybe the bigger issue, what audience are we trying to reach? Without a basic agreement on these two issues, Lore namespace will remain piece-meal; with a varying, sometimes dubious quality. Much more can be said, but as many probably agree, we need to discuss this in the community. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed. If UESP aims only to inform the average player of the basics of the games' backstory, then it can settle with in-game sources. But it could be more than that, it could be a source players newly interested in lore could go to learn about things unhindered by the poetics of the in-game sources, or by their conflicting narratives, and also providing background as to how consensus was formed and links to the original sources. The obscure texts are essential to our understanding of this.

::Certainly treating these sources with scorn will only alienate the lore community from this website, making it useless by virtue of not being taken seriously. As will comments that suggest that the lore community is somehow insigificant, along the lines of insinuating that we can go off and "discuss" in our "forums" as if you have any audience but us. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 20:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Does wiki have some sort of charter? Because unless reluctance to include non-canon material is in writing somewhere, its inclusion seems very much in keeping with the nature of the site, in some ways. UESP doesn't judge, it only reflects and records. In the articles dealing with aspects of the games, every conceivable detail finds a place- useful, interesting, or not. This allows it to be used as an open-ended resource for a variety of purposes. It is not a targeted runthrough of the subject with clear goals in mind. It is wiki's job to show or reference everything, EVERYTHING that there is to be seen, a database of details to minor to be explored in something as cursory and efficient as a walkthrough. The entirety of Elder Scrolls, just as Wikipedia tries to be the sum of all knowledge. Withholding lore does not make sense in such a place. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::But like Wikipedia, we do not appreciate faulty inceptions in our articles, which brings us back to the non-canon discussion that took place earlier. We want verified, sourced material straight from the horses, in this case Bethesda's, mouth. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 23:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
This site isn't about Bethesda. It's about Elder Scrolls. What is your fascination with this faceless corporation? You aren't affiliates. It's hard for me to take this viewpoint seriously when no one explains it, only reiterates it. It's not that hard- I've heard one passable justification before now.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 23:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:A faceless corporation? While not every person at Bethesda may have contributed anything to the ES lore, the current canon we hold is what has been agreed upon by the developers at Bethesda. Yes, there are developers who may have contributed the major part to the lore, but that does not mean that what they say outside the official sources is inrefutably true. We don't know what happens inside Bethesda, for all we know the developers vote for every plot arch before they continue upon it. What Kirkbride says outside an official source may be what he would have written, but as he doesn't say "This is official" we can't take it for canon without placing question marks to its validity. There has not been stated on the site that unofficial sources can never be used, the major issue has been with you automatically taking them for true. You have been jumping to conclusions right from the beginning and are taking a very cynical approach to anyone who questions the validity of such sources. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 03:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Question: If what is found under [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text Obscure Texts at TIL] is mostly contract work done for Bethesda, how can it not be considered part of the Lore, even by the old standards - only Bethesda sanctioned material? What is contract work there, what isn't? Do we have any written standards on what is admissible? Anyone care to enlighten me? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

First, apologies for the length of this post but I think we have a lot to talk about.

I think there are three areas of disagreement: the perspective of the articles, the sources for them, and the degree to which conclusions should be drawn.

To quote the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Perspective|Style Guide]], "Within Lore articles, it is more appropriate to write from the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe. The articles are still expected to be encyclopedia-style, but designed as if they were reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel. Gameplay details should be avoided in Lore articles; game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen." Although the section is still marked as a proposed guideline, it's been up there for months and nobody has ever argued against it, That means that additions like [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Nede&curid=12249&diff=347662&oldid=347661&rcid=351122 this one] should not be made because it's pretty clear that a citizen of Tamriel wouldn't know what the developers have been saying. The previous version of the text is perfectly accurate, neutral and fits with the required style; the new edit simply pushes a personal viewpoint. The average citizen is much more likely to believe a more "impressive" history - in our own universe the Romans' version of history held that they were directly descended from Trojan refugees, rather more lofty than "Another Italic tribe that happened to get lucky".

As a little bit of background, the reason for the Lore space being different in perspective is that we had several complaints about the site being written from an all-seeing, all-knowing point of view, with some believing it spoiled the games. We decided that it was almost impossible to avoid doing this in the gamespaces but that the Lore space would be an ideal place to write from a citizen's viewpoint. I'm well aware that most of the pages don't quite work like that at the moment; most focus has been on "finishing" the game pages (inasmuch as such a thing is possible). A few pages have been rewritten in the new style, however - [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3ADark_Brotherhood&diff=313090&oldid=313020 my edit] to the Dark Brotherhood page was intended to act as an example of how even the game sections of Lore pages can fit with the style. Since then, the article has grown and become much better through the additions made by people like Apophis2412 that have been made in the same style. In his case, opposing theories were presented with equal prominence, which is the correct way to write when there is disagreement.

As far as source material is concerned, I don't think anybody will be massively shocked when I say that I strenuously oppose the inclusion of sources from outside the games. My main reason for this is simply - where do you draw the line? Material that MK wrote in an official capacity for Bethesda? Material written by MK for fun? Material improvised by devs in a roleplay? What about somebody like Douglas Goodall? We [[General:Douglas_Goodall_Interview|know]] that he isn't a fan of the way things have developed so what if he wrote some lore that brings things back to his way of thinking? I know that's a hypothetical question, but it's one that is worth asking.

The "obscure texts" are material that, for whatever reason, has ''not'' been put in the games. Obviously, anything that appeared after SI came out can't really be included anywhere, but for the rest of it, it was available and yet not included for whatever reason. You say that the fact the in-game "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is half the size of the other means that we have to use the latter; I say that half the material was deliberately cut so we have to use the former.

The points you make about the games being internally inconsistent is a good one, but then we already know that they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon retconned]* once, with the Warp in the West, so I don't see that it's a deal breaker. There are things going on that your typical citizen of Tamriel doesn't know about, as I'm sure they'd admit.

::

* ''the irony of linking this particular post to a WP article flagged for containing original material has not escaped me.''

Let me give you another piece of history from the site. We've had several edit wars about the ranks of people in Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=190339&oldid=187427] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=202684&oldid=201953] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=207839&oldid=202712] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=220731&oldid=207842] for just four such examples on one page) The site policy on this is that we always use the values from the data files, which gives us a quick and easy way to decide any issue like this that comes up. By drawing an analogous line and saying that only texts that appear in the games (plus the PGE, which at least comes with them) can be used, questions about the legitimacy of material are answered easily.

This brings me to the last point - conclusions. There have been several cases where edits are presented as facts where they are actually extrapolation ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AKhajiit&diff=332997&oldid=332990] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AGods_A&diff=331035&oldid=320426] are two examples). This for me is the most disturbing trend in recent edits. If this kind of content appears regularly we're going to be lost in a wasteland of unverifiable pages that will undoubtedly be the subject of edit warring. Even having said that, there are instances where extrapolation ''can'' be acceptable. Lurlock recently [[Morrowind_talk:Camonna_Tong#Gap_in_the_Ranks|posted]] a theory to explain why there is a huge gap in the ranks in the Morrowind Camonna Tong, the basis for which is that there are people living in Vvardenfell (and Cyrodiil) that we don't see. In this case, it's pretty easy to prove. In the case of Oblivion, for example we have the [[Oblivion:Night Mother Rituals!|Night Mother Rituals]] edition of the Black Horse Courier being written by one Agnes Earheardt. Since no NPC in the game has that name there must be people we don't see - QED. On the other hand, his suggestion that the unseen people outnumber the seen by 50 times is just a guess. It's an informed guess and he gives his reasons for making it, but it's a guess nonetheless. Personally, my guess would be more like 75 times, but I'm not going to put that on an article either.

In conclusion, this is a potentially very exciting time for the site. The Lore section has always been the poor relation of the site and I'd love to see it spruced up, but not by including material of dubious veracity. In any case, all material should be supported with citations. Benould gave a [[User_talk:Temple-Zero#References|good example]] of how to do that, and it should happen with all these edits so people can find the supporting material quickly and easily.

–[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Just to follow up Rpeh's comments on source material, I am also opposed to the inclusion of non-game material. If we are going down the path of including everything that a developer (or whatever you want to call them) has said in a 'semi-official' capacity, where do you draw the line? For example, if you include Gary "Wormgod" Noonan's forum posts as 'official', do you also count the 'Morrowind Advanced' mod as official, because he wrote it? I would argue that, despite being written by a BethSoft developer, it is very much an unofficial mod as it is not officially supported and distributed by BethSoft. I would could forum posts and other 'semi-official' works in the same manner. Just because somebody who works for BethSoft happens to say something about something somewhere, it doesn't make it official. What if MK posted something along the lines of "Actually, Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon" - does that become official canon simply because MK said it? --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should concentrate less on determining what 'canon' means in the context of TES's "spaghetti lore" and more on the usefulness of this wiki. As the lore community — an important part of our audience — sees MK's views as taking precedence over in-game material as well as over material by other developers, we should edit the Lore section with this in mind. That is, we might want to write something to the effect of "source X says Y, Michael Kirkbride says Z" whenever such contradictions occur — and link to a "Michael Kirkbride" article where we explain that the lore community sees him as having a "privileged" status among the developers. If we simply ignore MK's forum posts/Obscure Texts (and by "ignore" I refer to not writing anything about it; I'm not referring to not treating it as the absolute truth), we will miss an important part of TES lore. Treating MK-Lore as absolute truth would be better than this in ''my'' opinion, but as it seems that a great deal of this wiki's editors are opposed to such an approach, we might find the compromise I've just presented as being a good solution instead. [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:If I had been asked about this a few days ago I would have probably been of the opinion not to consider these texts canon. I do not like Mk's texts very much and they're not a part of "my ES world". (The only one I really like is "Fall of Ald-Ruhn") However the recent discussion on this site has changed my opinon a bit: How much I may dislike them, they are still a part of the Elder Scrolls however and thus cannot be ignored. Since this site's goal is to be a major source of information about Elder Scrolls this site does not have the luxury to simply ignore them.

:Vallagar has some interesting points. We could of course add a section to each article dedicated to sources not found within the game. I'm saying that we don't add information coming from these outside texts to the main part of the article but rather devote a seperate section of the article to it. I'm also of the opinion that we must still seperate the dev-texts from the in-game sources but that we atleast allow people to find out what is inside them. Perhaps we can even put a disclaimer on the top of the lore page, explaining UESP's and the community's opinion on this and let the reader decide wether they want to consider it canon.

: I also agree with Sload when he says that this might be a great opportunity for UESP to improve it's lore section and thus make it a lore site comparable to TIL. On the other hand, one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints.

: The biggest problem I see at the moment with these outside texts is deciding what is a credible source and what is not. If we include MK's texts, do we also include Ken Rolston's texts about Caius Coscades? If we consider the RP: Trial of Vivec, a credible source, does that make Ted Peterson's RP's also a viable source of information? And what do we do about texts like these: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=754160&hl= and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=607899&hl= ??
:Are they lore or just a jest?

: Another problem is the very nature of Mk's texts. Texts like "Short life of Uriel Septim" or "On: Morrowind" are your standard historical texts. You can take information straight from the text and add it to the UESP article. They aren't much open to interpetation. MK's works (like "Sithis" or "The 36 sermons") are more of a theological nature. In some ways you can compare them to the Bible. The difference with normal texts is that can't take information straight from the article but have to interpete what the texts says.

:If the discussion on what is and what is not canon cannot be easliy decided then it might be an idea for UESP to make use of a system of canonicity levels like the Star Wars Franchise uses. See here for an example: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database

:[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 08:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)Apophis2412

:: To quote Apophsis2412: '''''one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints'''''
:: I think we need to be careful that we are not simply duplicating TIL - the UESP doesn't exist to simply regurgitate stuff that is found elsewhere on the web, but to fill its own niche. I think the above quote also answer's Valaggar's question about the usefulness of the wiki - UESP is viewed primarily as a 'gameplay hints' site, not a 'lore' site.
:: (Maybe we should have chosen something other than 'Lore' as the title for the moved 'Tamriel' domain, or even not bothered moving it)
:: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: True, but one must not forget that this site also has articles about lore that Til doesn't have, like our articles about all the factions (MW Great Houses for example), and the articles about important people (Vivec, Almalexia, Sotha Sil for example).
:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 09:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: First, I see a trend among all the responses above that I would like to reply to. You are all coming to the same set of concerns from a variety of angles, whether questions of style or 'UESP doesn't do lore.' You are very skeptical that we should consider the texts official and question our rationale for using them. Well, you have some valid concerns, but I have to ask you, is that enough to completely ignore them? Pretend they never existed and scrub the many insights they have provided from the sight and ban their discussion? This sounds like an extreme portrayal of the situation, but it is what you seem to be asking. Sload, Benould, and I argue that obscure texts should be acknowledged valid as citations, evidence, and sources. We don't ask that you put them on the site and grant them pride of place, only that they be given their intended status of aids to understand ES lore. When you respond to this pointing out the unclear semantics of the situation and possible slippery slopes and negative effects, you follow a course of reasoning that will only be satisfied by their complete and absolute banishment. Is this what you really want? If so, then you should probably contest our claims that you might as well not have a lore section, because we are indeadly earnest on that point.

::::Rpeh: That is an interesting post, because I can't really highlight any irreversible conflicts. Those are concerns, but not principled objections to the material itself. We are arguing for the basics here, and if your concerns are the qualifications we have to work with, then that's fine and dandy, because we're getting somewhere. But if we are to resolve this, then you're going to have to realize that some things are a little slippery for the rule of thumb, though everyone can submit to the rule of law. You all act like you fear the rabble that will tramp through the site if we relax these constrictions (there aren't enough of us to constitute a mob) and point to areas where trespasses may occur. Well, that's where admins come in, to separate the shades of grey, and from your reluctance, I'm beginning to think you aren't very optimistic about your chances. You have to use your judgment to draw the line, that is what you are there for. And it will be much easier when the editors are working for you, not against you. This is the messy part of the revolution, I hope. How you categorize the sources as does not matter, as you won't be including or describing them on the site. They will only be used as references, and you will be admirably placed to view the content and decide if it is a joke, or too vague. When you cite something on Uesp, you are not crediting a source, you are pointing to a point of information or insight within that source. Decide if that is valid, and nevermind the package. That doesn't matter, and it's downright ridiculous to complain about the confusion from obscure texts when the game's lore and internal continuity is more tangled up by far. The site seems to handle it all admirably, however. Maybe you just need someone as knowledgeable in lore as most of the admins are with the games.

::::And because I'm up to that part: "What happens if Ted Peterson says Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon?" Because Ted Peterson knows less about lore than Michael Kirkbride does. It seems to me the only reason official material is worthy of such respect is because of the convenience of copyright. In substance it is often less reliable, and needs to be rationalized and updated in other, unofficial contexts.

::::Valaggar has some good ideas, but I bet Rpeh would find them all lacking in terms of the requirements of the style guide. Well, I had read that quote he provided before, but assumed it meant something else, because I don't see uesp's posts as anything remotely like 'in-character.' In practice, it doesn't seem like a style so much as a guide of what to leave out. Console commands and easter egg notes have an exception? It seems like you are touting the objectives of a goal no one pays any heed towards fulfilling. But I can say that if you believe it is grounds to stifle all candidness about the origins of sources and conflicts in lore to the point of their being left out, consider this the first objection.

::::Apophis, I will try to answer your concerns. The beauty of the obscure texts is that they ARE unofficial. They are not sitting there in your face and asserting the authority of their canon truth. They are there as references, an invitation to explore the subject more closely. They ask that you view the content inside and judge that, not the format in its entirety. If Ted Peterson wrote a poem that was a joke about T Rex's getting it on and sprinkled it with the birth dates of all the Septim Emperors, some of the details would be worth examining. I wouldn't want to put it up next to some of the more serious texts, but it would still be there, informing our thinking. The writers own Tamriel, the company just owns the game. If you must categorize the different levels of non-canon lore, then gut it up and use your judgment.

::::Gaebrial, don't be a defeatist.

::::In conclusion, I don't think I ask for much. Right of footnote, essentially. I leave it to the admins to flood the lore section with prods, flags, and disclaimers if they want to. Linked articles on the nuances of the sources and prominent theories that cannot be drawn by a simple reading of explicit text? Analyses on bias, conflicts and retcons in the real world context of the subject? we can handle it. Resolving disputes is impossible when we differ on such a fundamental level. Meet me here, and I will work towards resolving any of the concerns you have brought up as they arrive. I can't work with you until we are working with the same material. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::If Lore is supposed to be as seen as by an average citizen, follow that thought for a second. The situation here reminds me of Temple dogma, which should be familiar to anyone who has played Morrowind. There is the Temple doctrine that described the situation and the death of Nerevar, the Apotheosis of the Almsivi, and most people were happy with that for 3000 years. There were dissenting voices that were tossed into the Ministry of Truth, or that went into hiding. There was also the oral tradition of the Ashlanders and the report of Sul, which were ridiculed. Although some of these diverging opinion existed in form of texts and books, they were hidden in the Secret Library, marked not safe for public consumption. When things got out of hand with Dagoth Ur, these very people and documents were needed to bring about a solution. The higher ranks were, begrudgingly, able to adjust to the new "truth", Vivec gave 3 different sources, and admitted to murder, yet the god Vivec did not. The clincher is. no-one believes you that Almalexia is dead after the Tribunal Main Quest, and that she went mad and killed Sotha Sil, even if this is clearly the case.

:::::I liken these afore mentioned "Obscure Texts" to the oral traditions of the Ashlanders, and the texts of the Dissident Priests, alternative views of history, that may very well prove crucial to the understandings, even if they're not accessible to the average citizen of Cyrodiil. In-game dogma ''only'' may not be sufficient, I believe the Obscure texts are a helpful addition, and they are sufficiently limited in scope, no flood gates needed. Anyways, I am glad we're taking this discussion now, Lore namespace will be better for it, one way or another. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 11:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Temple-Zero, I don't believe you've responded to any of my three points. To go through a paragraph at at time... First, Yes I do indeed think that anything outside the games should not be included for the reasons already stated. You obviously feel the obscure texts are worthy of consideration and I feel exactly the opposite. Material that hasn't appeared in the games shouldn't be used as a source because Bethesda haven't considered it worthy of inclusion. However, I obviously disagree with your point about killing the Lore section. I think it should be a section about Lore ''as it relates to the games'' whereas you're talking about opening it up to any other material. I don't believe that is an invalid choice. As others have stated, we're not trying to create a duplicate of TIL.
::::::Second, "that's where admins come in"? I've been trying to keep the more speculative material off the site and haven't exactly had a very nice response. I'm not complaining about confusion from the obscure text, I'm saying there will be confusion about what is acceptable and what isn't and there's only one way to resolve that.
::::::Paragraph three... I don't know what it means. That quote isn't what Gaebrial wrote so I'm not sure how it fits. However, you've inadvertently proved my point - you seem to say that if Ted Peterson says something that contradicts Michael Kirkbride then we should ignore the former. In other words, you're picking and choosing from source material based on your beliefs. That is exactly my problem with including material not from the games.
::::::Fourth, I admitted that the Lore space isn't right in terms of style at the moment but I'm darn sure there aren't any console codes or easter eggs in that namespace. If you've found some then, to use an expression of yours, delete with extreme prejudice!
::::::Fifth, Valaggar's suggestion is interesting but it's not a solution as it simply moves the problem to another place. If such a system was used I would give any of the current obscure texts the lowest possible "reliability" score whereas you seem to regard them as just as reliable a source as the in-game books. So instead of reverting each others textual edits we end up reverting each others scores.
::::::Sixth, it's the willingness to include anything at all that I find disturbing. A joke about T Rex should be treated as just that and it should only "inform our thinking" insofar as it shows what a funny guy Ted Peterson is.
::::::So that's my position: No non-game material. It just isn't going to work. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

To comment on the qeustion what would happen when Ted Peterson would declare Vivec to be love child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon. The Imperial Library has always used the following standard for the obscure texts. They must be verifiably written by a developer and they must be in character. The latter is most important in this case because being written in character will take the dev-author out of the equation. At which point the fictional author will be patted on the back for cracking a great joke.

I'd put in right in place but this wiki style debate system doesn't make that easy.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===Nephele===
There have been multiple debates over the last week or so about what content belongs on UESP's articles, and in particular whether or not to include information from books that have never appeared in an Elder Scrolls game. Some of the other discussions have taken place at:
* [[Lore talk:Vivec (god)#Non-Canon Material - Hogithum Hall]]
* [[User talk:Temple-Zero]]
* The discussion previously at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]] has been moved here, as explained above
One term that's been used a few time is "canon", although in my opinion that seems overly dogmatic. I don't think we're trying to establish any universal standards -- the goal is only to establish guidelines for UESP. Other websites, in particular TIL and the Lore section of the Official Forums, will have their own standards and guidelines that are appropriate for their sites.

These are comments that I started writing a few days ago, so some of the ideas predate much of the other discussion. But I've also tried to update these comments based on what I've seen elsewhere, and in particular I've tried to incorporate other people's ideas and preferences into the proposed guidelines. I know it's long, so if you want, just skip to the [[#Proposed Guidelines|Proposed Guidelines]]. But the rest of includes a lot of rationale and responses to what's been said before.

====Background/Perspectives====

The basic problem here is, I believe, establishing what is "true" in the Elder Scrolls universe. The in-game content is not always sufficient to establish the facts: the content is not comprehensive, it's at times contradictory, and is also likely to contain mistakes (evidenced by changes in books between games, plus occasional obvious typos/mistakes, etc.). So do we limit UESP articles to incomplete (or possibly even incorrect) information? Or do we try to expand the articles to include additional information? And, if so, what additional information?

I think in most cases there is no single universally valid answer to the questions: whether it's that the developers wanted to give themselves "wiggle room" to incorporate future plot twists, or whether it's that they wanted a rich and complex mythos, the fact is that the Elder Scrolls literature contains contradictions. Ultimately, each fan is free to make his or her own decisions about which versions he or she likes most; each of the millions of fans will come up with an individualized storyline, whether or not a website says "this is the unique and official storyline."

There is a pretty wide variety of types of content that end up being used in the community as sources for lore. The first few that come to mind are:
# Content that has appeared in game, including content from books, notes, and dialogues.
# Pocket Guides to the Empire (PGE). They have not appeared in-game, but have been released as printed content purchased with (specific editions of) the game.
# Drafts of in-game content/PGE, some of which have been made available, for example on TIL.
# Other books written by the game developers (in particular Michael Kirkbride) that have been posted on TIL but have never appeared in-game.
# Articles written by librarians at TIL
# Discussions on forums between community members
Reliability is not guaranteed with any type of source -- even in-game content. But also it cannot all be considered equally valid or authoritative -- somewhere a line has to be drawn. UESP has tended to only include #1 and #2; the discussion is about whether some of the other types of content should also be used as sources for UESP articles.

Clearly these different types of sources are not all equally authoritative. But even what we mean by "authoritative" is subject to debate. When it comes to establishing the "true" facts about any topic, there are at least two different standards:
* What was the intended meaning when the information was originally written?
* What will be the interpretation in future Elder Scrolls games?
So we can ask, for example, "Who are the [[Lore:Nede|Nedes]]?" One way to try to reconcile the differing accounts is to turn to the people who wrote the information and find out what they meant at the time. However, we are also assuming that there will be future ES games, with new books some of which may provide new information about the Nedes, so we would like to not add information that ends up being proven wrong by future games. The basic paradox is that what will appear in future games is not necessarily consistent with the once-intended meaning.

Although the developers of any future Elder Scrolls games will presumably want to maintain continuity, they also want to (even have to) be given the creative freedom to come up with new, original ideas. Would any of us want to play TES5 if we could predict exactly what would happen in the game? New information will be added, some of which may intentionally diverge from what's previously been stated and some of which may accidentally diverge. Since Michael Kirkbride is no longer directly responsible for developing ES games, there is no guarantee that his perspective will be integrated into any new game. The lore added by Oblivion seems to confirm that the developers do not consider themselves 100% constrained by MK's vision of the lore. I think it's safe to assume that future games will feel more constrained by facts that have appeared in-game -- or at least they cannot undo what has previously appeared in a game. But I think anything else is subject to developer whim.

On the other hand, completely eliminating all out-of-game sources of information is very limiting. The person who originally wrote a given text is clearly qualified to provide useful information about the text. Was a particular word a typo? Was the text meant to be a joke, a metaphor, or a literal history? Was the text written independently from other texts on the topic or were the facts in the texts coordinated? Facts about the game's development cannot be changed by future game-writers (even if the facts are not taken into account when writing the new games). And some information that is currently only available out-of-game probably will be incorporated into the game in future. Writing articles ignoring those facts leads to inaccurate articles -- even while writing articles incorporating all out-of-game facts will also lead to inaccurate articles. We can't predict the future, so we can't know for sure what out-of-game information will become part of the games, but there are probably cases where we can be reasonably certain about what to expect.

This problem is not unique to Elder Scrolls games. Apophis2412 posted a very interesting link to [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon Star Wars' canon]. However, in the case of Star Wars, the person responsible for much of their lore (i.e., Lucas) owns the franchise, guaranteeing that his ideas will be honoured. Also, with the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database Holocron continuity database] there are some clear statements about will and will not allowed be in future Star Wars releases. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues are similar, and we do ultimately have to come up with some type of similar ranking -- whether it's explicitly stated, or whether each of has our own personal ranking.''

====Lore on UESP====

Decisions about what content gets added to UESP articles need to be based upon the characteristics of UESP: Who are UESP's readers? What content do the readers look for and expect to find on the site? What are the site's overall objectives? How will the wiki nature of the site affect article content? Therefore, what sources are used on UESP articles can not be decided based upon abstract principles. Also, since UESP and TIL are two different websites with different purposes, the content and guidelines on each site will reflect each site's purpose. The two sites should complement each other -- not contradict one another, but also not be identical to each other. So, what works best for TIL is not automatically appropriate for UESP.

UESP, for better or for worse, has tended to focus pretty much on what happens in the games. This has in part developed because we have been putting a lot more time into the game-specific versions of the site. Nevertheless, the majority of our readers are here to find out how to the play games and no matter how much we develop the Lore namespace, that is likely to remain true. Therefore, the Lore articles should be accessible to (and useful for) people who have only ever read one or two books (or perhaps even no books -- but are just trying to understand the story behind a quest line). They should also be accessible to people who have read every single book in-game, and are only now starting to reach out to the web to find out more about those books. These people are not the same audience as the typical TIL reader.

Taking into account readers' expectations is even more important on a wiki than a typical website. If readers think information is missing from an article, they'll end up trying to add it to the article -- no matter what the site's guidelines say, no matter what's on the talk page. While patrollers or other editors can then undo inappropriate edits, it is still best for everyone concerned to try to come up with guidelines and content that will meet readers' expectations from the beginning.

Another factor is the overall content hosted on UESP. We only host the books that have appeared in the game (or with the game, in the case of PGE) and I doubt that is going to change in the near future; the out-of-game books only appear on TIL. UESP should not ignore information just because it's not hosted on the site, but nevertheless what is present on the site shapes the site. One goal for the Lore section is to add full links to all of the books on the site: someone reading one of the books should be able to easily jump to more complete information about anything discussed in the book. Therefore, a top priority is to make sure that all of the topics covered by the in-game books are documented. It's also important that the summary articles be designed with that use in mind. Many (if not most) readers are likely to pull up a summary article after reading a related book, and therefore the summary article has to acknowledge all of the related books. We can't just decide that Book X is all incorrect and therefore refuse to include any facts from Book X in articles, because we will have readers who have only ever read Book X and therefore expect to see that information in articles. Instead, we have to include any "false" facts, but then explain (no matter how briefly) why the facts are false.

In other words, UESP's overall focus on game content inevitably means that UESP's Lore section has to place a higher priority on in-game books than out-of-game books. Places such as Hogithum Hall are not a priority for UESP -- the place is never mentioned anywhere in the game, therefore people whose only ES experience comes from the games will never do a search on UESP for Hogithum Hall. On the other hand, [[Lore:Ius, Animal God|Ius, Animal God]] is a priority for UESP. Whether or not Ius was a joke, Daggerfall readers are going to encounter this book; they are going to do searches for Ius. So we need to have an article on Ius, even if Ius is not truly considered to be part of the lore. We need to include Ius on pages such as [[Lore:Gods I]] and [[Lore:Gods by Pantheon]] because readers who have read the in-game book will expect to see Ius listed there (for example, someone who read the book a week ago and now wants to find it again, but only remembers it was something about an animal god -- that reader will expect to be able to find Ius if they scan through a list of the known gods). In that context, what is or is not in the game provides a very real set of guidelines for what readers will expect to find on UESP, and therefore for what the editors of UESP should try to make available.

As a semi-aside, I also wanted to squeeze in a response to one point made in other discussions. Yes, Kirkbride's work can be considered a unified work of literature. However, that does not automatically mean that UESP's purpose should be to document Kirkbride's literary vision. I am quite sure that the vast majority of UESP's readers have never heard of Kirkbride; I myself only began to realize his role in the games' development and lore within the last year. In other words, to most readers on the site, he is only relevant to the extent that what he has written appears in the game -- and therefore to those readers what he has written outside of the game is not relevant. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, the site's articles still need to be written so they make sense to such readers. Therefore, the logistical reality is that out-of-game content included because it fits into Kirkbride's overall vision needs to always be accompanied by some explanation of why the information is relevant. You cannot just assume that "Kirkbride said X" is a sufficient explanation for readers -- although "the game Daggerfall said X" is a sufficient explanation, given the site's focus on documenting games.

On the other hand, UESP's readers clearly also include people who are knowledgeable in Lore. The new editors whose interest in the Lore section precipitated these discussions are also readers (welcome everyone!), whose interests and expectations should be accomodated by the site. They should be able to use UESP as a useful reference tool. If we don't make our articles useful to all sections of the community, then the likely alternative is that people who are knowledgeable in Lore will find another website where their views can be summarized (since TIL is not a wiki and is not set up for community-written summary articles). That would lead to unnecessary fractures within the community, not to mention duplicated effort. In general, the biggest limitation to a wiki's content is manpower: finding editors who are willing to take the time to write new content. Therefore new content, backed by new editors who are willing to continue adding new content, should only be disallowed if the content clearly diminishes the site's quality and usefulness.

Also, readers fundamentally come to a game website to learn information about the game that they could not figure out in-game. If someone was solely interested in reading the in-game books, that person wouldn't really need a website. People turn to websites to find out what else is known and what else is available. Although our articles should prioritize and organize the available information on a topic, we shouldn't censor relevant information. Why not let our readers have access to everything that is known about the topic, and let each reader decide for himself/herself which sections to read and which theories to believe. Note, however, than providing access to all the information does not imply that the articles should be undifferentiated information dumps. Well-written and well-edited articles make value judgments about which information is most useful, in part by deciding what type of "access" is appropriate for that information: direct quotation of a text; paraphrasing a text; mentioning a few key differences about a text; adding a link to the text in the "See Also" section; adding a link to a discussion that mentions the text; etc.

====Proposed Guidelines====
The following are some strawman guidelines. These can hopefully be used as a starting point to come up with a set of guidelines to which everyone can agree.
* '''Multi-topic articles''' such as [[Lore:People_A]], [[Lore:Dictionary A]], and [[Lore:First Era]] should not contain any information from out-of-game sources, and also should not contain any controversial points.
** Basically, any article that contains snippets about multiple different topics should stick to basic, universally accepted facts about those topics.
** If there are any facts that need additional explaining, then the topic needs to have its own article (e.g., [[Lore:Vivec (god)]] instead of just a snippet on [[Lore:Gods_V]]).
** This is in part just a logistical issue. Having references appear on multi-topic pages is awkward. Discussions about a topic belong on that topic's discussion page, rather than on a multi-topic talk page. It's not an attempt to limit what's covered overall on the site -- just a question of where the content belongs.
* '''In-game sources''' (including PGE) should be the primary focus of articles, including summarizing those books and explaining the meaning of those books.
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has been '''written by a game developer''' can be used as a source for UESP articles.
** This includes additional books, drafts of in-game books, developer interviews, etc.
** Any information derived from out-of-game content must have a reference. The reference needs to include a link to the out-of-game content. I think it would also be useful to include some standard phrase in all out-of-game references (e.g., "Out-of-game content") that links to an explanation of the relevance (including limitations, pitfalls, reservations, etc.) of out-of-game content. A disclaimer, in other words.
** Out-of-game content should only be used when it helps to explain in-game content. This is a somewhat subjective limitation, but I don't think that UESP needs to start documenting every fact mentioned in out-of-game content.
*** Or, alternatively, out-of-game content should be included (i.e., a summary of the content, or details quoted from the content) only when it is necessary to prevent UESP articles from ''contradicting'' the accepted lore. Emphasis on contradicting: it must not just be that UESP's information would otherwise be incomplete.
** In cases where UESP's information is incomplete (instead of contradictory), a link to the out-of-game content can be included in the notes section of an article, instead of summarizing or quoting the content in the article. This makes the content available to only those readers who are interested. The note would be fairly minimal, e.g., "Other sources that describe Vivec include: Book X, Book Y".
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has '''''not'' been written by a game developer''' in general does not belong in UESP articles.
** Talk page discussions can link to any content. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information is relevant to the article, then it can be added to the article -- but the talk page discussion needs to happen first.
* '''Original research''' should be avoided in UESP articles.
** Original research is a core principle of wikipedia, reflecting that the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is to summarize what's already known, rather than to come up with new information.
** The implication is that even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material, not just an editor's forum post, for example).
** Exceptions to this rule may be possible, but those exceptions need to be discussed on the talk page. If everyone on the talk page can agree that the inferred conclusion is indeed logical and valid, then it can be added. In some cases, everyone may find a watered-down version of the statement acceptable. But a consensus has to be reached before original research belongs in an article.

Given the level of disagreement so far, I think it may be best to start by just seeing whether there are any ''strong'' objections to any of these points. If anyone has a disagreement, your comments will be more useful if you can state what specifically is problematic about the guideline ''and'' come up with a modified version of the guideline that you would find acceptable. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==== Hear, hear ====

What objections I have to the main points are in large part assuaged by the details, and possibilities for exception and discussion. This is the sort of thing I was looking for. (-An approving Temple-Zero, clothed in an anonymous IP address)[[User:24.97.239.147|24.97.239.147]] 18:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Proposal (Sload)===

*'''Multi-topic articles''' should be handled differently. Alphabetical directories are, for the most part, useless due to their incredibly low singal-to-noise-ratio.
:*Multi-topic articles like "List of Emperors of the Third Empire" would be useful, as there is not enough to say about these people otherwise. I'm trying to think of a similar example in which we know enough about a group of people to make a list.
:*Otherwise, they should link to something relevant to that person. Going off People A, Ada'Soom Dir-Kamal is a redirect to Kamal, Agnorith to List of Emperors of the Third Empire#Kintyra II, Akorithi and Aubk-i to Warp of the West.
:*Authors should link to their work. Authors of multiple books, such as Waughin Jarth, should be a disambuguation page saying "Waughin Jarth is the author of..."
:*If a character could be filed under multiple topics, but is not significant enough to deserve their own page, discussion should be held to decide how that situation is handled.
*'''In-game and out-of-game sources''' are the same thing and should not be treated differently. Out-of-game lore is significant to our understanding of lore and ''absolutely cannot under any circumstances be ignored.''
:*This includes anything by any of the seven people mentioned in my first essay, especially Ted Peterson and Michael Kirkbride.
:*Any information must have a reference to its source, whether a UESP book, a TIL obscure text, a forum post by one of the seven above. If an obscure text is still included in TESF's archive, its original post, rather than its TIL copy, is preferable.
:*No reference to whether a source is out-of-game is necessary. This suggests doubt in the source. Further, all out-of-game sources will be obvious by their location; that is, not at UESP.
:*Content, whether in-game or out-of-game, is not always relevant. For example, though MK has told a wonderful story about guars in southern Morrowind being striped, guars are not significant enough ''in lore'' that they deserve their own page to hold that information, and it isn't significant to an article about the province of Morrowind. Similarly, in-game books which are just stories about otherwise non-characters, like ''Banker's Bet'' or one of the countless others, do not contain significant information, and the UESP need not catalog their characters.
:*Note on roleplays: In a roleplay in which a developer participated in, only their contributions are canon. This especially applies to the Trial of Vivec. Ted Peterson participated in Loranna's RP, but as I understand its only significant details were made canon by the third pocket guide.
*'''Fan works''' should not be included in the UESP by any stretch of the imagination, such as "monkeytruth" like Albides' "Orc Creation Myth." Though these have a place in the community, they are not canon lore.
*'''Original research''' is unacceptable by all stretches of the imagination.
:*Exceptions are certainly possible for certain widely accepted but not confirmed interpretations of especially difficult works. Adventurous Putty's interpretation of the Tsaesci Creation Myth comes to mind. They should be clearly refered to as non-canon interpretations, reflecting their status.

I have provided an example article, a revision of Tsaesci, [[User:Sload/Tsaesci|here]]. It covers everything a wouldbe loremaster should know about them, their basic history, the confoundingness of their creation myth, Putty's interpretation, and the conflict with the Pale Pass quest, which Kirkbride was adamant about.

I intend to argue in favor of this counter proposal soon. UESP has so much to gain and so little to lose. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 00:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with almost all of Nephele's suggestions, but I'm still opposed to the inclusion of "Out-of-game content that has been written by a game developer". If such material material was written while the developer was at Bethesda then it is material that has been excluded deliberately; if it was written after they had left the company then it has the same status as fanfiction. Those in favour of including this material claim it's essential in making other information clear and unambiguous. I say that if in-game Lore is confusing it's because that's how Bethesda want it for their own purposes.
::Having said all that, Nephele's suggestion for differentiating between in- and out-of-game material is a good start towards a compromise. I would accept the inclusion of unofficial sources if they were referred to in a separate section of a page. So, the article on Vivec (god) might have a section at the bottom of "Other Theories" (or something similar) and then go on to mention the forum roleplay about Hogithum Hall, making clear that the material is not from the games.
::If that doesn't sound like much of a compromise, I'd remind the reader that my preferred solution is to ignore unofficial material entirely. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The way to keep saying that they were excluded is oversimplified and inaccurate, and I think you know it. Lore is meant to be complex and confusing, but understandable. The obscure texts are the only thing that make it so, in many cases. They are necessary in large part because animators aren't fantasy artists, and the realities of game design in a chaotic corporate setting can wreak havoc on a simple piece of concept art, much less the more complex details of Nirn.
:::But I will say that when you hold an absolute position, you can't expect much of a compromise.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Not at all. I've put forward the two options that I see. If you have a third explanation I'd be happy to read it. And I have suggested a compromise. I'd also be happy to hear your response to it. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some overdue feedback on some specifics from Sload's comments:
:::::*I was not trying to single out out-of-game sources and say that we only want references for out-of-game sources. We also want to add comprehensive references for in-game sources.
::::::However, in-game sources are not identical to out-of-game sources. If nothing else, there is the logistical reality that in-game sources are hosted on UESP and out-of-game sources are not. It's perhaps minor, but yet very relevant for how UESP treats the articles. Most importantly, it means that UESP readers and UESP editors can usually find in-game content easily, for example using UESP's search function. Therefore, if an in-game source is missing a reference, it is reasonable to expect that patrollers or other editors can identify the source.
::::::On the other hand, finding out-of-game sources is not so easy. Many of UESP's editors and readers are not familiar with the sites that host out-of-game sources. Google searches are not reliable: most searches will come up with countless non-ES hits; critical ES sites are excluded from Google (Bethesda explicitly requests that its site not be indexed by search engines, so any content hosted by Bethesda or found anywhere in the official forums cannot be found using Google). Finally, an important characteristic of many out-of-game sources is that there are multiple versions: whether the out-of-game source is an early draft of something that appeared in game, or whether it's something that was first posted on the forums, and has now been copied to TIL. So simply saying "Source: Where were you when the dragon broke" is not sufficient -- a reference needs to be an explicit link to the exact text.
::::::All of this means, to me, that extra emphasis is needed on making sure that content from out-of-game sources is accompanied by a proper reference. In most cases, that reference has to be provided by the original contributor. That's the only person who knows for sure which book and even which version of the book he/she was reading; that person should already have at hand a link to the book that was used while compiling the UESP article.
:::::* Sload's suggestion that we eliminate the alphabetical lists such as [[Lore:People_A]], etc. has merit. However, it is really a separate issue from that being discussed here -- and I think we have enough on our plates with the issue at hand. Whatever we do with the alphabetical lists, there will still be summary lists on the site -- [[Lore:Third Era]], for example. And there will still be summary sections of articles that appear elsewhere -- the introductory blurb from [[Lore:Khajiit]] that appears on [[Oblivion:Khajiit]] and [[Morrowind:Khajiit]], for example. So as part of this discussion, we still need to decide what content can appear in such summary discussions -- as proven by the discussion that [[#Why my proposal is different|subsequently erupted]]. So I think it should be tabled for now.
:::::--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 12:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Counter Proposal===
Having read and considered the various arguments, I feel I am willing to shift my position from my earlier posts. Apologies if this is just repeating or reiterating things that have been said above.

====An Important Fact====
'''Without the Elder Scrolls games, the entire Lore of Tamriel would not exist outside the minds of a small group of people in Maryland.'''

Is there anybody who does not agree with this (geography notwithstanding)?

Given that Fact, I think it is perfectly logical to focus on the in-game material in preference to, but not to the exclusion of, other material. Personally, I would place lore material in one of four categories:

1. In-Game References. These have to be the starting point. The Lore is based on the Game, so the Game must take priority when discussing the Lore.

2. Other BethSoft Material. By this I mean out-of-game material produced by an individual (or individuals) ''in their capacity as a BethSoft employee''. This can support, expand upon, clarify, or contradict in-game references. One obvious example here is the PGE, but I would also include here interview responses and works such as the books written by MK ''in his capacity as a BethSoft employee''.

3. Other Developer Material. By this I mean other material that is produced by individuals who have been involved in the development of the Elder Scrolls world, but which was not produced in any official capacity. Here, I would include those works by both Kirkbride and Goodall, for example, that were produced after they ceased to be involved in Elder Scrolls development. I would also include in this section RPs such as Hogithum Hall, as the involvement of developers in a RP on the official forums does tend to give it a kind of 'semi-official' status.

4. Non-developer material. Stuff created by fans, including fanfiction and RP, as well as interpretations of various aspects of Lore. These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles.

My preference and my suggestion is for Lore pages to be organised along the lines of the following template:

First, a summary section describing the subject as it is defined within the games. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this summary should only include category 1 material (in-game references). Where the subject is listed on multi-topic articles, this summary could be transcluded, with a 'see article for more details' line (as is done with a number of articles currently).

Second, one or more sections expanding upon the details contained in the summary. This should focus on category 1 material, but can also include category 2 material where such material ''expands upon or clarifies'' the category 1 material.

Third, a section summarising other category 2 material, such as that material that directly contradicts category 1 material, with links to the original source. I don't see any need to go into too much detail - those who are interested can click on the supplied links.

Fourth, a 'Notes' or 'See Also' section with links to any category 2 material that is relevant but which is not required to provide a complete description of the subject. So, category 2 material that merely supports and reinforces the category 1 material should go here. ''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here.

Any disputed material should be discussed on the relevant talk page, to come to some sort of consensus about (a) whether it should be included, and (b) where and how it should be added to the article. And the key word here is '''consensus'''.

Finally, not everybody here is a Loremaster, so if the 'canonicity' of material added by a Loremaster is disputed, the onus should be on the Loremaster to provide the necessary links and references to prove the validity of the material. It's the same for Lore articles as it is for other pages on the site - if somebody else disputes your edit, it is up to you to provide evidence that your edit was correct and valid.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 10:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT) (forgot to login)

: That's the kind of solution I was trying to describe above, but Gaebrial has done it more clearly and with more detail - thanks. I can support this compromise as I think it's the best of both worlds. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind. For example the absence of the legions, the counselors, the ban on levitation and other such things should be taken with a fair amount of skepticism because they're products of a games development, not so much of world. Though if in-game material takes preference it will be impossible to argue against this because #1 makes the game the most important source.

:: There should be no distinction between the in-game sources, out-of-game sources, interviews and obscure texts. Their value should be argued on the merits of the actual writing in Tamriel and not it's origins outside of Tamriel. If not, it's possible to say that books such as 'The Amulet of Kings' which don't even make sense historically are more reliable then say the Nu-Mantia intercept which resolves most consistency issue's around the Amulet of Kings.

:: Any sort of tiered system will have these problems whenever a lower-graded texts conflicts with higher-graded material while being more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting then the higher=graded material.

:: Putting the Onus on the lore master using the obscure text somewhat negates the whole point of this discussion because rather then deciding now how to handle the obscure text it gets redirected to a hundred different places.

:: Although it is good practice to source all information, the onus shouldn't just fall on the lore master but anybody who adds or corrects or removes information. [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 06:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:::Taking the above a point at a time...
:::-''The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind.''
:::But without the games there would not be an 'image of Tamriel'. Without the games, we would not be having this discussion.
:::-''(rest of paragraph 1)'' (I won't repeat it in its entirety)
:::The removal of spells (for example) has been largely explained away by the passing of laws. Yes, it's a cop-out to explain limitations brought about by the game engine or they way they have coded the world, and this could probably be mentioned as such on those pages comparing the games (e.g. levitation being removed from Oblivion because of the way the cities were created). However, on the ''Lore'' pages, the laws banning the use of certain spells (Passwall and Levitate are the two that spring to mind) are what should be mentioned - we shouldn't be stating that the Levitate spell was removed from Oblivion on the ''Lore'' page, but that the Levitate spell was banned by the relevant Act. I'm not sure how else you would handle these things, but if you've got any specific ideas, I'd be happy to hear them.
:::-''Paragraph 2''
:::Under what criteria is the Nu-Mantia intercept classed as official? Simply because it was written by MK? Did he write it as an Elder Scrolls developer, or as a private individual? What was its purpose? If we can prove that it was written to be an official Elder Scrolls document, then we can use it more or less as a 'primary' source (category 2 above). If we can't prove this, it has to remain as 'semi-official' (category 3), and should be noted accordingly in any article.
:::-Paragraph 3 - ''more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting''
:::Not to mention less official.
:::Incidentally, I don't see a tiered system as causing problems, as long as it is made clear that one exists, why it exists, and why a particular text is treated as more 'reliable' than another.
:::-''Paragraph 4''
:::I'm not sure I understand your point here.
:::-''Paragraph 5''
:::I agree. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was isolating Loremasters in particular. Anybody who makes an edit that is subsequently challenged must provide evidence that their edit was correct.

:::As I said before, the whole point about disputed material is '''consensus'''. If the ''consensus'' is that a particular text is not official and should not be mentioned in an article, then it doesn't get mentioned. If certain people want to include that text, they need to give reasons why it is official enough to be included, and if the ''consensus'' changes based on their reasons, then the text can be included.

:::I would also like to introduce another 'c' word - '''compromise'''. I think that 'traditionalists' in the community who would rather not use ''any'' out-of-game resources have, in general, shifted their position to one of compromise. I don't think I've seen any movement in the positions of the 'loremasters' - the message I'm getting is "we'll keep arguing our point until you come around to our way of thinking".
:::--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No compromise in the "Loremaster Camp?" What? What you meant was "we'll keep arguing our point until you actually read our posts." I've been making mewling noises over compromise for pages now. Do you think I co-authored Sload's proposal? Obviously I prefer it, but I liked Nephele's as well. I may be mistaken, but that applies to older users who want to see things change as well.
::::(And Nu-Mantia wasn't written by MK alone, and it really needs to be taken as truth because without it, Oblivion's plot doesn't make a lick of sense and is crazier than Sheogorath's cheese fetish and worse than the Eragon movie)[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I have read your posts. All of them. And the comments you have made on your edits. I have also read the comments on your user page. Your attitude comes across as "I'm a Loremaster, so you should let me add what I want to add to the Lore section in the way that I want, without questioning it". I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how it appears.

::::: As Sload said on your user page: ''I believe that paw-prints can change this if you will only let him. I implore all parties involved not to let this chance to create a wonderful encyclopedia of lore slip through their fingers.'' I think that most members of this community would welcome any move to improve the site's content, but you have to abide by the guidelines that are in place, that underpin and structure the site. That is, this site focuses on and emphasises the in-game content above any other. If you wish to argue that the in-game content is clarified and explained by certain out-of-game content, then fine, but that is how it should be described on the UESP - it should not be given equal billing to in-game content because '''the focus of this site is on in-game content'''.

::::: <big>'''''If you're happy with the proposals, why are we still arguing about things?'''''</big>

::::: By the way, I've read Nu-Mantia, and B's analysis/interpretation of it. I agree that it explains inconsistencies surrounding Chim el-Adabal*, and I've previously heard the theory that everything the 'hero' has done so far in the ES games has weakened the barriers between Mundus and Oblivion. However, the fact that it nicely explains everything and was written (or largely written) by MK doesn't make it an official source, and therefore it should not be given equal prominence with official sources. Is this so hard to understand and accept?

::::: <nowiki>*</nowiki> Apropos of nothing (as people like to say around here), Chim el-Adabal sounds interestingly Arabic. From what I can remember, '''''a'''l-Adabal'' means something like 'manners' or 'rules' - as in ''al-Adabal-Mufrad'' and ''al-Adabal-Shar'iyah''. Apologies to scholars if I've misremembered.

::::: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Why are we still arguing? You tell me (after you fix your font size, of course). I have largely stopped, except for one specific response 2000 words ago. But see, it doesn't matter how many of my comments you read when you persist in acting like they don't exist. ie, the 'why no compromise?' complaints, or this insufferable rehashing of 'not official,' which has been going on for the last week, and if you have read my posts, should seem counterproductive right now, so I won't respond further.
:::::I am still awaiting secondary comments from Sload and Nephele, thought I suppose in the meantime I will ask why. if you list categories 3 and 4, you never mention them in the body text, because it seems incomplete. Although it is also possible that 72 kilobytes of text (as my browser warns me) is swimming before my eyes.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The font size was deliberate. I'm sorry that you think that saying something is 'not official' is insufferable. I don't think stating the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Accurate and Verifiable|site policy]] is counterproductive to a discussion about the contents of the site. However, I do agree that maybe we should step back and await comments from others.

I also agree that this discussion is getting a bit long and difficult to follow. To answer your question, I said "''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here." in the fourth section of my proposed template, and I said "These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles." of category 4 material.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 11:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'll be willing to try any compromise. Just don't make the hurdles so high that any inclusion of out-of-game material is a hassle. Having edited a lot of lore articles in recent days, I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources. Any time I read a gamebook, things jump out at me and scream to be included to support points and enrich pages. If everyone just did some of that when reading source books, I believe that our Lore pages will be in better shape shortly. If nothing else, the "filling the holes" outside material can give some clues on how things hang together, whether you agree with a particular source or not. The more we work on lore namespace, the better it gets. i know that's a truism, but it does apply. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

'''Gaebrial,''' I'll refrain from addressing each comment individually because I don't think there will be any end to this discussion if you keep repeating that the games are the most important source of information, while I say that they are also a flawed source of information and as such they shouldn't trump any other flawed source of information. So instead I'll comment on your largest objection against the obscure texts and the compromises you suggested.

Discussing the validity of a text every time it gets used is a waste of time. All Obscure texts have the same properties, they don't appear in the game and they are written in-character by a developer so they can all be decided about right now - which I garnered was the impression of this discussion.

You don't consider these text to be less reliable for only the reason that they don't appear in the game. However the games already use materials that are unreliable, contradictive and incomplete. So being in the game means nothing for their reliability. Yet texts that are written by the same developer, that clarify and expand existing concepts, are considered less reliable then the already contradictive, incomplete materials that happen to be in the game, how can that position ever hold? As such a tiered system of reliability based on a texts presence in or with the game is completely out of place.

Before Oblivion there was period where the devs posted freely on the forums and talked about Tamriel. They did this with understanding that their out of character posts would be taken as their uninformed opinion on the matter while in character posts could be considered as much part of lore as anything else. Their in character material was written with this in mind so it should not be considered any less reliable.

As such on ESF:Lore there is a consensus that they are accepted as equal to other materials. While I realize that the ESF:Lore isn't the UESPWiki but it is the source for most of the lore expertise so it should count for some.

While I would also love to reach a compromise,I do not see a middle any ground. Either the texts are used on an equal basis, or they are not. You might feel that offering to push back the debate to the actual articles is a compromise, it not only delays this debate and decision, it multiplies it in every article that it touches on! Just as a tiered system can not be seen as a compromise because the criteria used do not say anything about reliability.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 05:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:'''Proposal''' I just saw that rpeh posted on til summarizing this discussion as "it must just be flagged as it is" while not an accurate summary, it does seem like the thing everybody can accept.

:I don't think explicitly mentioning this is aethestically pleasing, but perhaps something can be done with the reference symbols. I don't know how the wiki works but stuff like [] or {} to mark the differences in source. Alternativly it can be completely ignored as the sources are listed at the bottom of the article anyway.

:06:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::Having had some discussions in a more efficient manner in other places I can see the use of this tiered system when it's used to facilitate the reader who may or may not be familiar with all the material rather then as a system to describe a sources accuracy.

::I reckon this proposal will work with the following change: The fourth section should be a full fledged explanation rather then a notes section because most of the texts in the 3th category are often too complex or too large to merely link too. The reader wouldn't see the forest for the trees.

::[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 07:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::: It looks like we can agree that ''some'' variant of Gaebrial's system can be used. It's clear that nobody's going to be 100% happy but if we can come up with a good system then maybe we can at least please most of the people most of the time.
::: To step back for a minute: any system is going to have to work for all the pages in all the ways they work. That means as standalone articles, as transclusions into alphabetical lists and as transclusions into game pages. As I see it, that means there will have to be a section, preferably at the top of the article, that tells the brief, in-game theory. Without wanting to be dogmatic, this is going to ''have'' to be the case because otherwise we're going to cause inordinate confusion to the site's readers, most of whom read the material through the game pages and who really aren't interested in the intricacies of the lore.
::: After that, the difference between the two viewpoints comes down to the prominence that can be given to non-game material. Do we have two different detailed sections - one without OOG lore and one with? Do we use Gaebrial's sections idea to lead to tiers of information?
::: If we can agree on an introductory section with '''no''' out-of-game material then I suppose I can agree to the inclusion of such material in a second section, but with a couple of caveats. First, all OOG material must be ''fully'' cited. That doesn't just mean a link to TIL - it means also describing the place and time that the source was first presented, meaning that people can judge for themselves whether or not they want to trust it. Secondly, only material that doesn't break the POV of the Lore space can be used. That means "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "Vehk's Teachings" would be acceptable but ''not'' interviews with developers.
::: On a personal note, I'd like to thank Proweler for joining the debate and being apparently agreeable to compromise. It looks like we can get things moving again now. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

=== A proposal ===

I could go through and give comments to the individual points, but bear with me for a second. After having followed the discussion above, my take is that the conflict boils down to this:

Both sides don't want to have their viewpoints of ''Lore'' diminished.

Let me try to explain this with an example of one of the greatest mysteries of the TES series, the "Disappearance of the Dwarves". We were given many clues, books, fragments, even quests, stumbled over mysterious ruins where machines and Animunculi still functioned. The debate over what happened to the Dwemer occupied players for many years.

As it stands now, the ES forum presents it as this: We know what happened to the Dwarves. (We're done with that, go away. ;))

The wiki mentions many clues, but not the answer.

If you're a player, would you just have the answer presented to you, a "cheat" so to speak? Would you not equally feel cheated if only clues were presented, if an answer exists? I propose that all in-game clues are presented, the scholars involved, Fyr, Yagrum Bagarn, Demnevanni etc. followed by

"Kagrenac was devoted to his people, and the Dwarves, despite what you may have read, were a pious lot-he would not have '''sacrificed so many of their golden souls to create Anumidum's metal body''' if it were all in the name of grand theater. Kagrenac had even built the tools needed to construct a Mantella, the
'''Crux of Transcendence'''." - Skeleton Man's Interview (my emphasis)

One without the other is either boring, or incomplete or false. We need both, the puzzle pieces and the accepted answer. I propose a peer-reviewed article incorporating the base principles suggested in Nephele's write-up, and then the other "sides" can see if they're satisfied. I feel the theoretical discussion has gone far enough, we need to see what such a new article looks like. After all, that's what the wiki offers to its users, articles. I shall attempt to write [[Lore:Disappearance of the Dwarves|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] as an outline of such an article, any help and critique is very welcome. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not going to post a full response right now because I'm hoping others will respond first, but I will say that if you're writing an article based on disputed material you should do it in a sandbox instead of the Lore space. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
With all the dirt flying and Benould's renovations, the Lore section IS a sandbox right now. /gigglesnort The sourcing and formatting refute present policies often enough, never mind what we decide here. No one seemed to mind when Martin's mother was listed as Gemile, and that family tree is bloody old. A new standard is and good, but bend all our stubs into knots over the scruples of it.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

=== Have your cake ===

An opportunity has been lost here.

I am not interested in dealing with the sort of people I will find here. I should have taken some good advice, this just isn't worth it.

Nephele, I greatly respect what I have seen from you and I would have liked to have known you. Temple-Zero and Benould, there is no point pursuing this further. Rpeh, I am sure you will be satisfied. UESP is defended against us fools who actually know what we're talking about.

Be seeing you. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 01:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
: This is exactly what Gaebrial meant when he talked about compromise. You are sticking rigidly to your view that there is no difference between in- and out-of-game texts and refuse to countenance any kind of distinction being made. If you won't move from that belief, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Discussion is about compromise and those of us who were opposed to ''any'' inclusion of unofficial texts have already made a big move in your direction.
: To portray me as "satisfied" that UESP has lost somebody who could have been a useful editor is utterly untrue, but you don't seem to have understood any of the comments above on the suitability of material, the nature of our readership or our willingness to compromise. I'm not sure that an editor so unwilling so listen to the community would find themselves at home here in any case. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::To clarify something; Sload made this edit only a few minutes after he had been discussing with Rpeh on IRC, which was basically a reiteration of what has been stated here. This has led me to believe that no compromise is being sought by Sload. I apologize to Nephele, Benould and Gaebrial in advance, I know you worked hard on compiling a good proposal, but I have to vote for not having out-of-game sources at all (or only be an exception). Had we agreed on a compromise I still think it wouldn't have made any difference on the discussion on individual pages. Both parties would still have end up having lengthy discussions on every controversial edit. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 04:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::What's Daveh's opinion? Just out of curiosity.
::: It would seem Sload is not alone in thinking that a compromise is not reachable. I looked at the discussion at Til and saw that other lore-guru's/masters/khans like Albides and Sload think that TES lore is not complete without the Obscure Texts. Their main argument seems to be that many holes in the in-game lore, holes that are filled up by the Obscure texts. Secondly many of the "higher mysteries" of TES (like the Dreamsleave, the Eantiamorph and Chim) are only briefly mentioned in the ingame books. We need the Obscure texts to explain them. Some, like Sload and Albides, have accused the people who came up with a compromise as either being biased or flat-out wrong. Others have thanked Nep~hele (and others) for coming up with a proposal for compromise, but have said that a compromise is still not an option.
::: The main question, that I haven't seen anyone here asking himself, is if these people are right. They do know more about lore then we do so who knows? Are the loremasters living in an ivory tower and do they fight about dogma like a bunch of die-hard Christian theologians or is what they say right? Discussions about these sort of topics have popped up at the ES forums from time to time and have generally not lasted long. The end result was always that the loremaster'stance was taken as being canon. (examples : http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=738606&hl=cult and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=855895&st=60&p=12524154&#entry12524154)

::: ''Encylopedias, such as UESP are built on objective truths. If solid proof isn't found, then subjective opinions such as yours can't go into them.''

:::The following qoute was postec on TIl by Michaelsuarez, a member of UESP. The TES lore, with it's many different and conflicting sources isn't much different from your standard historical discussion. Deciding which sources take precedence over others, combining sources to form theories, use new sources to overthrow older theories. In the scholarly field of history, these sort of things happen all the time. In history, unlike the natural sciences, all knowledge is subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.
::: Many people think that nationalism is one of the reasons the First World War started. Many people do not realize however is that this is not the absolute truth. It's just a subjective truth. A group of scholars interpeted the sources and were of the opinion that there was a connection between the two. There is evidence to support this theory, but unlike the natural sciences historical evidence can be interpeted in a number of different ways. An historian, using the same sources, can come to a radically different interpetation.
:::This is also the case with TES lore. The Dissapearance of the Dwarves, the Night Mother, Pelinal Whitestrake, the nature of the Daedra Lords, these things can't be taken directly from the source material, they must be interpeted and combined with different sources. The result is not an objective truth, but a subjective one. UESP is a source of subjective knowledge without maybe even knowing it. Take for example lore:Dark Brotherhood. The second theory about the formation of the DB is clearly wrong. It states that the DB was formed after the murder of the lats potentate (2e 421). There is however solid proof that the DB was already formed in 2e 358-360. I could add this to the article, but under the current guidelines that is not allowed, because it is my personal opinion, not solid fact.

::: I'm still in for a compromise, but I'm not sure if both sides seem to be ready for this.

:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 07:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

===A Rat’s Viewpoint===

Alright, I have been involved with these discussions to some extent, but I haven’t actually posted my opinion here. I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before I decided to charge into no-man’s land. I’ve actually been preparing these comments since before Sload posted his position. Once we attracted Temple-Zero I saw this conversation happening, though I am a bit surprised it came up early. I’m going to attempt to flush out the issues and then propose a compromise.

====The Facts====
# The Lore Community considers MK’s out of game writings to be canon. This is important because they are the experts on Lore. Their opinions matter.
#The UESP doesn’t have a license to MK’s out of game works, and since they are not truly part of a larger work, we’d need them. I have talked to a few people (not MK or Bethesda), and I can definitely see that there may be trouble getting the license. This is not a showstopper. We can link to TIL as necessary. This has its downsides, since we can’t control the material that’s on TIL, but it could fulfill the need for sources.
#If we get a lot of out-of-game sources, we need people that know the material. Right now, I only see one long term person (Benould). Temple-Zero has been around a bit, and I think he can be trusted to stay, but I’d rather see at least one more person.
#The Lore Section as it currently stands needs major help. It is nothing compared to either the Morrowind or the Oblivion section in terms of detail.
#We are not owned by Bethesda, though we do have an important relationship with them. It is in our best interest to not piss them off. This is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I think it needed to be said.

====My Positions====
#In general, in-game content needs to be preferred. Basically, if Akatosh appears and explained the Dragon Break differently in ESV, we’d accept that version even over MK’s objections. This does have its limits. We can’t count up the number of NPCs in the Imperial City and call that its lore population.
#MK and other Developer’s work can be accepted as expert testimony. In a void of information, their work can bridge gaps.
#We can’t split articles based on OOG info or not. That’s going to cause too many organizational difficulties.

====Proposal====
#We need to cite information, where it is in game or not. That means we need to investigate getting a citation add-on if we haven’t already. This is critical in expanding the Lore section due to conflicting view points that take place both in and out of the games. This obviously means both IG and OOG source will be included.
#Fan information does not belong on the wiki.

====Why my proposal is different====
I believe both Nephele’s and Gaebrial’s proposals lend themselves to problems with keeping IG and OOG sources separate. That’s going to take a lot of work on a section as big as Lore. It is different from Sload in that preference is given to the in game sources. Overall, I think it is a very workable solution that I hope can please everyone. That being said, if anyone wants to add anything to this, talk here, I'm willing to change some portions. -[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is a workable solution, if we can get consensus behind it. Whether to host or link is a separate discussion, let alone negotiations with the involved parities. I think (short) quotes and links will suffice. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm sorry but I can't support this. It looked like we were heading for a compromise but this seems to be a step back. As I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348967&oldid=348958 said] earlier we ''must'' have a section that contains ''no'' unofficial material so that the pages can be used in gamespaces. Anything else is not appropriate for the types of user we typically see on the site. I think the fact that one group of people has been ready to move so far in this debate has caused you to forget how strongly we feel. My preference is still for '''no''' OOG material at all but this proposal puts in-game and unofficial on almost the same level. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::For what it's worth (and I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion), ex-developper Douglas Goodall made the following statement in his [[General:Douglas Goodall Interview|interview]]: ''"Books that are actually published in one of the Elder Scrolls games have precedence over ramblings on the forums."''. I think he has a point there. Which is not to say we should be ignoring all non-game sources, but I do think it makes sense to keep material that is not game-sourced outside of the game namespaces. In other words, keep it in the Lore namespace only. That means that any material which gets transcluded onto gamespace pages should only include information seen in the games. However, the gamespace pages should have links back to the Lore namespace, where the other material can be seen. The reasons for this are the same as the reasons why we don't discuss the details of a Morrowind quest on an Oblivion page, even if it is somehow related. (E.g.: [[Oblivion:A Rat Problem]] and [[Morrowind:Exterminator (Fighters)]]. The pages link to eachother, but say very little - you want the whole story, go to the linked page.) The same should go for the Lore namespace and any of the game namespaces. Thus [[Morrowind:Vivec (god)]] should really be about Vivec ''as he relates to the game of Morrowind''. Any information about Vivec that does not relate to the game of Morrowind or which cannot be seen in any of the in-game sources should stay on [[Lore:Vivec (god)]]. This means that the first section of the Lore page, which is transcluded on the Morrowind page, needs to include only material seen in the game. Anything else should be in the non-included part of the article (and of course, properly sourced, but I think we've gone over that enough). --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 01:13, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wait, the sticking point is what part gets transcluded onto to OB game pages, Rpeh? Some fancy noinclude can handle that, right? (Editors note: Most Lore articles, at least in part, also appear on game pages; the multi-purpose part that Nephele mentioned earlier) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Noinclude tags aren't going to work when the text that needs to be excluded is inextricably merged into every paragraph in the article though. More than two or three pairs of noinclude tags will make the article impossible to edit. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:25, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: What part and how much of an article does the transclusion entail, anyways? If the topic is so obscure that oog lore is needed for a passable summary, what is it doing in the namespace? That 'probable reader' thing works both ways.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 01:32, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

(Outdent)But your main concern is that OOG is found in OB pages, right? I agree that the confusion would be big if OOG is sitting on an OB page. In case of Amulet of Kings, the OB article probably would have to be severed from Lore, but OB content is very mature at this point. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, just a few pages that won't be transcluded. I don't see this to be a show-stopper, either have separate pages, IFEQ or noincludes. OB shouldn't stop Lore from being acurate, OB should just be accurate to what's in the game, with links to the Lore article for those that are interested. OB articles wouldn't really deal with references anyways, the main sourcing there as in MW would be links. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 02:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree, more or less, with everybody. I can support Ratwar's proposal, with the modification mentioned by Rpeh & Lurlock - that where a Lore page is transcluded onto non-Lore pages, the bit that is transcluded must contain only information from 100% official, in-game, sources. The rest of the Lore article can contain information from out-of-game sources if required, as long as these sources (in fact, all sources) are properly referenced and cited.
: I also agree with TZ's point that if the topic of a Lore article is so obscure that it cannot be summarised without using out-of-game resources, it shouldn't be transcluded onto non-Lore pages. If there is a need for a game-namespace page on the same subject (e.g. Amulet of Kings), then as Benould says, the two articles should be kept separate, possibly with links in the game-namespace article to the Lore article 'for further information' for those who are interested in such.
: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 02:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think the two-page idea is quite right. Nearly, but not quite. In the case of the Amulet of Kings, the Oblivion article doesn't need to mention the unofficial material at all, but definitely benefits from some of the history surrounding the item. On the other hand the Lore page has got to mention the Oblivion version of the story to be a complete story of the... well... lore surrounding it. Whichever version of the story you want to believe, lore means "the body of knowledge, esp. of a traditional, anecdotal, or popular nature, on a particular subject" so to exclude one version of events would be a mistake.
:: It's worth saying that there are only a few pages where this will be an issue, but on those pages, I think we have to take the two sections approach. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 04:16, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't support any proposal to change lore pages so that they fit in the other namespaces, or as the case is here, not improve the lore pages so that they fit into the gamespaces. I am fine with a two page idea, but I think the separating the page into sections is a recipe for an organizational nightmare. New editors aren't going to know the rules since it isn't obvious. With two pages, the game information only part (which I currently think should be a subpage of the main Lore article) could have messages explaining its existence. Doing this on regular pages would simply cause more confusion.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 19:41, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::::How many pages are we talking about here? [[Oblivion:Mannimarco]] is severed from Lore, Akatosh redirects to [[Oblivion:Nine Divines]], [[Oblivion:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]] transcludes. Is there any other conflicting stuff that does get transcluded into the Oblivion gamespace, since that's where the big pot-holes are, that the OOG content is attempting to fill. I hope we're not squabbling over a non-existing problem, or one that is very minor. Can a tech-savvy person please make a list and get us an overview? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:06, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::As I've said before, the lore section is chaotic and incomplete right now. The style guide is often ignored, and there are obscure text links in there that have nothing to do with this debate. If we limit any new standards to future edits regarding oog lore, and those subject to case-by-case review, is there that much of a problem?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 21:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nobody is claiming the Lore space is anything but a mess at the moment, but it doesn't need unofficial material to fix the problem. This proposal seems to have got back to treating unofficial material the same as official, and as such I don't support it. In general, I'm not going to support any proposal that doesn't make a clear distinction between official and unofficial material. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You mean besides the external link icon and the linkt hat opens a new tab, bringing you to a page with a proper disclaimer?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

(outdent) Although there are technical issues related to references in introductory material, in my opinion this fundamentally just comes down to good writing style. Any encyclopedia-style article should start with broad, general-interest information -- basic facts that everyone takes for granted. The first sentence of an article is the one sentence that all readers are likely to read, therefore it should be relevant to all readers; similarly, the first paragraph is the most-read paragraph; the first section is the most-read section. Knowledgeable readers may well only skim over the introduction, but readers who are completely new to the topic are likely to only read the introduction. So it should contain information that you're sure everyone wants to know.

In Elder Scrolls terms, this means that any well-written article will start with facts that are covered by nearly every book on the subject, or
at least is not contradicted by any book: facts upon which all readers and editors will agree, and facts which are the most fundamental to defining that topic. If it's information that everybody agrees upon, then it's invariably going to be content that is not based solely upon out-of-game books. It's also content that is unlikely to need any citations (in other words, multiple sources that are already referenced later in the article are all relevant, so listing them again would just be redundant).

That type of structure then naturally leads itself to the technical wiki details that have been discussed. Since the introductory content is universally accepted, it is equally relevant to Lore articles, summary articles, Oblivion articles, Morrowind articles, etc. And since references are not critical for supporting the information, we can get away without including the references on every page that uses the content. Overall, wiki styles were adopted to accomodate what naturally occurs in well-written articles: first, write the article; then, see how that article can be used on the wiki. If a well-written article really doesn't follow this pattern, then we shouldn't try to force it to fit -- and there are already examples where related articles are not transcluded copies of one another. But the majority of articles do fit this pattern, and therefore guidelines are developed that are appropriate for the majority of articles.

The length of any introductory, non-controversial, and therefore non-referenced content will vary widely from one article to another. In an article that is only five sentences long, the "introduction" might be the entire five sentences; or for an obscure topic, perhaps it would only be a single sentence distilling the only fact upon which everyone agrees. And no matter how controversial the topic, there has to always be some amount of basic content upon which everyone can agree ("The Amulet of Kings is a necklace worn by the Emperors of Cyrodiil"; "Direnni tower is a structure located on Isle of Balfiera"; "Numantia is an obscure word mentioned in religious texts such as Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes"). The introductory sentence(s)
should probably be in a separate paragraph from subsequent content -- but again for reasons of basic writing style. A transition from widely-known to more detailed information is generally significant enough to warrant a change of paragraphs.

As the article gets longer, the introductory content will also be longer. For page-length articles, it might be one or two paragraphs in length. Or in
lengthy articles, the introduction might be its own section, separated from the rest of the article by a level-two header.

As a result, I'm not really sure why the concept that articles should start by covering content from in-game books is so controversial. If you'd rather think of it as starting with content common to all books (in-game and out-of-game), then so be it; the result is still the same. (If the absolutely only mention of a topic is in out-of-game books, then it's arguable whether the topic needs an article on UESP; in any case, such articles will be the exception, not the rule.) As long as contributors place their articles' content in a logical order, then other editors on the site can work out the technical details (e.g., where to place a noinclude tag, whether to transclude the article).

:(Quick technical points in response to Ratwar:
:* We don't need to host any of the content; all that's necessary is that links to the content be included in articles. Licensing is therefore not relevant to the question of what should or should not be discussed in articles.
:* We already have a citation/reference extension that has been installed on thesite, and is being used widely in any revisions made to the Lore page. At some point we may need to discuss some details of the specific format used for references but, again, that's really not relevant to the immediate issues at hand.)

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 12:45, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

=== Resolution? ===
Debate seems to have stopped. How is this question resolved? A decision of all the admins? A proposal to the community? It's time to make a decision. I support Ratwar's proposal as it does not share the fatal flaws of some others, which would split sources and make the criteria for citations too byzantine and arguable to be easily navigated by users who aren't very familiar with the site. This would handicap the rejuvenation of the lore section and besides, it is the place of uesp to present a comprehensive picture of everything that is Elder Scrolls. This is the UNOFFICIAL Elder Scrolls Site, it is not the place to make such judgements over material. These resources are essential. Their use can have limits and qualifications, but forcing them into narrow categories and supporting roles overcomplicates editing and discourages their implementation. This makes any sort of obscure text editing difficult and clouds the true issue over their trustworthiness suitability to the topic.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 13:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Not only the debate has stopped. Any momentum that existed to improve the Lore namespace has stopped as well. What looked liked a consensus has been abandoned over posturing. I am disappointed. There may be no editors left to implement the changes that are so vigorously discussed above. "Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I have been absent from the internet as much as uesp lately. If we can get this resolved soon, then I am all for a (perhaps official) lore project.[[User:24.31.156.165|24.31.156.165]] 22:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT) Temple-Zero

:So we call a vote? Or just try and see where the ship goes? [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 12:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===We're not ready for guidelines...===
:''Preamble:'' This has been a long, difficult discussion, but ultimately I think it was necessary and for the best. It may also have been inevitable that it would be an intense discussion: the two groups contributing clearly have different perspectives, yet both are deeply invested in the Elder Scrolls community and therefore unlikely to just walk away or give up. These guidelines could not be developed without input from both groups (in other words, if these guidelines had been written two months ago, they would have had to be rewritten). Even if we can't yet finalize some guidelines, the discussion to date has been valuable: hopefully everyone has gained insights into the opposing perspectives. Or at least, it should be clear to everyone just how strongly held some of these beliefs are.

At this point, I don't think it is possible to reach a resolution; I don't see any workable compromise that will be acceptable to everyone involved right now. Progress was made and it seems like near-compromises were reached on some major issues -- but nevertheless multiple posts late in the discussion still include absolute negatives such as "I cannot support this." Furthermore, we've reached a stalemate. Not only the discussion has stalled; as pointed out by Benould it is also a major obstacle preventing any progress from being made on the Lore pages. I think part of the problem is that we've reached the limits of what can be accomplished through discussion. Most of this has essentially been theoretical arguments about what might happen, but with very few real examples to illustrate the points. We need practical arguments at this point. It's particularly imperative in this situation, given that the contributors have such different perspectives and, even more importantly, differing familiarity with the wiki and even each other. I'm willing to bet that this conversation is riddled with countless misunderstandings that are only exacerbating the problems: are we really all interpreting these proposals the same way? I know I'm not completely sure about the details of some proposals. The best way to clarify the proposals is to turn them into concrete examples. We need to see what happens in reality when we try to re-organize an article (is it possible to separate in-game content from out-of-game, or is it too awkward? Which specific obscure texts are relevant, in what context, and why?) Which means we need to get back to editing articles -- and I think we also all simply need a break from this discussion. Remind ourselves of why we even care about this discussion.

With that in mind, I'm basically going to suggest some ''temporary'' measures to break the stalemate, placing a top priority on simply making it possible for editors to get back to working on articles -- even if those articles are not written to a common set of guidelines. Towards that end, I think it's worth remembering a few fundamentals:
* [[UESPWiki:Content Over Style|Content Over Style]] is one of this wiki's guidelines. If disagreements about style (i.e., guidelines) are preventing content from being added to the site, then the process has gone very wrong. Any content added to the site can later be revised to meet a given set of guidelines, but creating the content in the first place may not be possible (especially if knowledgeable editors have been lost). Although this debate is not purely about style it has nevertheless resulting in stopping ''any'' content from being added to Lore articles.
* Any guidelines that are adopted are guidelines, not absolute rules. Exceptional cases may well exist where the guidelines do not work. The guidelines can not and should not be written to encompass those exceptions. Probably each exception needs to be considered on an individual basis, and that probably can't be done until a first draft of the article has been written. The guidelines should instead focus on the majority of articles. Guidelines should provide the standard way to tackle a situation, or the method that should always be tried first.
* Wiki decisions are never final. New contributors, new circumstances, or new content; any one of these can make it necessary to revisit any decision. In particular with a substantial issue like this, it is probably inevitable that any guidelines that are adopted will need to be tweaked -- whether we spend another day or whether we spend another year in discussions. Given that any conclusions are going to be temporary and imperfect, we shouldn't let this process drag on to the point where it prevents progress from being made.

And because I like to be long-winded ;), before getting to the real ideas, I'd like to share a few other perspectives that have crossed my mind.
* This discussion is not taking place on "neutral" territory, where TIL and UESP contributors on equal footing. Rather, it is taking place on UESP -- because it is about the standards to adopt for UESP content. The UESP contributors are undeniably more familiar with how the wiki works, how editors are likely to alter articles, and how UESP's readers are likely to react. The UESP contributors also have to live with the consequences of this discussion, no matter how it turns out; not only live with the consequences, but even enforce and maintain any standards. Therefore, expecting an impartial (or "fair"?) conclusion may not exactly be realistic.

* I doubt UESP will ever be an appropriate place to document every nuance of the lore. Nevertheless, I think that revamping the Lore articles on UESP will help the lore community nearly as much as it helps UESP. Several comments have suggested that UESP's articles will be most useful for "educating" newcomers to the lore discussions -- providing the fundamentals that are necessary before diving into the more advanced content discussed, for example, on TIL's forums. Also, UESP's articles can become a vital way to introduce new people to the lore -- but UESP's readers will only discover links to obscure texts if they are willing to the read the articles in the first place. If articles are not written at a level accessible to non-experts, then those non-experts will give up.
** A good analogy is perhaps to treat UESP articles as the equivalent of an introductory college Physics class ("Physics 101"). Such a class focuses on over-simplified but widely accepted concepts (Newtonian laws of motion; conservation of mass; events are predictable not random). It might mention advanced theories (Einstein and relativism; quantum mechanics) but only in very simplified terms. Students have to master the outdated 19th centry theories before they can possibly move on to the 20th century physics -- physics that in some ways completely invalidates the 19th century physics they just learned. Trying to teach freshmen students physics by putting them in graduate seminars would be a complete failure. Any information targeting a broad audience that is unfamiliar with the topic needs to cover the content at a sufficiently simplified level so that the audience can understand it.

* The Lore articles are going to be full of contradiction and controversy, even if (perhaps especially if) we stick to only in-game content. With in-game content alone, there are going to be difficult decisions about how to prioritize different sources, which ones to emphasize, which ones to discount. The obvious issues involve the games's "historical" texts (Is PGE1 biased? Is Mysterious Akavir based on hearsay or facts? How to deal with fragments of text and questionable translation, e.g., ''[[Lore:Father of the Niben|Father of the Niben]]''). But beyond that there are also dozens of "fictional" texts from the game that contain snippets of information. Are the descriptions of Black Marsh from ''[[Lore:The Argonian Account|The Argonian Account]]'' accurate? Is ''[[Lore:The Refugees|The Refugees]]'' simply fiction, or is this reliable evidence that Mankar Camoran is the son of Camoran Usurper and his Bosmeri mistress? We already have to make judgment calls about whether to treat such pieces of information as factual, despite being embedded in fiction. The judgment calls don't seem fundamentally different when, for example, evaluating Kirkbride's RP posts and identifying a few factual points even if the majority of the content is not relevant to UESP. We can't eliminate quality-based decisions by declaring a category of Elder Scrolls content off limits. Conversely, any standards that are adopted for evaluating the relevance of in-game content can probably also be applied to evaluating out-of-game content. The fact that the content does not appear in the game may be an additional criterion used in any evaluation, but it cannot be the only criterion.

--[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 13:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::You make a good point about non-experts and using UESP as a sort of lore dictionary (something I very much wish it to be). The crucial obscure texts are exactly that- Metaphysics 101 with more difficult language. Teaching the topics they cover without referencing them would be nightmarish, and I am speaking as one who learned lore largely from the explanations of others, going to find the sources afterwards. How can we write intelligible articles that will be useful to probable readers if we are encumbered in what thoughts we can express and how we can justify them? I have been resorting to byzantine and evasive wording in some of my edits, trying to pass off knowledge gleaned from unofficial sources as the natural conclusions of in-game books. This is not helpful to anyone.
::Anyways, I think we're on something like the same page. I await your proposal. [[User:24.31.156.165|24.31.156.165]] 14:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)Temple-Zero

====Proposal====
The priorities, in my opinion, are to:
* Make it possible to get back to editing Lore articles before losing all of the momentum and interest.
* Accept that there are going to be mistakes, so try to make it possible to come back later and find any articles that need to be revised.

To that end, there is only one guideline that seems vitally important:
:'''''Any content that comes from a non-UESP source must have a reference.'' That reference must be a functioning link to the source material. The reference should be provided by the editor who added the content.'''

Rationale:
* Although ultimately we want references for all content, including content from in-game books, in the short-term it is more important that offsite content have valid references (see, for example, my comments under [[#Counter-Proposal (Sload)|Counter-proposal (Sload)]]).
* This requirement should not be a hindrance; it does not place any limits on what content can be added to articles. It's also been part of every proposal to date, so I think it's reasonable to say that we've reached a consensus on this point. (Whether or not the same treatment extends to in-game books may have been debated, but everyone has agreed that out-of-game books need proper references).

* Despite the appearance of consensus on this issue, it is so fundamental to what I'm going to say next that I think it still needs some additional emphasis.
** Functioning references are particularly important to enable any type of progress on Lore articles, because those references provide some critical traceability. With proper references, any articles containing links to particular out-of-game sources can later be identified. We all know that we eventually need some type of guidelines for that content, so the only way to encourage content to be added in the absence of such guidelines is to provide a mechanism to later apply any guidelines. When guidelines are eventually adopted, we can search for content that does not meet those guidelines and modify it as necessary -- whether that entails revising the reference format; adding details such as when and why it was written; adding links to a [[#Source critique|source critique]]; or, deleting content that is deemed unsuitable for UESP. Mistakes can be tolerated if we know that we can later fix the mistakes.
** That search capability requires that the references be actual, working links. Although there is no "What Links Here" feature for external links, it is actually possible to mimic that function through database queries. In other words, I can create the equivalent of "What Links Here" lists (I've done it a few times in the past for other types of external links). It's also possible to use Google to find such pages, using the link: keyword in Google.
** Patrollers (or any other editors) who cannot verify a contribution based on in-game content should add a [[Template:VN|VN]] tag to request that a reference be provided. In addition, even if there is a reference, a VN tag can be added if the other editor cannot see how the reference supports the provided facts. If a reference is not provided within a reasonable amount of time (i.e., a week), the content should be moved from the article to its talk page. It cannot be added back into the article until a supporting reference has been provided.

* A corollary of this one guideline is : '''If content cannot be supported by a link to a supporting source, then it does not belong on the site.''' Such content is original research, which does not belong on an encyclopedia. Again, all proposals have contained restrictions of some sort on original research, so this isn't really a unilateral decree.

Other than that, I don't think we're ready to adopt any other guidelines. In other words, because I do not see a consensus developing over limits on what can be added to Lore articles, I'm saying that '''we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time'''. As long as a link can be added providing a source for the statement (and as long as the statement is relevant to the article, of course), the statement is acceptable -- no matter what the source's category, classification, officialness, or canonicity may be.

Before anyone gets upset/angry (or even elated) at that statement, please take the time to hear me out and hear why I'm advocating such a one-sided position in violation of all rules about consensus.
* First, and most importantly, this is '''temporary'''. It is not the basis for any final guidelines; it is not a consensus. It is just a way to get moving again, even if it's movement in the wrong direction. Although it's not too different from Ratwar's proposal, the fundamental difference is that I'm acknowledging that it's unlikely to be acceptable as a final set of guidelines.
* Why is my proposal so one-sided?
** Adding out-of-game sources is fundamentally a change from what's been done on UESP. We can't expect to evaluate any suggested changes if we return to our past "business as usual" -- if we keep doing the same thing, then we can only end up with the same result. So I opted in favor of the radical extreme instead of the conservative extreme.
** The best way to really evaluate what has been suggested (good, bad, or ugly) is to let it happen. If this really will be a disaster, then there's no better way to prove it than by letting the disaster happen. Any problems that arise will be solid evidence that can then be discussed as a reality rather than a theoretical example. We can point to specific articles, specific sentences, specific references; we can be sure that everybody is discussing the same facts, not just interpreting proposals differently.
* How is this different from what was happpening before?
** Ultimately, it may not be any different. But it is my pretty firm belief that UESP (or at least the Lore section of UESP) was healthier three weeks ago than it is now. It may well have been harder on the patrollers than the current stagnation. But if making patrolling easy was our top priority on UESP, the only logical conclusion would be to shut down editing and turn UESP into a static site, not a wiki. A wiki is healthy when articles are being modified and when new editors are contributing, so I'd rather go back to what was happening before.
** If there are patrollers who thought that the situation was previously unacceptable, those patrollers are free to ignore all edits that get made to Lore articles.
** I'm also hoping that everyone has learned something from this process, and that editors will consider the various opposing opinions when editing and perhaps allow those opinions to temper their actions.
* Why edit Lore articles instead of just sandboxes?
** Editing sandbox articles as examples has already been suggested several times, but it hasn't led anywhere. The only example that we have so far is Sload's -- but Sload was not provided with any feedback on that sandbox example.
** The Lore namespace is currently dying; resuming progress on Lore articles is more important than details of how the articles are written.
** Working on real articles will be more beneficial to everyone. Any system needs to work with collaboratively-written articles, which is not truly possible on personal sandboxes. Patrollers need to be able to point out information that is missing references; multiple editors need to each contribute the puzzle pieces that they think belong on the article. Articles need to cross-reference each other. Transclusions into other namespaces need to be tested.
** Nevertheless, this will need some amount of tolerance from everyone if it is going to work with "real" Lore articles. If a patroller sees an edit containing controversial material, that doesn't mean we need to start a debate immediately on the merits of that content. The only requirement I'm emphasizing here is that the content needs a reference. As long as the reference is there, give the contributor some freedom to create an article that shows why that content is useful. Don't start debates over every individual edit, but instead think of them as eventual examples for this general debate.
* Some editing suggestions
** Use this freedom to include any sources ''very wisely''. The edits made over the next few weeks will, in one way or another, determine whether or not out-of-game sources can remain in the Lore articles. Abusing this opportunity will only convince other editors that out-of-game sources are frivolous, irrelevant, or otherwise unacceptable.
** Try to find examples where you think the obscure texts are indispensable for the content. Make it as obvious as possible why the out-of-game content contributes useful and relevant information. Find ways to prove that ''UESP articles'' need to have this additional content: examples that are useful for "typical" UESP readers will be far more significant.
** Even better: try to edit articles incorporating proposals and ideas with which you ''disagreed''. Make a good faith effort to write an article, and see how many compromises are really necessary. For example, can you write an article that first summarizes the in-game content, and then moves on to out-of-game content? If the resulting article is truly unacceptable (at least in your opinion), post it anyway and then explain on the talk page why the proposals didn't work. Ask for advice on how to fix the article. Find out whether your interpretation of the proposal was accurate.
** Be over-zealous about adding references. The most important point is to put a link to the source in the article. If nothing else, copy and paste the URL from your browser directly into the article. The format of the link can be fixed by other editors; the reference tags can be added by other editors. Just make sure to include the raw information. Without that information, other editors are far more likely to lose patience with this experiment.
** This doesn't require the creation of "important" or "substantial" articles. We need examples of typical Lore articles, because the guidelines are supposed to encompass typical situations, not the exceptional or unusual articles.
* Is there a timetable for establishing real guidelines?
** I don't think it will help to set a fixed timetable about when to restart the discussion about guidelines. Rather, I think it should happen once editors start to feel like there are enough examples to start drawing conclusions. And once the editors have the energy and motivation to resume. It might take a couple months; it might take a few days.
** Another possibility is that editors will feel compelled to resume this discussion when they have simply had enough of the chaos. Every aggravation is likely to accelerate the pressure to adopt new guidelines. And realistically, the more irritated editors are, the more likely it is that any guidelines will be end up being strict or even punitive (whether or not that's the actual intent).
** Conversely, honest efforts on everyone's part to make this experiment work will increase the chances of success: increase the chances that we can work together to create some articles that are real examples of high-quality, properly-written Lore articles that are useful to everyone in the Elder Scrolls community. If we can create some examples that illustrate what works and what doesn't work, coming back and writing some guidelines should (I hope!) be less arduous.

If anyone is still angry after reading to this point, could I at least ask that you take a day to think things over? I've spent more than a few days thinking this over before posting it, and my thoughts have changed over that time. I honestly hope that these suggestions will help us to move forward, rather than deepen the rifts that have developed.

In the meantime, as I've said more than a few times, I really think editors should feel free to return to editing Lore articles right away. I don't think we can afford to wait another week or two just debating whether or not it's acceptable to make edits; if we wait that long we may never be able to recover. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 16:18, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Another suggestion: on articles such as White Gold Tower, Nede, Disappearance of the Dwarves, it might be a good idea for an editor who plans on major changes based on far-flung and unofficial sources to state his claims and references in the talk pages, and wait a day or so for critiques. I plan to do this in the case of the former, where Rpeh has moved a paragraph anyway. It saves having to write a heavily-cited section twice, and makes debating the issue easier. If this is a sandbox sort of thing someone tell me, because I think adding a talk page heading called "Needed Conversations" is a nice, obvious way to go fishing for a consensus. In addition, is a lore Project needed? [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with almost all of Nephele's post but not with the conclusion "we should not enforce any limits on the validity of sources at this time". The idea that UESP can start basing its content on forum posts is utterly ludicrous and is clearly unacceptable.

:Let's clear one thing up here: the impression some people will have picked up from the discussion is that the "Lore Community" is united in their acceptance of MK's fanfiction as canon. They aren't. We have attracted elements of the pro- group but even a few minutes spent on Bethesda's Lore forum will show there is an anti- fanction too. If there really was a consensus on these forum posts then I would reluctantly go along with their inclusion, but there isn't and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

:Apart from anything else, the unofficial material is unnecessary. As Benould said above, "I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources." [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348882&oldid=348880] and he's right. For instance, I was able to replace a speculative paragraph about White Gold Tower with an informative one supported by sources that won't have our users scratching their heads and wondering what on earth it's talking about. [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore_talk:White_Gold_Tower&oldid=348616].

:I'm not going to rehash what I've said before so I'll simply restate my belief that a compromise along Gaebrial's [[#Counter-Counter_Proposal|proposal]] is the only way this will work. If it comes down to a choice between including any and all external sources or excluding them totally, my vote is unhesitatingly for the latter. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:30, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Summary of the discussion so far, in brief [http://wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/140577/wiki_mash_4 form] --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 05:38, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Source critique ==

This is a proposal to add a template with a source critique to ''each and every'' source; book, fragment, obscure, ingame or out-of-game. If we're treating them like historical sources, as Apophis2412 was getting at, they have to be critiqued. This is necessary and what rpeh was asking for, Proweler was hinting at and incorporates some of all proposals. The TIL has some of it with its categorization into Historical/Fiction/Lore etc, [http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/ here] for example, our book description/author and bylines have some of it, but neither are really extensive to the level of detail that is needed. That way, every single page where the texts are used doesn't have to make that judgment call.

An example of why Source critique is needed:

The [http://www.imperial-library.info/interviews/skelm.shtml Skeleton's Man Interview] for example is sourced only to a now defunct [http://www.m0use.net/~skelm/ Hall of Adventurers] at m0use.net, no date, no further details. From what I could gather, it is a Teaser, in-character by MK and others at the time of the release of "Redguard", while working on MW. Somewhere, somehow it should be mentioned that its quoting [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=482103&st=20&p=6918676&#entry6918676 here] ended the discussion about the disappearance of the Dwarves in the forums.

Source critique would describe how this text came about, identify the writer and as in-character if applicable, category - as mentioned, and viewpoint/skew/bias. It would also allow a brief judgment, with clarifications. Just a quick write-up, things can be added, although the entry should be brief.

Example: "2920" - A fictional but well-researched retelling of the events of the last year of the First Era,
*by Carlovac Townway Writer:Ted ? - in-game: OB, MW (however we called it OGG, IG)
*Main characters are the Tribunal, Reman III. Potentate
*Spans from the war of the Reman Empire with Morrowind to the assassination of Reman by the Morag Tong.
*Keywords: First Era, Night Mother (anything not mentioned previously)

All relevant words are hyperlinked and indexed, so if I were to look up information in search about the Morag Tong, it'll pop up under Sources. Any discussions would be on the talk page of the source, so things are transparent for future researchers.

If deemed useful, creating this source critique would depend heavily on both communities, and can be applied here as well as the TIL (if they want that, of course). Such a joint effort could build *gasp* bridges, educate, create interest in the Lore sources and help every single Lore article. It would also let us discuss the texts, which is the Hobby part of it ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think I understand what you're saying, and what I get out if it is this: Rather than a project to add critiques to every solitary source, make a once-size-fits-all template so that any issue regarding the source may be addressed with ease, and perhaps a source with a critical template could be flagged in its reference text. Consensus in the talk pages would be very important, however.

:And I like the thinking behind Ratwar's proposal, as it seems to benefit from being a fresh perspective in terms of identifying the true issues and pitfalls of using all sources. I'm reasonably certain the obscure texts do not require licenses. MK exerts unofficial control over his writing and its being hosted on TIL, and anything put on a forum generally isn't restricted by anythinge except courtesy. But I am not asking for the obscure texts to be hosted anyway, especially as the external link is all the disclaimer you will need in many cases.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 15:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'd be fine just external links, but what I was trying to say is that for us to host them, we'd need some kind of 'okay' from MK (or the other author in question). --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Talos

2008-08-24T00:27:04Z

Benould: Welcome Talos

== Welcome Talos ==

Hello Talos! Welcome to the wiki. I hope you enjoy using the site and find the information on it useful. If you decide you want to help improve any of our pages, we're always welcoming to new editors so feel free. You might want to look at our [[UESPWiki:Getting Started|Getting Started]] page for some tips on how to begin, then play in our [[UESPWiki:Sandbox|Sandbox]] for a while to practice. If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our [[UESPWiki:Mentors|mentors]]. Enjoy! --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Lore:Gods

2008-08-23T23:17:18Z

Benould: tweaks for readability

{{Lore Gods Trail|}}
__NOTOC__
The '''gods worshiped in Tamriel''' fall into several distinct groups:
* Many versions of [[Lore:Anu|Anu]] and [[Lore:Padomay|Padomay]], the two primal forces. These two entities are recognized under various names in most faiths.
* The [[Lore:et'Ada|et'Ada]], or "Original Spirits", which include:
** [[Lore:Aedra|Aedra]], those who helped to create [[Lore:Mundus|Mundus]]
** [[Lore:Daedra|Daedra]], those who refused to help create Mundus
** [[Lore:Magna Ge|Magna Ge]], Children of [[Lore:Magnus|Magnus]]
** [[Lore:Mnemolia|Mnemolia]]
* Other divine spirits (or ada) descended from the et'Ada, such as [[Lore:Morihaus|Morihaus]] and Pelinal.
* Mortals who achieved apotheosis, such as [[Lore:Talos|Talos]].

This table contains all names of beings worshiped by the nine major races in Tamriel. Please note that various faiths acknowledge many gods, but do not necessarily worship them. This table is therefore not a complete list of all ''known'' gods.

Little is known about the culture of [[Lore:Black Marsh|Black Marsh]], and therefore no gods are listed from that region.

Finally, [[Lore:Orsimer|Orsimer]] gods are not listed as they don't have a specific province, but instead a kingdom in the High Rock - [[Lore:Orsinium|Orsinium]]. Although Orsimer Gods are not listed, they predominantly worship [[Lore:Malacath|Malacath]] and/or [[Lore:Trinimac|Trinimac]].

{|class="wikitable sortable"
![[Lore:Cyrodiil|Cyrodiil]] ([[Lore:Imperial|Imperial]])
![[Lore:Skyrim|Skyrim]] ([[Lore:Nord|Nord]])
![[Lore:Summerset Isle|Summerset Isle]] ([[Lore:Altmer|Altmer]])
![[Lore:Valenwood|Valenwood]] ([[Lore:Bosmer|Bosmer]])
![[Lore:Morrowind|Morrowind]] ([[Lore:Dunmer|Dunmer]])
![[Lore:Hammerfell|Hammerfell]] ([[Lore:Redguard|Redguard]])
![[Lore:High Rock|High Rock]] ([[Lore:Breton|Breton]])
![[Lore:Elsweyr|Elsweyr]] ([[Lore:Khajiit|Khajiit]])
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Akatosh|Akatosh]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Akatosh|Akatosh]]
|[[Lore:Alkosh|Alkosh]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Alduin|Alduin]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Satakal|Satakal]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Almalexia (god)|Almalexia]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Arkay|Arkay]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Arkay|Arkay]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Tu'whacca|Tu'whacca]]
|[[Lore:Arkay|Arkay]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Auri-El|Auri-El]]
|[[Lore:Auri-El|Auri-El]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Azura|Azura]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Azura|Azura]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Azura|Azurah]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Baan Dar|Baan Dar]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Baan Dar|Baan Dar]]
|-
|[[Lore:Boethiah|Boethiah]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Boethiah|Boethiah]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Clavicus Vile|Clavicus Vile]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Dagoth Ur|Dagoth Ur]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Diagna|Diagna]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Dibella|Dibella]]
|[[Lore:Dibella|Dibella]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Dibella|Dibella]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Hermaeus Mora|Hermaeus Mora]]
|[[Lore:Herma-Mora|Herma-Mora]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Herma-Mora|Herma-Mora]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Hermaeus Mora|Hermorah]]
|-
|[[Lore:Hircine|Hircine]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Hircine|Hircine]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:HoonDing|HoonDing]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Jode|Jode]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Masser|Masser]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Jone|Jone]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Secunda|Secunda]]
|-
|[[Lore:Julianos|Julianos]]
|[[Lore:Jhunal|Jhunal]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Julianos|Julianos]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Kynareth|Kynareth]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Tava|Tava]]
|[[Lore:Kynareth|Kynareth]]
|[[Lore:Kynareth|Khenarthi]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Kyne|Kyne]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Leki|Leki]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Shezarr|Shezarr]]
|[[Lore:Shor|Shor]]
|[[Lore:Lorkhan|Lorkhan]]
|[[Lore:Lorkhan|Lorkhan]]
|[[Lore:Lorkhan|Lorkhan]]
|[[Lore:Sep|Sep]]
|[[Lore:Sheor|Sheor]]
|[[Lore:Lorkhan|Lorkhaj]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Magnus|Magnus]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Magnus|Magnus]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Malacath|Malacath]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Trinimac|Trinimac]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Malacath|Malacath]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Malooc|Malooc]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Mara|Mara]]
|[[Lore:Mara|Mara]]
|[[Lore:Mara|Mara]]
|[[Lore:Mara|Mara]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Mara|Mara]]
|[[Lore:Mara|Mara]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Mauloch|Mauloch]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Mehrunes Dagon|Mehrunes Dagon]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Mehrunes Dagon|Mehrunes Dagon]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Mehrunes Dagon|Merrunz]]
|-
|[[Lore:Mephala|Mephala]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Mephala|Mephala]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Mephala|Mafala]]
|-
|[[Lore:Meridia|Meridia]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Molag Bal|Molag Bal]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Molag Bal|Molag Bal]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Morihaus|Morihaus]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Morwha|Morwha]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Namira|Namira]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Namira|Namiira]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Nerevar|Nerevar]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Nocturnal|Nocturnal]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Onsi|Onsi]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Orkey|Orkey]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Peryite|Peryite]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Phynaster|Phynaster]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Phynaster|Phynaster]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Rajhin|Rajhin]]
|-
|[[Lore:Reman|Reman]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Riddle'Thar|Riddle'Thar]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Ruptga|Ruptga]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Sanguine|Sanguine]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Sanguine|Sangiin]]
|-
|[[Lore:Sheogorath|Sheogorath]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Sheogorath|Sheogorath]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Sheogorath|Sheggorath]]
|-
|[[Lore:Sithis|Sithis]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Sotha Sil|Sotha Sil]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Stendarr|Stendarr]]
|[[Lore:Stuhn|Stuhn]]
|[[Lore:Stendarr|Stendarr]]
|[[Lore:Stendarr|Stendarr]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Stendarr|Stendarr]]
|[[Lore:Stendarr|S'rendarr]]
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Syrabane|Syrabane]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Talos|Talos]]
|[[Lore:Ysmir|Ysmir]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Tsun|Tsun]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|[[Lore:Vaermina|Vaermina]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Vivec_(god)|Vivec]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Xarxes|Xarxes]]
|[[Lore:Xarxes|Xarxes]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|-
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Y'ffre|Y'ffre]]
|[[Lore:Jephre|Jephre]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Y'ffre|Y'ffre]]
|[[Lore:Y'ffre|Y'ffer]]
|-
|[[Lore:Zenithar|Zenithar]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Z'en|Z'en]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|[[Lore:Zeht|Zeht]]
|[[Lore:Zenithar|Zenithar]]
|{{hide|ZZ}}
|}

==Notes==
*For more info, see the article on [[Lore:Daedric Princes|Daedric Princes]].

*For various reasons, the following deities are not on the table above:
** [[Lore:Ius|Ius]], who is mostly an easter egg.
** [[Lore:Malak|Malak]], which is another name for [[Lore:Gods M#Malacath|Malacath]]; Orsimer gods are not listed in the table.

==See Also==
* ''[[Lore:Varieties of Faith in the Empire|Varieties of Faith in the Empire]]'': The original source for most of the information in this table
* ''[[Lore:The Monomyth|The Monomyth]]'': Intercomparison of different pantheons
* ''[[Lore:Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi|Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi]]'': Information about the [[Lore:Khajiit|Khajiit]]i (Elsewyr) pantheon

Lore:White-Gold Tower

2008-08-23T22:14:21Z

Benould: Undo revision 354595 by Antares (Talk) added incomplete and VN tags, needs at least refs

<noinclude>{{Lore Places Trail}}{{incomplete|refs}}
</noinclude>[[Image:OB_White_Gold_Tower_(Base).jpg|thumb|right|White Gold Tower seen from its base.]]
'''White Gold Tower''' is the central spire located at the [[Lore:Imperial City|Imperial City]]'s heart. It serves as the {{Lore Link|Imperial Palace}} and hosts the vaults and libraries of the Moth Priesthood. It can be seen from all over the city and is a defining feature and monument.

Originally built by the [[Lore:Ayleids|Ayleids]], the tower has both a symbolic significance and is of very real cosmic importance to the stability of Tamriel. Its location at the center of an array of other Towers serving similar purposes give it an untold power to influence Creation. The White Gold Tower was the hidden actor in the Oblivion Crisis, as it was the tower, and not its anchor, the [[Lore:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]], nor the symbol of the connection, the [[Lore:Dragonfires|Dragonfires]], which upheld the Lunar Lattice between [[Lore:Mundus|Mundus]] and [[Lore:Oblivion|Oblivion]].<noinclude>{{VN|references, clarification}}

==See Also==
*For more information, see the [[Oblivion:White Gold Tower|Oblivion White Gold Tower article]].</noinclude>

Morrowind:Snaglak gro-Yak

2008-08-22T00:46:10Z

Benould: minor tweak

{{NPC Summary
|loc=[[Morrowind:Valenvaryon|Valenvaryon]], Umug's Hut
|race=Orc
|gender=Male
|class=Agent
|level=6
|health=73
|magicka=72
|train=[[Morrowind:Acrobatics|Acrobatics]] (42) [[Morrowind:Light Armor|Light Armor]] (42) [[Morrowind:Sneak|Sneak]] (42)
|alarm=0
|fight=90
|image=MW-NPC-SnaglakgroYak.jpg
|imgdesc=Snaglak gro-Yak
}}

'''Snaglak gro-Yak''' is an [[Morrowind:Agent|Agent]] and one of the hostile [[Morrowind:orc|orc]]s that inhabit [[Morrowind:Valenvaryon|Valenvaryon]].

He is a minor [[Morrowind:Trainers|trainer]] in Acrobatics, Light Armor and Sneak, if you can manage to speak to him.

UESPWiki talk:Lore

2008-08-21T00:43:08Z

Benould: /* Resolution? */ quote

{| class=wikitable style="float:right"
! Related Discussions
|-
|
* [[:Category:Archive-Tamriel|Archived discussions about the Tamriel namespace]]
|}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==Sources for Lore Articles==
:''The first section of this discussion (everything up to my contribution at [[#Nephele|Nephele]]) was originally posted at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]]. I've moved it all here because it is general discussion about the Lore namespace, rather than discussion specifically about what belongs on the [[Lore:Main Page|Main Page]] of the Lore section. Also, any guidelines that are adopted as a result of this discussion will be posted on [[UESPWiki:Lore]]; this keeps the discussion together with the guidelines.'' --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
===The Case for Kirkbride===

As most readers of this page are indubitably aware at this point, there has been something of a tempest in a teapot regarding the contributions of the user Temple-Zero. I admit readily that I involved myself in this community fully at his behest, and that I agree with his principles fully. This essay is an attempt to explain and justify the position he and I are taking in a non-bombastic way.

There are a few people who have significantly contributed to the "lore" of the TES series in an official context - Ken Rolston, Kurt Kuhlmann, Marilyn Wasserman, Douglas Goodall, Gary Noonan, Ted Peterson, and Michael Kirkbride. Of these, the latter two's contributions have been by far the most significant, with Peterson writing proliferously for the series and Kirkbride being the primary force behind worldbuilding and lore since 1996. The difficulty that arises is that Kirkbride has contributed, as of today, 20 works which have not appeared in TES games, in addition to several collaborations with other writers. Others have contributed similarly, though not to nearly the same extent. These works have been archived by The Imperial Library [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/ on this page]. There appears to be some disagreement over whether these qualify as "lore."

The argument many members of this community have put forth is that something is not "lore" unless explicitly endorsed by Bethesda Softworks (or one of the associated companies involved in the production of TES games) by appearing in a game. Though this may sound like a simple and successful way to organize lore into "canon" and "non-canon," this line of reasoning is specious and not accepted by any prominent member of the lore community.

The idea that Bethesda is the source of canon does not hold up with Bethesda's own policy. "Ius, the Animal God" is not serious lore, its own author readily admits that. ''Arena'' is not an accurate depiction of Tamriel except insofar as it has the provinces right and the cities are kind of accurate. Even the Pocket Guide was ignored when creating ''Oblivion'', something which would be inexplicable if not for one of the texts some editors argue should not be treated as lore. If the games are conflicting, how can it be ''them'' that is canon, and the texts which repair this conflict not?

The reality is that Mr. Kirkbride is the primary moving force for TES lore. He was the primary author of the First Pocket Guide to the Empire, Varieties of Faith, and every single creation myth except the Khajiit's, he drew the art which inspired the design of virtually every aspect of Morrowind's visuals - from the Ministry of Truth to corpus beasts to the Telvanni mushroom towers - he is the voice of Vivec and the author the Thirty-Six Lessons, and the man behind Mankar Camoran. Almost every major character from the lore is either his creation or someone he expanded on immeasurably - from Pelinal and Alessia to Tiber Septim and Zurin Arctus to Sotha Sil and Almalexia. The only major exceptions are the events of ''2920'' and Barenziah and her children, which are Peterson's invention. Dismissing him as a "dev," or one of many in a large group of contributors, is folly. Similarly, dismissing half his corpus as "forum posts" is equally unwise.

You cannot fully understand ''The Thirty-Six Lessons of Vivec'' without "Vehk's Teachings," or grasp their ultimate implications without "A Letter from the Fifth Era of Tamriel." You cannot account for Oblivion's plot-holes without "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "From the Many-Headed Talos." The story of the Alessian Revolt is not complete without the "Lament for Pelinal," and the in-game version of "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is missing half its text. "Lord Vivec’s Sword-Meeting With Cyrus the Restless" is a sequel to ''TESA: Redguard'' and his contributions in the Trial of Vivec bring the story of ''Morrowind'' and ''Tribunal'' to a close. "The Imperial Census of Daedra Lords" gives invaluable information on the Daedra, and "Cosmology" gives equally important information on the metaphysical geography of the TES universe. I can continue to describe the significance of the eleven other texts at hand, but I think my point is made.

When Temple-Zero says "TES is literature" he means it. The view that has developed slowly from the gestations of the lore community sees Kirkbride as an author like any other, and his works as a story that has developed over more than a decade. Lore is ultimately just the cataloging of this story for ease of understanding. If UESP ignores such significant contributions to this story because they aren't included in the video game that allowed this story to exist, then UESP's lore section remains crippled and useless as it so much is currently. The obscure texts are not unsourced and non-canon, they are ''essential'' to our understanding of this universe and stories within it. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 08:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with your argument. In my personal opinion, this edit should form the foundation of our discussions on how to proceed from here. What is the purpose of the wiki "Lore" section is maybe the bigger issue, what audience are we trying to reach? Without a basic agreement on these two issues, Lore namespace will remain piece-meal; with a varying, sometimes dubious quality. Much more can be said, but as many probably agree, we need to discuss this in the community. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed. If UESP aims only to inform the average player of the basics of the games' backstory, then it can settle with in-game sources. But it could be more than that, it could be a source players newly interested in lore could go to learn about things unhindered by the poetics of the in-game sources, or by their conflicting narratives, and also providing background as to how consensus was formed and links to the original sources. The obscure texts are essential to our understanding of this.

::Certainly treating these sources with scorn will only alienate the lore community from this website, making it useless by virtue of not being taken seriously. As will comments that suggest that the lore community is somehow insigificant, along the lines of insinuating that we can go off and "discuss" in our "forums" as if you have any audience but us. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 20:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Does wiki have some sort of charter? Because unless reluctance to include non-canon material is in writing somewhere, its inclusion seems very much in keeping with the nature of the site, in some ways. UESP doesn't judge, it only reflects and records. In the articles dealing with aspects of the games, every conceivable detail finds a place- useful, interesting, or not. This allows it to be used as an open-ended resource for a variety of purposes. It is not a targeted runthrough of the subject with clear goals in mind. It is wiki's job to show or reference everything, EVERYTHING that there is to be seen, a database of details to minor to be explored in something as cursory and efficient as a walkthrough. The entirety of Elder Scrolls, just as Wikipedia tries to be the sum of all knowledge. Withholding lore does not make sense in such a place. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::But like Wikipedia, we do not appreciate faulty inceptions in our articles, which brings us back to the non-canon discussion that took place earlier. We want verified, sourced material straight from the horses, in this case Bethesda's, mouth. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 23:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
This site isn't about Bethesda. It's about Elder Scrolls. What is your fascination with this faceless corporation? You aren't affiliates. It's hard for me to take this viewpoint seriously when no one explains it, only reiterates it. It's not that hard- I've heard one passable justification before now.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 23:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:A faceless corporation? While not every person at Bethesda may have contributed anything to the ES lore, the current canon we hold is what has been agreed upon by the developers at Bethesda. Yes, there are developers who may have contributed the major part to the lore, but that does not mean that what they say outside the official sources is inrefutably true. We don't know what happens inside Bethesda, for all we know the developers vote for every plot arch before they continue upon it. What Kirkbride says outside an official source may be what he would have written, but as he doesn't say "This is official" we can't take it for canon without placing question marks to its validity. There has not been stated on the site that unofficial sources can never be used, the major issue has been with you automatically taking them for true. You have been jumping to conclusions right from the beginning and are taking a very cynical approach to anyone who questions the validity of such sources. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 03:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Question: If what is found under [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text Obscure Texts at TIL] is mostly contract work done for Bethesda, how can it not be considered part of the Lore, even by the old standards - only Bethesda sanctioned material? What is contract work there, what isn't? Do we have any written standards on what is admissible? Anyone care to enlighten me? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

First, apologies for the length of this post but I think we have a lot to talk about.

I think there are three areas of disagreement: the perspective of the articles, the sources for them, and the degree to which conclusions should be drawn.

To quote the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Perspective|Style Guide]], "Within Lore articles, it is more appropriate to write from the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe. The articles are still expected to be encyclopedia-style, but designed as if they were reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel. Gameplay details should be avoided in Lore articles; game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen." Although the section is still marked as a proposed guideline, it's been up there for months and nobody has ever argued against it, That means that additions like [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Nede&curid=12249&diff=347662&oldid=347661&rcid=351122 this one] should not be made because it's pretty clear that a citizen of Tamriel wouldn't know what the developers have been saying. The previous version of the text is perfectly accurate, neutral and fits with the required style; the new edit simply pushes a personal viewpoint. The average citizen is much more likely to believe a more "impressive" history - in our own universe the Romans' version of history held that they were directly descended from Trojan refugees, rather more lofty than "Another Italic tribe that happened to get lucky".

As a little bit of background, the reason for the Lore space being different in perspective is that we had several complaints about the site being written from an all-seeing, all-knowing point of view, with some believing it spoiled the games. We decided that it was almost impossible to avoid doing this in the gamespaces but that the Lore space would be an ideal place to write from a citizen's viewpoint. I'm well aware that most of the pages don't quite work like that at the moment; most focus has been on "finishing" the game pages (inasmuch as such a thing is possible). A few pages have been rewritten in the new style, however - [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3ADark_Brotherhood&diff=313090&oldid=313020 my edit] to the Dark Brotherhood page was intended to act as an example of how even the game sections of Lore pages can fit with the style. Since then, the article has grown and become much better through the additions made by people like Apophis2412 that have been made in the same style. In his case, opposing theories were presented with equal prominence, which is the correct way to write when there is disagreement.

As far as source material is concerned, I don't think anybody will be massively shocked when I say that I strenuously oppose the inclusion of sources from outside the games. My main reason for this is simply - where do you draw the line? Material that MK wrote in an official capacity for Bethesda? Material written by MK for fun? Material improvised by devs in a roleplay? What about somebody like Douglas Goodall? We [[General:Douglas_Goodall_Interview|know]] that he isn't a fan of the way things have developed so what if he wrote some lore that brings things back to his way of thinking? I know that's a hypothetical question, but it's one that is worth asking.

The "obscure texts" are material that, for whatever reason, has ''not'' been put in the games. Obviously, anything that appeared after SI came out can't really be included anywhere, but for the rest of it, it was available and yet not included for whatever reason. You say that the fact the in-game "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is half the size of the other means that we have to use the latter; I say that half the material was deliberately cut so we have to use the former.

The points you make about the games being internally inconsistent is a good one, but then we already know that they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon retconned]* once, with the Warp in the West, so I don't see that it's a deal breaker. There are things going on that your typical citizen of Tamriel doesn't know about, as I'm sure they'd admit.

::

* ''the irony of linking this particular post to a WP article flagged for containing original material has not escaped me.''

Let me give you another piece of history from the site. We've had several edit wars about the ranks of people in Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=190339&oldid=187427] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=202684&oldid=201953] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=207839&oldid=202712] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=220731&oldid=207842] for just four such examples on one page) The site policy on this is that we always use the values from the data files, which gives us a quick and easy way to decide any issue like this that comes up. By drawing an analogous line and saying that only texts that appear in the games (plus the PGE, which at least comes with them) can be used, questions about the legitimacy of material are answered easily.

This brings me to the last point - conclusions. There have been several cases where edits are presented as facts where they are actually extrapolation ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AKhajiit&diff=332997&oldid=332990] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AGods_A&diff=331035&oldid=320426] are two examples). This for me is the most disturbing trend in recent edits. If this kind of content appears regularly we're going to be lost in a wasteland of unverifiable pages that will undoubtedly be the subject of edit warring. Even having said that, there are instances where extrapolation ''can'' be acceptable. Lurlock recently [[Morrowind_talk:Camonna_Tong#Gap_in_the_Ranks|posted]] a theory to explain why there is a huge gap in the ranks in the Morrowind Camonna Tong, the basis for which is that there are people living in Vvardenfell (and Cyrodiil) that we don't see. In this case, it's pretty easy to prove. In the case of Oblivion, for example we have the [[Oblivion:Night Mother Rituals!|Night Mother Rituals]] edition of the Black Horse Courier being written by one Agnes Earheardt. Since no NPC in the game has that name there must be people we don't see - QED. On the other hand, his suggestion that the unseen people outnumber the seen by 50 times is just a guess. It's an informed guess and he gives his reasons for making it, but it's a guess nonetheless. Personally, my guess would be more like 75 times, but I'm not going to put that on an article either.

In conclusion, this is a potentially very exciting time for the site. The Lore section has always been the poor relation of the site and I'd love to see it spruced up, but not by including material of dubious veracity. In any case, all material should be supported with citations. Benould gave a [[User_talk:Temple-Zero#References|good example]] of how to do that, and it should happen with all these edits so people can find the supporting material quickly and easily.

–[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Just to follow up Rpeh's comments on source material, I am also opposed to the inclusion of non-game material. If we are going down the path of including everything that a developer (or whatever you want to call them) has said in a 'semi-official' capacity, where do you draw the line? For example, if you include Gary "Wormgod" Noonan's forum posts as 'official', do you also count the 'Morrowind Advanced' mod as official, because he wrote it? I would argue that, despite being written by a BethSoft developer, it is very much an unofficial mod as it is not officially supported and distributed by BethSoft. I would could forum posts and other 'semi-official' works in the same manner. Just because somebody who works for BethSoft happens to say something about something somewhere, it doesn't make it official. What if MK posted something along the lines of "Actually, Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon" - does that become official canon simply because MK said it? --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should concentrate less on determining what 'canon' means in the context of TES's "spaghetti lore" and more on the usefulness of this wiki. As the lore community — an important part of our audience — sees MK's views as taking precedence over in-game material as well as over material by other developers, we should edit the Lore section with this in mind. That is, we might want to write something to the effect of "source X says Y, Michael Kirkbride says Z" whenever such contradictions occur — and link to a "Michael Kirkbride" article where we explain that the lore community sees him as having a "privileged" status among the developers. If we simply ignore MK's forum posts/Obscure Texts (and by "ignore" I refer to not writing anything about it; I'm not referring to not treating it as the absolute truth), we will miss an important part of TES lore. Treating MK-Lore as absolute truth would be better than this in ''my'' opinion, but as it seems that a great deal of this wiki's editors are opposed to such an approach, we might find the compromise I've just presented as being a good solution instead. [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:If I had been asked about this a few days ago I would have probably been of the opinion not to consider these texts canon. I do not like Mk's texts very much and they're not a part of "my ES world". (The only one I really like is "Fall of Ald-Ruhn") However the recent discussion on this site has changed my opinon a bit: How much I may dislike them, they are still a part of the Elder Scrolls however and thus cannot be ignored. Since this site's goal is to be a major source of information about Elder Scrolls this site does not have the luxury to simply ignore them.

:Vallagar has some interesting points. We could of course add a section to each article dedicated to sources not found within the game. I'm saying that we don't add information coming from these outside texts to the main part of the article but rather devote a seperate section of the article to it. I'm also of the opinion that we must still seperate the dev-texts from the in-game sources but that we atleast allow people to find out what is inside them. Perhaps we can even put a disclaimer on the top of the lore page, explaining UESP's and the community's opinion on this and let the reader decide wether they want to consider it canon.

: I also agree with Sload when he says that this might be a great opportunity for UESP to improve it's lore section and thus make it a lore site comparable to TIL. On the other hand, one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints.

: The biggest problem I see at the moment with these outside texts is deciding what is a credible source and what is not. If we include MK's texts, do we also include Ken Rolston's texts about Caius Coscades? If we consider the RP: Trial of Vivec, a credible source, does that make Ted Peterson's RP's also a viable source of information? And what do we do about texts like these: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=754160&hl= and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=607899&hl= ??
:Are they lore or just a jest?

: Another problem is the very nature of Mk's texts. Texts like "Short life of Uriel Septim" or "On: Morrowind" are your standard historical texts. You can take information straight from the text and add it to the UESP article. They aren't much open to interpetation. MK's works (like "Sithis" or "The 36 sermons") are more of a theological nature. In some ways you can compare them to the Bible. The difference with normal texts is that can't take information straight from the article but have to interpete what the texts says.

:If the discussion on what is and what is not canon cannot be easliy decided then it might be an idea for UESP to make use of a system of canonicity levels like the Star Wars Franchise uses. See here for an example: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database

:[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 08:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)Apophis2412

:: To quote Apophsis2412: '''''one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints'''''
:: I think we need to be careful that we are not simply duplicating TIL - the UESP doesn't exist to simply regurgitate stuff that is found elsewhere on the web, but to fill its own niche. I think the above quote also answer's Valaggar's question about the usefulness of the wiki - UESP is viewed primarily as a 'gameplay hints' site, not a 'lore' site.
:: (Maybe we should have chosen something other than 'Lore' as the title for the moved 'Tamriel' domain, or even not bothered moving it)
:: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: True, but one must not forget that this site also has articles about lore that Til doesn't have, like our articles about all the factions (MW Great Houses for example), and the articles about important people (Vivec, Almalexia, Sotha Sil for example).

[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 09:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: First, I see a trend among all the responses above that I would like to reply to. You are all coming to the same set of concerns from a variety of angles, whether questions of style or 'UESP doesn't do lore.' You are very skeptical that we should consider the texts official and question our rationale for using them. Well, you have some valid concerns, but I have to ask you, is that enough to completely ignore them? Pretend they never existed and scrub the many insights they have provided from the sight and ban their discussion? This sounds like an extreme portrayal of the situation, but it is what you seem to be asking. Sload, Benould, and I argue that obscure texts should be acknowledged valid as citations, evidence, and sources. We don't ask that you put them on the site and grant them pride of place, only that they be given their intended status of aids to understand ES lore. When you respond to this pointing out the unclear semantics of the situation and possible slippery slopes and negative effects, you follow a course of reasoning that will only be satisfied by their complete and absolute banishment. Is this what you really want? If so, then you should probably contest our claims that you might as well not have a lore section, because we are indeadly earnest on that point.

::::Rpeh: That is an interesting post, because I can't really highlight any irreversible conflicts. Those are concerns, but not principled objections to the material itself. We are arguing for the basics here, and if your concerns are the qualifications we have to work with, then that's fine and dandy, because we're getting somewhere. But if we are to resolve this, then you're going to have to realize that some things are a little slippery for the rule of thumb, though everyone can submit to the rule of law. You all act like you fear the rabble that will tramp through the site if we relax these constrictions (there aren't enough of us to constitute a mob) and point to areas where trespasses may occur. Well, that's where admins come in, to separate the shades of grey, and from your reluctance, I'm beginning to think you aren't very optimistic about your chances. You have to use your judgment to draw the line, that is what you are there for. And it will be much easier when the editors are working for you, not against you. This is the messy part of the revolution, I hope. How you categorize the sources as does not matter, as you won't be including or describing them on the site. They will only be used as references, and you will be admirably placed to view the content and decide if it is a joke, or too vague. When you cite something on Uesp, you are not crediting a source, you are pointing to a point of information or insight within that source. Decide if that is valid, and nevermind the package. That doesn't matter, and it's downright ridiculous to complain about the confusion from obscure texts when the game's lore and internal continuity is more tangled up by far. The site seems to handle it all admirably, however. Maybe you just need someone as knowledgeable in lore as most of the admins are with the games.

::::And because I'm up to that part: "What happens if Ted Peterson says Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon?" Because Ted Peterson knows less about lore than Michael Kirkbride does. It seems to me the only reason official material is worthy of such respect is because of the convenience of copyright. In substance it is often less reliable, and needs to be rationalized and updated in other, unofficial contexts.

::::Valaggar has some good ideas, but I bet Rpeh would find them all lacking in terms of the requirements of the style guide. Well, I had read that quote he provided before, but assumed it meant something else, because I don't see uesp's posts as anything remotely like 'in-character.' In practice, it doesn't seem like a style so much as a guide of what to leave out. Console commands and easter egg notes have an exception? It seems like you are touting the objectives of a goal no one pays any heed towards fulfilling. But I can say that if you believe it is grounds to stifle all candidness about the origins of sources and conflicts in lore to the point of their being left out, consider this the first objection.

::::Apophis, I will try to answer your concerns. The beauty of the obscure texts is that they ARE unofficial. They are not sitting there in your face and asserting the authority of their canon truth. They are there as references, an invitation to explore the subject more closely. They ask that you view the content inside and judge that, not the format in its entirety. If Ted Peterson wrote a poem that was a joke about T Rex's getting it on and sprinkled it with the birth dates of all the Septim Emperors, some of the details would be worth examining. I wouldn't want to put it up next to some of the more serious texts, but it would still be there, informing our thinking. The writers own Tamriel, the company just owns the game. If you must categorize the different levels of non-canon lore, then gut it up and use your judgment.

:::Gaebrial, don't be a defeatist.

::::In conclusion, I don't think I ask for much. Right of footnote, essentially. I leave it to the admins to flood the lore section with prods, flags, and disclaimers if they want to. Linked articles on the nuances of the sources and prominent theories that cannot be drawn by a simple reading of explicit text? Analyses on bias, conflicts and retcons in the real world context of the subject? we can handle it. Resolving disputes is impossible when we differ on such a fundamental level. Meet me here, and I will work towards resolving any of the concerns you have brought up as they arrive. I can't work with you until we are working with the same material. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::If Lore is supposed to be as seen as by an average citizen, follow that thought for a second. The situation here reminds me of Temple dogma, which should be familiar to anyone who has played Morrowind. There is the Temple doctrine that described the situation and the death of Nerevar, the Apotheosis of the Almsivi, and most people were happy with that for 3000 years. There were dissenting voices that were tossed into the Ministry of Truth, or that went into hiding. There was also the oral tradition of the Ashlanders and the report of Sul, which were ridiculed. Although some of these diverging opinion existed in form of texts and books, they were hidden in the Secret Library, marked not safe for public consumption. When things got out of hand with Dagoth Ur, these very people and documents were needed to bring about a solution. The higher ranks were, begrudgingly, able to adjust to the new "truth", Vivec gave 3 different sources, and admitted to murder, yet the god Vivec did not. The clincher is. no-one believes you that Almalexia is dead after the Tribunal Main Quest, and that she went mad and killed Sotha Sil, even if this is clearly the case.

:::::I liken these afore mentioned "Obscure Texts" to the oral traditions of the Ashlanders, and the texts of the Dissident Priests, alternative views of history, that may very well prove crucial to the understandings, even if they're not accessible to the average citizen of Cyrodiil. In-game dogma ''only'' may not be sufficient, I believe the Obscure texts are a helpful addition, and they are sufficiently limited in scope, no flood gates needed. Anyways, I am glad we're taking this discussion now, Lore namespace will be better for it, one way or another. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 11:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Temple-Zero, I don't believe you've responded to any of my three points. To go through a paragraph at at time... First, Yes I do indeed think that anything outside the games should not be included for the reasons already stated. You obviously feel the obscure texts are worthy of consideration and I feel exactly the opposite. Material that hasn't appeared in the games shouldn't be used as a source because Bethesda haven't considered it worthy of inclusion. However, I obviously disagree with your point about killing the Lore section. I think it should be a section about Lore ''as it relates to the games'' whereas you're talking about opening it up to any other material. I don't believe that is an invalid choice. As others have stated, we're not trying to create a duplicate of TIL.
::::::Second, "that's where admins come in"? I've been trying to keep the more speculative material off the site and haven't exactly had a very nice response. I'm not complaining about confusion from the obscure text, I'm saying there will be confusion about what is acceptable and what isn't and there's only one way to resolve that.
::::::Paragraph three... I don't know what it means. That quote isn't what Gaebrial wrote so I'm not sure how it fits. However, you've inadvertently proved my point - you seem to say that if Ted Peterson says something that contradicts Michael Kirkbride then we should ignore the former. In other words, you're picking and choosing from source material based on your beliefs. That is exactly my problem with including material not from the games.
::::::Fourth, I admitted that the Lore space isn't right in terms of style at the moment but I'm darn sure there aren't any console codes or easter eggs in that namespace. If you've found some then, to use an expression of yours, delete with extreme prejudice!
::::::Fifth, Valaggar's suggestion is interesting but it's not a solution as it simply moves the problem to another place. If such a system was used I would give any of the current obscure texts the lowest possible "reliability" score whereas you seem to regard them as just as reliable a source as the in-game books. So instead of reverting each others textual edits we end up reverting each others scores.
::::::Sixth, it's the willingness to include anything at all that I find disturbing. A joke about T Rex should be treated as just that and it should only "inform our thinking" insofar as it shows what a funny guy Ted Peterson is.
::::::So that's my position: No non-game material. It just isn't going to work. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

To comment on the qeustion what would happen when Ted Peterson would declare Vivec to be love child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon. The Imperial Library has always used the following standard for the obscure texts. They must be verifiably written by a developer and they must be in character. The latter is most important in this case because being written in character will take the dev-author out of the equation. At which point the fictional author will be patted on the back for cracking a great joke.

I'd put in right in place but this wiki style debate system doesn't make that easy.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===Nephele===
There have been multiple debates over the last week or so about what content belongs on UESP's articles, and in particular whether or not to include information from books that have never appeared in an Elder Scrolls game. Some of the other discussions have taken place at:
* [[Lore talk:Vivec (god)#Non-Canon Material - Hogithum Hall]]
* [[User talk:Temple-Zero]]
* The discussion previously at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]] has been moved here, as explained above
One term that's been used a few time is "canon", although in my opinion that seems overly dogmatic. I don't think we're trying to establish any universal standards -- the goal is only to establish guidelines for UESP. Other websites, in particular TIL and the Lore section of the Official Forums, will have their own standards and guidelines that are appropriate for their sites.

These are comments that I started writing a few days ago, so some of the ideas predate much of the other discussion. But I've also tried to update these comments based on what I've seen elsewhere, and in particular I've tried to incorporate other people's ideas and preferences into the proposed guidelines. I know it's long, so if you want, just skip to the [[#Proposed Guidelines|Proposed Guidelines]]. But the rest of includes a lot of rationale and responses to what's been said before.

====Background/Perspectives====

The basic problem here is, I believe, establishing what is "true" in the Elder Scrolls universe. The in-game content is not always sufficient to establish the facts: the content is not comprehensive, it's at times contradictory, and is also likely to contain mistakes (evidenced by changes in books between games, plus occasional obvious typos/mistakes, etc.). So do we limit UESP articles to incomplete (or possibly even incorrect) information? Or do we try to expand the articles to include additional information? And, if so, what additional information?

I think in most cases there is no single universally valid answer to the questions: whether it's that the developers wanted to give themselves "wiggle room" to incorporate future plot twists, or whether it's that they wanted a rich and complex mythos, the fact is that the Elder Scrolls literature contains contradictions. Ultimately, each fan is free to make his or her own decisions about which versions he or she likes most; each of the millions of fans will come up with an individualized storyline, whether or not a website says "this is the unique and official storyline."

There is a pretty wide variety of types of content that end up being used in the community as sources for lore. The first few that come to mind are:
# Content that has appeared in game, including content from books, notes, and dialogues.
# Pocket Guides to the Empire (PGE). They have not appeared in-game, but have been released as printed content purchased with (specific editions of) the game.
# Drafts of in-game content/PGE, some of which have been made available, for example on TIL.
# Other books written by the game developers (in particular Michael Kirkbride) that have been posted on TIL but have never appeared in-game.
# Articles written by librarians at TIL
# Discussions on forums between community members
Reliability is not guaranteed with any type of source -- even in-game content. But also it cannot all be considered equally valid or authoritative -- somewhere a line has to be drawn. UESP has tended to only include #1 and #2; the discussion is about whether some of the other types of content should also be used as sources for UESP articles.

Clearly these different types of sources are not all equally authoritative. But even what we mean by "authoritative" is subject to debate. When it comes to establishing the "true" facts about any topic, there are at least two different standards:
* What was the intended meaning when the information was originally written?
* What will be the interpretation in future Elder Scrolls games?
So we can ask, for example, "Who are the [[Lore:Nede|Nedes]]?" One way to try to reconcile the differing accounts is to turn to the people who wrote the information and find out what they meant at the time. However, we are also assuming that there will be future ES games, with new books some of which may provide new information about the Nedes, so we would like to not add information that ends up being proven wrong by future games. The basic paradox is that what will appear in future games is not necessarily consistent with the once-intended meaning.

Although the developers of any future Elder Scrolls games will presumably want to maintain continuity, they also want to (even have to) be given the creative freedom to come up with new, original ideas. Would any of us want to play TES5 if we could predict exactly what would happen in the game? New information will be added, some of which may intentionally diverge from what's previously been stated and some of which may accidentally diverge. Since Michael Kirkbride is no longer directly responsible for developing ES games, there is no guarantee that his perspective will be integrated into any new game. The lore added by Oblivion seems to confirm that the developers do not consider themselves 100% constrained by MK's vision of the lore. I think it's safe to assume that future games will feel more constrained by facts that have appeared in-game -- or at least they cannot undo what has previously appeared in a game. But I think anything else is subject to developer whim.

On the other hand, completely eliminating all out-of-game sources of information is very limiting. The person who originally wrote a given text is clearly qualified to provide useful information about the text. Was a particular word a typo? Was the text meant to be a joke, a metaphor, or a literal history? Was the text written independently from other texts on the topic or were the facts in the texts coordinated? Facts about the game's development cannot be changed by future game-writers (even if the facts are not taken into account when writing the new games). And some information that is currently only available out-of-game probably will be incorporated into the game in future. Writing articles ignoring those facts leads to inaccurate articles -- even while writing articles incorporating all out-of-game facts will also lead to inaccurate articles. We can't predict the future, so we can't know for sure what out-of-game information will become part of the games, but there are probably cases where we can be reasonably certain about what to expect.

This problem is not unique to Elder Scrolls games. Apophis2412 posted a very interesting link to [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon Star Wars' canon]. However, in the case of Star Wars, the person responsible for much of their lore (i.e., Lucas) owns the franchise, guaranteeing that his ideas will be honoured. Also, with the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database Holocron continuity database] there are some clear statements about will and will not allowed be in future Star Wars releases. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues are similar, and we do ultimately have to come up with some type of similar ranking -- whether it's explicitly stated, or whether each of has our own personal ranking.''

====Lore on UESP====

Decisions about what content gets added to UESP articles need to be based upon the characteristics of UESP: Who are UESP's readers? What content do the readers look for and expect to find on the site? What are the site's overall objectives? How will the wiki nature of the site affect article content? Therefore, what sources are used on UESP articles can not be decided based upon abstract principles. Also, since UESP and TIL are two different websites with different purposes, the content and guidelines on each site will reflect each site's purpose. The two sites should complement each other -- not contradict one another, but also not be identical to each other. So, what works best for TIL is not automatically appropriate for UESP.

UESP, for better or for worse, has tended to focus pretty much on what happens in the games. This has in part developed because we have been putting a lot more time into the game-specific versions of the site. Nevertheless, the majority of our readers are here to find out how to the play games and no matter how much we develop the Lore namespace, that is likely to remain true. Therefore, the Lore articles should be accessible to (and useful for) people who have only ever read one or two books (or perhaps even no books -- but are just trying to understand the story behind a quest line). They should also be accessible to people who have read every single book in-game, and are only now starting to reach out to the web to find out more about those books. These people are not the same audience as the typical TIL reader.

Taking into account readers' expectations is even more important on a wiki than a typical website. If readers think information is missing from an article, they'll end up trying to add it to the article -- no matter what the site's guidelines say, no matter what's on the talk page. While patrollers or other editors can then undo inappropriate edits, it is still best for everyone concerned to try to come up with guidelines and content that will meet readers' expectations from the beginning.

Another factor is the overall content hosted on UESP. We only host the books that have appeared in the game (or with the game, in the case of PGE) and I doubt that is going to change in the near future; the out-of-game books only appear on TIL. UESP should not ignore information just because it's not hosted on the site, but nevertheless what is present on the site shapes the site. One goal for the Lore section is to add full links to all of the books on the site: someone reading one of the books should be able to easily jump to more complete information about anything discussed in the book. Therefore, a top priority is to make sure that all of the topics covered by the in-game books are documented. It's also important that the summary articles be designed with that use in mind. Many (if not most) readers are likely to pull up a summary article after reading a related book, and therefore the summary article has to acknowledge all of the related books. We can't just decide that Book X is all incorrect and therefore refuse to include any facts from Book X in articles, because we will have readers who have only ever read Book X and therefore expect to see that information in articles. Instead, we have to include any "false" facts, but then explain (no matter how briefly) why the facts are false.

In other words, UESP's overall focus on game content inevitably means that UESP's Lore section has to place a higher priority on in-game books than out-of-game books. Places such as Hogithum Hall are not a priority for UESP -- the place is never mentioned anywhere in the game, therefore people whose only ES experience comes from the games will never do a search on UESP for Hogithum Hall. On the other hand, [[Lore:Ius, Animal God|Ius, Animal God]] is a priority for UESP. Whether or not Ius was a joke, Daggerfall readers are going to encounter this book; they are going to do searches for Ius. So we need to have an article on Ius, even if Ius is not truly considered to be part of the lore. We need to include Ius on pages such as [[Lore:Gods I]] and [[Lore:Gods by Pantheon]] because readers who have read the in-game book will expect to see Ius listed there (for example, someone who read the book a week ago and now wants to find it again, but only remembers it was something about an animal god -- that reader will expect to be able to find Ius if they scan through a list of the known gods). In that context, what is or is not in the game provides a very real set of guidelines for what readers will expect to find on UESP, and therefore for what the editors of UESP should try to make available.

As a semi-aside, I also wanted to squeeze in a response to one point made in other discussions. Yes, Kirkbride's work can be considered a unified work of literature. However, that does not automatically mean that UESP's purpose should be to document Kirkbride's literary vision. I am quite sure that the vast majority of UESP's readers have never heard of Kirkbride; I myself only began to realize his role in the games' development and lore within the last year. In other words, to most readers on the site, he is only relevant to the extent that what he has written appears in the game -- and therefore to those readers what he has written outside of the game is not relevant. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, the site's articles still need to be written so they make sense to such readers. Therefore, the logistical reality is that out-of-game content included because it fits into Kirkbride's overall vision needs to always be accompanied by some explanation of why the information is relevant. You cannot just assume that "Kirkbride said X" is a sufficient explanation for readers -- although "the game Daggerfall said X" is a sufficient explanation, given the site's focus on documenting games.

On the other hand, UESP's readers clearly also include people who are knowledgeable in Lore. The new editors whose interest in the Lore section precipitated these discussions are also readers (welcome everyone!), whose interests and expectations should be accomodated by the site. They should be able to use UESP as a useful reference tool. If we don't make our articles useful to all sections of the community, then the likely alternative is that people who are knowledgeable in Lore will find another website where their views can be summarized (since TIL is not a wiki and is not set up for community-written summary articles). That would lead to unnecessary fractures within the community, not to mention duplicated effort. In general, the biggest limitation to a wiki's content is manpower: finding editors who are willing to take the time to write new content. Therefore new content, backed by new editors who are willing to continue adding new content, should only be disallowed if the content clearly diminishes the site's quality and usefulness.

Also, readers fundamentally come to a game website to learn information about the game that they could not figure out in-game. If someone was solely interested in reading the in-game books, that person wouldn't really need a website. People turn to websites to find out what else is known and what else is available. Although our articles should prioritize and organize the available information on a topic, we shouldn't censor relevant information. Why not let our readers have access to everything that is known about the topic, and let each reader decide for himself/herself which sections to read and which theories to believe. Note, however, than providing access to all the information does not imply that the articles should be undifferentiated information dumps. Well-written and well-edited articles make value judgments about which information is most useful, in part by deciding what type of "access" is appropriate for that information: direct quotation of a text; paraphrasing a text; mentioning a few key differences about a text; adding a link to the text in the "See Also" section; adding a link to a discussion that mentions the text; etc.

====Proposed Guidelines====
The following are some strawman guidelines. These can hopefully be used as a starting point to come up with a set of guidelines to which everyone can agree.
* '''Multi-topic articles''' such as [[Lore:People_A]], [[Lore:Dictionary A]], and [[Lore:First Era]] should not contain any information from out-of-game sources, and also should not contain any controversial points.
** Basically, any article that contains snippets about multiple different topics should stick to basic, universally accepted facts about those topics.
** If there are any facts that need additional explaining, then the topic needs to have its own article (e.g., [[Lore:Vivec (god)]] instead of just a snippet on [[Lore:Gods_V]]).
** This is in part just a logistical issue. Having references appear on multi-topic pages is awkward. Discussions about a topic belong on that topic's discussion page, rather than on a multi-topic talk page. It's not an attempt to limit what's covered overall on the site -- just a question of where the content belongs.
* '''In-game sources''' (including PGE) should be the primary focus of articles, including summarizing those books and explaining the meaning of those books.
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has been '''written by a game developer''' can be used as a source for UESP articles.
** This includes additional books, drafts of in-game books, developer interviews, etc.
** Any information derived from out-of-game content must have a reference. The reference needs to include a link to the out-of-game content. I think it would also be useful to include some standard phrase in all out-of-game references (e.g., "Out-of-game content") that links to an explanation of the relevance (including limitations, pitfalls, reservations, etc.) of out-of-game content. A disclaimer, in other words.
** Out-of-game content should only be used when it helps to explain in-game content. This is a somewhat subjective limitation, but I don't think that UESP needs to start documenting every fact mentioned in out-of-game content.
*** Or, alternatively, out-of-game content should be included (i.e., a summary of the content, or details quoted from the content) only when it is necessary to prevent UESP articles from ''contradicting'' the accepted lore. Emphasis on contradicting: it must not just be that UESP's information would otherwise be incomplete.
** In cases where UESP's information is incomplete (instead of contradictory), a link to the out-of-game content can be included in the notes section of an article, instead of summarizing or quoting the content in the article. This makes the content available to only those readers who are interested. The note would be fairly minimal, e.g., "Other sources that describe Vivec include: Book X, Book Y".
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has '''''not'' been written by a game developer''' in general does not belong in UESP articles.
** Talk page discussions can link to any content. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information is relevant to the article, then it can be added to the article -- but the talk page discussion needs to happen first.
* '''Original research''' should be avoided in UESP articles.
** Original research is a core principle of wikipedia, reflecting that the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is to summarize what's already known, rather than to come up with new information.
** The implication is that even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material, not just an editor's forum post, for example).
** Exceptions to this rule may be possible, but those exceptions need to be discussed on the talk page. If everyone on the talk page can agree that the inferred conclusion is indeed logical and valid, then it can be added. In some cases, everyone may find a watered-down version of the statement acceptable. But a consensus has to be reached before original research belongs in an article.

Given the level of disagreement so far, I think it may be best to start by just seeing whether there are any ''strong'' objections to any of these points. If anyone has a disagreement, your comments will be more useful if you can state what specifically is problematic about the guideline ''and'' come up with a modified version of the guideline that you would find acceptable. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==== Hear, hear ====

What objections I have to the main points are in large part assuaged by the details, and possibilities for exception and discussion. This is the sort of thing I was looking for. (-An approving Temple-Zero, clothed in an anonymous IP address)[[User:24.97.239.147|24.97.239.147]] 18:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Proposal (Sload)===

*'''Multi-topic articles''' should be handled differently. Alphabetical directories are, for the most part, useless due to their incredibly low singal-to-noise-ratio.
:*Multi-topic articles like "List of Emperors of the Third Empire" would be useful, as there is not enough to say about these people otherwise. I'm trying to think of a similar example in which we know enough about a group of people to make a list.
:*Otherwise, they should link to something relevant to that person. Going off People A, Ada'Soom Dir-Kamal is a redirect to Kamal, Agnorith to List of Emperors of the Third Empire#Kintyra II, Akorithi and Aubk-i to Warp of the West.
:*Authors should link to their work. Authors of multiple books, such as Waughin Jarth, should be a disambuguation page saying "Waughin Jarth is the author of..."
:*If a character could be filed under multiple topics, but is not significant enough to deserve their own page, discussion should be held to decide how that situation is handled.
*'''In-game and out-of-game sources''' are the same thing and should not be treated differently. Out-of-game lore is significant to our understanding of lore and ''absolutely cannot under any circumstances be ignored.''
:*This includes anything by any of the seven people mentioned in my first essay, especially Ted Peterson and Michael Kirkbride.
:*Any information must have a reference to its source, whether a UESP book, a TIL obscure text, a forum post by one of the seven above. If an obscure text is still included in TESF's archive, its original post, rather than its TIL copy, is preferable.
:*No reference to whether a source is out-of-game is necessary. This suggests doubt in the source. Further, all out-of-game sources will be obvious by their location; that is, not at UESP.
:*Content, whether in-game or out-of-game, is not always relevant. For example, though MK has told a wonderful story about guars in southern Morrowind being striped, guars are not significant enough ''in lore'' that they deserve their own page to hold that information, and it isn't significant to an article about the province of Morrowind. Similarly, in-game books which are just stories about otherwise non-characters, like ''Banker's Bet'' or one of the countless others, do not contain significant information, and the UESP need not catalog their characters.
:*Note on roleplays: In a roleplay in which a developer participated in, only their contributions are canon. This especially applies to the Trial of Vivec. Ted Peterson participated in Loranna's RP, but as I understand its only significant details were made canon by the third pocket guide.
*'''Fan works''' should not be included in the UESP by any stretch of the imagination, such as "monkeytruth" like Albides' "Orc Creation Myth." Though these have a place in the community, they are not canon lore.
*'''Original research''' is unacceptable by all stretches of the imagination.
:*Exceptions are certainly possible for certain widely accepted but not confirmed interpretations of especially difficult works. Adventurous Putty's interpretation of the Tsaesci Creation Myth comes to mind. They should be clearly refered to as non-canon interpretations, reflecting their status.

I have provided an example article, a revision of Tsaesci, [[User:Sload/Tsaesci|here]]. It covers everything a wouldbe loremaster should know about them, their basic history, the confoundingness of their creation myth, Putty's interpretation, and the conflict with the Pale Pass quest, which Kirkbride was adamant about.

I intend to argue in favor of this counter proposal soon. UESP has so much to gain and so little to lose. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 00:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with almost all of Nephele's suggestions, but I'm still opposed to the inclusion of "Out-of-game content that has been written by a game developer". If such material material was written while the developer was at Bethesda then it is material that has been excluded deliberately; if it was written after they had left the company then it has the same status as fanfiction. Those in favour of including this material claim it's essential in making other information clear and unambiguous. I say that if in-game Lore is confusing it's because that's how Bethesda want it for their own purposes.
::Having said all that, Nephele's suggestion for differentiating between in- and out-of-game material is a good start towards a compromise. I would accept the inclusion of unofficial sources if they were referred to in a separate section of a page. So, the article on Vivec (god) might have a section at the bottom of "Other Theories" (or something similar) and then go on to mention the forum roleplay about Hogithum Hall, making clear that the material is not from the games.
::If that doesn't sound like much of a compromise, I'd remind the reader that my preferred solution is to ignore unofficial material entirely. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The way to keep saying that they were excluded is oversimplified and inaccurate, and I think you know it. Lore is meant to be complex and confusing, but understandable. The obscure texts are the only thing that make it so, in many cases. They are necessary in large part because animators aren't fantasy artists, and the realities of game design in a chaotic corporate setting can wreak havoc on a simple piece of concept art, much less the more complex details of Nirn.
:::But I will say that when you hold an absolute position, you can't expect much of a compromise.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Not at all. I've put forward the two options that I see. If you have a third explanation I'd be happy to read it. And I have suggested a compromise. I'd also be happy to hear your response to it. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Counter Proposal===
Having read and considered the various arguments, I feel I am willing to shift my position from my earlier posts. Apologies if this is just repeating or reiterating things that have been said above.

====An Important Fact====
'''Without the Elder Scrolls games, the entire Lore of Tamriel would not exist outside the minds of a small group of people in Maryland.'''

Is there anybody who does not agree with this (geography notwithstanding)?

Given that Fact, I think it is perfectly logical to focus on the in-game material in preference to, but not to the exclusion of, other material. Personally, I would place lore material in one of four categories:

1. In-Game References. These have to be the starting point. The Lore is based on the Game, so the Game must take priority when discussing the Lore.

2. Other BethSoft Material. By this I mean out-of-game material produced by an individual (or individuals) ''in their capacity as a BethSoft employee''. This can support, expand upon, clarify, or contradict in-game references. One obvious example here is the PGE, but I would also include here interview responses and works such as the books written by MK ''in his capacity as a BethSoft employee''.

3. Other Developer Material. By this I mean other material that is produced by individuals who have been involved in the development of the Elder Scrolls world, but which was not produced in any official capacity. Here, I would include those works by both Kirkbride and Goodall, for example, that were produced after they ceased to be involved in Elder Scrolls development. I would also include in this section RPs such as Hogithum Hall, as the involvement of developers in a RP on the official forums does tend to give it a kind of 'semi-official' status.

4. Non-developer material. Stuff created by fans, including fanfiction and RP, as well as interpretations of various aspects of Lore. These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles.

My preference and my suggestion is for Lore pages to be organised along the lines of the following template:

First, a summary section describing the subject as it is defined within the games. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this summary should only include category 1 material (in-game references). Where the subject is listed on multi-topic articles, this summary could be transcluded, with a 'see article for more details' line (as is done with a number of articles currently).

Second, one or more sections expanding upon the details contained in the summary. This should focus on category 1 material, but can also include category 2 material where such material ''expands upon or clarifies'' the category 1 material.

Third, a section summarising other category 2 material, such as that material that directly contradicts category 1 material, with links to the original source. I don't see any need to go into too much detail - those who are interested can click on the supplied links.

Fourth, a 'Notes' or 'See Also' section with links to any category 2 material that is relevant but which is not required to provide a complete description of the subject. So, category 2 material that merely supports and reinforces the category 1 material should go here. ''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here.

Any disputed material should be discussed on the relevant talk page, to come to some sort of consensus about (a) whether it should be included, and (b) where and how it should be added to the article. And the key word here is '''consensus'''.

Finally, not everybody here is a Loremaster, so if the 'canonicity' of material added by a Loremaster is disputed, the onus should be on the Loremaster to provide the necessary links and references to prove the validity of the material. It's the same for Lore articles as it is for other pages on the site - if somebody else disputes your edit, it is up to you to provide evidence that your edit was correct and valid.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 10:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT) (forgot to login)

: That's the kind of solution I was trying to describe above, but Gaebrial has done it more clearly and with more detail - thanks. I can support this compromise as I think it's the best of both worlds. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind. For example the absence of the legions, the counselors, the ban on levitation and other such things should be taken with a fair amount of skepticism because they're products of a games development, not so much of world. Though if in-game material takes preference it will be impossible to argue against this because #1 makes the game the most important source.

:: There should be no distinction between the in-game sources, out-of-game sources, interviews and obscure texts. Their value should be argued on the merits of the actual writing in Tamriel and not it's origins outside of Tamriel. If not, it's possible to say that books such as 'The Amulet of Kings' which don't even make sense historically are more reliable then say the Nu-Mantia intercept which resolves most consistency issue's around the Amulet of Kings.

:: Any sort of tiered system will have these problems whenever a lower-graded texts conflicts with higher-graded material while being more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting then the higher=graded material.

:: Putting the Onus on the lore master using the obscure text somewhat negates the whole point of this discussion because rather then deciding now how to handle the obscure text it gets redirected to a hundred different places.

:: Although it is good practice to source all information, the onus shouldn't just fall on the lore master but anybody who adds or corrects or removes information. [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 06:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:::Taking the above a point at a time...
:::-''The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind.''
:::But without the games there would not be an 'image of Tamriel'. Without the games, we would not be having this discussion.
:::-''(rest of paragraph 1)'' (I won't repeat it in its entirety)
:::The removal of spells (for example) has been largely explained away by the passing of laws. Yes, it's a cop-out to explain limitations brought about by the game engine or they way they have coded the world, and this could probably be mentioned as such on those pages comparing the games (e.g. levitation being removed from Oblivion because of the way the cities were created). However, on the ''Lore'' pages, the laws banning the use of certain spells (Passwall and Levitate are the two that spring to mind) are what should be mentioned - we shouldn't be stating that the Levitate spell was removed from Oblivion on the ''Lore'' page, but that the Levitate spell was banned by the relevant Act. I'm not sure how else you would handle these things, but if you've got any specific ideas, I'd be happy to hear them.
:::-''Paragraph 2''
:::Under what criteria is the Nu-Mantia intercept classed as official? Simply because it was written by MK? Did he write it as an Elder Scrolls developer, or as a private individual? What was its purpose? If we can prove that it was written to be an official Elder Scrolls document, then we can use it more or less as a 'primary' source (category 2 above). If we can't prove this, it has to remain as 'semi-official' (category 3), and should be noted accordingly in any article.
:::-Paragraph 3 - ''more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting''
:::Not to mention less official.
:::Incidentally, I don't see a tiered system as causing problems, as long as it is made clear that one exists, why it exists, and why a particular text is treated as more 'reliable' than another.
:::-''Paragraph 4''
:::I'm not sure I understand your point here.
:::-''Paragraph 5''
:::I agree. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was isolating Loremasters in particular. Anybody who makes an edit that is subsequently challenged must provide evidence that their edit was correct.

:::As I said before, the whole point about disputed material is '''consensus'''. If the ''consensus'' is that a particular text is not official and should not be mentioned in an article, then it doesn't get mentioned. If certain people want to include that text, they need to give reasons why it is official enough to be included, and if the ''consensus'' changes based on their reasons, then the text can be included.

:::I would also like to introduce another 'c' word - '''compromise'''. I think that 'traditionalists' in the community who would rather not use ''any'' out-of-game resources have, in general, shifted their position to one of compromise. I don't think I've seen any movement in the positions of the 'loremasters' - the message I'm getting is "we'll keep arguing our point until you come around to our way of thinking".
:::--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No compromise in the "Loremaster Camp?" What? What you meant was "we'll keep arguing our point until you actually read our posts." I've been making mewling noises over compromise for pages now. Do you think I co-authored Sload's proposal? Obviously I prefer it, but I liked Nephele's as well. I may be mistaken, but that applies to older users who want to see things change as well.
::::(And Nu-Mantia wasn't written by MK alone, and it really needs to be taken as truth because without it, Oblivion's plot doesn't make a lick of sense and is crazier than Sheogorath's cheese fetish and worse than the Eragon movie)[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I have read your posts. All of them. And the comments you have made on your edits. I have also read the comments on your user page. Your attitude comes across as "I'm a Loremaster, so you should let me add what I want to add to the Lore section in the way that I want, without questioning it". I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how it appears.

::::: As Sload said on your user page: ''I believe that paw-prints can change this if you will only let him. I implore all parties involved not to let this chance to create a wonderful encyclopedia of lore slip through their fingers.'' I think that most members of this community would welcome any move to improve the site's content, but you have to abide by the guidelines that are in place, that underpin and structure the site. That is, this site focuses on and emphasises the in-game content above any other. If you wish to argue that the in-game content is clarified and explained by certain out-of-game content, then fine, but that is how it should be described on the UESP - it should not be given equal billing to in-game content because '''the focus of this site is on in-game content'''.

::::: <big>'''''If you're happy with the proposals, why are we still arguing about things?'''''</big>

::::: By the way, I've read Nu-Mantia, and B's analysis/interpretation of it. I agree that it explains inconsistencies surrounding Chim el-Adabal*, and I've previously heard the theory that everything the 'hero' has done so far in the ES games has weakened the barriers between Mundus and Oblivion. However, the fact that it nicely explains everything and was written (or largely written) by MK doesn't make it an official source, and therefore it should not be given equal prominence with official sources. Is this so hard to understand and accept?

::::: <nowiki>*</nowiki> Apropos of nothing (as people like to say around here), Chim el-Adabal sounds interestingly Arabic. From what I can remember, '''''a'''l-Adabal'' means something like 'manners' or 'rules' - as in ''al-Adabal-Mufrad'' and ''al-Adabal-Shar'iyah''. Apologies to scholars if I've misremembered.

::::: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Why are we still arguing? You tell me (after you fix your font size, of course). I have largely stopped, except for one specific response 2000 words ago. But see, it doesn't matter how many of my comments you read when you persist in acting like they don't exist. ie, the 'why no compromise?' complaints, or this insufferable rehashing of 'not official,' which has been going on for the last week, and if you have read my posts, should seem counterproductive right now, so I won't respond further.
:::::I am still awaiting secondary comments from Sload and Nephele, thought I suppose in the meantime I will ask why. if you list categories 3 and 4, you never mention them in the body text, because it seems incomplete. Although it is also possible that 72 kilobytes of text (as my browser warns me) is swimming before my eyes.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The font size was deliberate. I'm sorry that you think that saying something is 'not official' is insufferable. I don't think stating the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Accurate and Verifiable|site policy]] is counterproductive to a discussion about the contents of the site. However, I do agree that maybe we should step back and await comments from others.

I also agree that this discussion is getting a bit long and difficult to follow. To answer your question, I said "''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here." in the fourth section of my proposed template, and I said "These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles." of category 4 material.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 11:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'll be willing to try any compromise. Just don't make the hurdles so high that any inclusion of out-of-game material is a hassle. Having edited a lot of lore articles in recent days, I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources. Any time I read a gamebook, things jump out at me and scream to be included to support points and enrich pages. If everyone just did some of that when reading source books, I believe that our Lore pages will be in better shape shortly. If nothing else, the "filling the holes" outside material can give some clues on how things hang together, whether you agree with a particular source or not. The more we work on lore namespace, the better it gets. i know that's a truism, but it does apply. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

'''Gaebrial,''' I'll refrain from addressing each comment individually because I don't think there will be any end to this discussion if you keep repeating that the games are the most important source of information, while I say that they are also a flawed source of information and as such they shouldn't trump any other flawed source of information. So instead I'll comment on your largest objection against the obscure texts and the compromises you suggested.

Discussing the validity of a text every time it gets used is a waste of time. All Obscure texts have the same properties, they don't appear in the game and they are written in-character by a developer so they can all be decided about right now - which I garnered was the impression of this discussion.

You don't consider these text to be less reliable for only the reason that they don't appear in the game. However the games already use materials that are unreliable, contradictive and incomplete. So being in the game means nothing for their reliability. Yet texts that are written by the same developer, that clarify and expand existing concepts, are considered less reliable then the already contradictive, incomplete materials that happen to be in the game, how can that position ever hold? As such a tiered system of reliability based on a texts presence in or with the game is completely out of place.

Before Oblivion there was period where the devs posted freely on the forums and talked about Tamriel. They did this with understanding that their out of character posts would be taken as their uninformed opinion on the matter while in character posts could be considered as much part of lore as anything else. Their in character material was written with this in mind so it should not be considered any less reliable.

As such on ESF:Lore there is a consensus that they are accepted as equal to other materials. While I realize that the ESF:Lore isn't the UESPWiki but it is the source for most of the lore expertise so it should count for some.

While I would also love to reach a compromise,I do not see a middle any ground. Either the texts are used on an equal basis, or they are not. You might feel that offering to push back the debate to the actual articles is a compromise, it not only delays this debate and decision, it multiplies it in every article that it touches on! Just as a tiered system can not be seen as a compromise because the criteria used do not say anything about reliability.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 05:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:'''Proposal''' I just saw that rpeh posted on til summarizing this discussion as "it must just be flagged as it is" while not an accurate summary, it does seem like the thing everybody can accept.

:I don't think explicitly mentioning this is aethestically pleasing, but perhaps something can be done with the reference symbols. I don't know how the wiki works but stuff like [] or {} to mark the differences in source. Alternativly it can be completely ignored as the sources are listed at the bottom of the article anyway.

:06:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::Having had some discussions in a more efficient manner in other places I can see the use of this tiered system when it's used to facilitate the reader who may or may not be familiar with all the material rather then as a system to describe a sources accuracy.

::I reckon this proposal will work with the following change: The fourth section should be a full fledged explanation rather then a notes section because most of the texts in the 3th category are often too complex or too large to merely link too. The reader wouldn't see the forest for the trees.

::[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 07:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::: It looks like we can agree that ''some'' variant of Gaebrial's system can be used. It's clear that nobody's going to be 100% happy but if we can come up with a good system then maybe we can at least please most of the people most of the time.
::: To step back for a minute: any system is going to have to work for all the pages in all the ways they work. That means as standalone articles, as transclusions into alphabetical lists and as transclusions into game pages. As I see it, that means there will have to be a section, preferably at the top of the article, that tells the brief, in-game theory. Without wanting to be dogmatic, this is going to ''have'' to be the case because otherwise we're going to cause inordinate confusion to the site's readers, most of whom read the material through the game pages and who really aren't interested in the intricacies of the lore.
::: After that, the difference between the two viewpoints comes down to the prominence that can be given to non-game material. Do we have two different detailed sections - one without OOG lore and one with? Do we use Gaebrial's sections idea to lead to tiers of information?
::: If we can agree on an introductory section with '''no''' out-of-game material then I suppose I can agree to the inclusion of such material in a second section, but with a couple of caveats. First, all OOG material must be ''fully'' cited. That doesn't just mean a link to TIL - it means also describing the place and time that the source was first presented, meaning that people can judge for themselves whether or not they want to trust it. Secondly, only material that doesn't break the POV of the Lore space can be used. That means "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "Vehk's Teachings" would be acceptable but ''not'' interviews with developers.
::: On a personal note, I'd like to thank Proweler for joining the debate and being apparently agreeable to compromise. It looks like we can get things moving again now. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== A proposal ==

I could go through and give comments to the individual points, but bear with me for a second. After having followed the discussion above, my take is that the conflict boils down to this:

Both sides don't want to have their viewpoints of ''Lore'' diminished.

Let me try to explain this with an example of one of the greatest mysteries of the TES series, the "Disappearance of the Dwarves". We were given many clues, books, fragments, even quests, stumbled over mysterious ruins where machines and Animunculi still functioned. The debate over what happened to the Dwemer occupied players for many years.

As it stands now, the ES forum presents it as this: We know what happened to the Dwarves. (We're done with that, go away. ;))

The wiki mentions many clues, but not the answer.

If you're a player, would you just have the answer presented to you, a "cheat" so to speak? Would you not equally feel cheated if only clues were presented, if an answer exists? I propose that all in-game clues are presented, the scholars involved, Fyr, Yagrum Bagarn, Demnevanni etc. followed by

"Kagrenac was devoted to his people, and the Dwarves, despite what you may have read, were a pious lot-he would not have '''sacrificed so many of their golden souls to create Anumidum's metal body''' if it were all in the name of grand theater. Kagrenac had even built the tools needed to construct a Mantella, the
'''Crux of Transcendence'''." - Skeleton Man's Interview (my emphasis)

One without the other is either boring, or incomplete or false. We need both, the puzzle pieces and the accepted answer. I propose a peer-reviewed article incorporating the base principles suggested in Nephele's write-up, and then the other "sides" can see if they're satisfied. I feel the theoretical discussion has gone far enough, we need to see what such a new article looks like. After all, that's what the wiki offers to its users, articles. I shall attempt to write [[Lore:Disappearance of the Dwarves|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] as an outline of such an article, any help and critique is very welcome. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not going to post a full response right now because I'm hoping others will respond first, but I will say that if you're writing an article based on disputed material you should do it in a sandbox instead of the Lore space. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
With all the dirt flying and Benould's renovations, the Lore section IS a sandbox right now. /gigglesnort The sourcing and formatting refute present policies often enough, never mind what we decide here. No one seemed to mind when Martin's mother was listed as Gemile, and that family tree is bloody old. A new standard is and good, but bend all our stubs into knots over the scruples of it.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Have your cake ==

An opportunity has been lost here.

I am not interested in dealing with the sort of people I will find here. I should have taken some good advice, this just isn't worth it.

Nephele, I greatly respect what I have seen from you and I would have liked to have known you. Temple-Zero and Benould, there is no point pursuing this further. Rpeh, I am sure you will be satisfied. UESP is defended against us fools who actually know what we're talking about.

Be seeing you. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 01:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
: This is exactly what Gaebrial meant when he talked about compromise. You are sticking rigidly to your view that there is no difference between in- and out-of-game texts and refuse to countenance any kind of distinction being made. If you won't move from that belief, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Discussion is about compromise and those of us who were opposed to ''any'' inclusion of unofficial texts have already made a big move in your direction.
: To portray me as "satisfied" that UESP has lost somebody who could have been a useful editor is utterly untrue, but you don't seem to have understood any of the comments above on the suitability of material, the nature of our readership or our willingness to compromise. I'm not sure that an editor so unwilling so listen to the community would find themselves at home here in any case. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::To clarify something; Sload made this edit only a few minutes after he had been discussing with Rpeh on IRC, which was basically a reiteration of what has been stated here. This has led me to believe that no compromise is being sought by Sload. I apologize to Nephele, Benould and Gaebrial in advance, I know you worked hard on compiling a good proposal, but I have to vote for not having out-of-game sources at all (or only be an exception). Had we agreed on a compromise I still think it wouldn't have made any difference on the discussion on individual pages. Both parties would still have end up having lengthy discussions on every controversial edit. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 04:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::What's Daveh's opinion? Just out of curiosity.
::: It would seem Sload is not alone in thinking that a compromise is not reachable. I looked at the discussion at Til and saw that other lore-guru's/masters/khans like Albides and Sload think that TES lore is not complete without the Obscure Texts. Their main argument seems to be that many holes in the in-game lore, holes that are filled up by the Obscure texts. Secondly many of the "higher mysteries" of TES (like the Dreamsleave, the Eantiamorph and Chim) are only briefly mentioned in the ingame books. We need the Obscure texts to explain them. Some, like Sload and Albides, have accused the people who came up with a compromise as either being biased or flat-out wrong. Others have thanked Nep~hele (and others) for coming up with a proposal for compromise, but have said that a compromise is still not an option.
::: The main question, that I haven't seen anyone here asking himself, is if these people are right. They do know more about lore then we do so who knows? Are the loremasters living in an ivory tower and do they fight about dogma like a bunch of die-hard Christian theologians or is what they say right? Discussions about these sort of topics have popped up at the ES forums from time to time and have generally not lasted long. The end result was always that the loremaster'stance was taken as being canon. (examples : http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=738606&hl=cult and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=855895&st=60&p=12524154&#entry12524154)

::: ''Encylopedias, such as UESP are built on objective truths. If solid proof isn't found, then subjective opinions such as yours can't go into them.''

:::The following qoute was postec on TIl by Michaelsuarez, a member of UESP. The TES lore, with it's many different and conflicting sources isn't much different from your standard historical discussion. Deciding which sources take precedence over others, combining sources to form theories, use new sources to overthrow older theories. In the scholarly field of history, these sort of things happen all the time. In history, unlike the natural sciences, all knowledge is subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.
::: Many people think that nationalism is one of the reasons the First World War started. Many people do not realize however is that this is not the absolute truth. It's just a subjective truth. A group of scholars interpeted the sources and were of the opinion that there was a connection between the two. There is evidence to support this theory, but unlike the natural sciences historical evidence can be interpeted in a number of different ways. An historian, using the same sources, can come to a radically different interpetation.
:This is also the case with TES lore. The Dissapearance of the Dwarves, the Night Mother, Pelinal Whitestrake, the nature of the Daedra Lords, these things can't be taken directly from the source material, they must be interpeted and combined with different sources. The result is not an objective truth, but a subjective one. UESP is a source of subjective knowledge without maybe even knowing it. Take for example lore:Dark Brotherhood. The second theory about the formation of the DB is clearly wrong. It states that the DB was formed after the murder of the lats potentate (2e 421). There is however solid proof that the DB was already formed in 2e 358-360. I could add this to the article, but under the current guidelines that is not allowed, because it is my personal opinion, not solid fact.

::: I'm still in for a compromise, but I'm not sure if both sides seem to be ready for this.

:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 07:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Rat’s Viewpoint==

Alright, I have been involved with these discussions to some extent, but I haven’t actually posted my opinion here. I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before I decided to charge into no-man’s land. I’ve actually been preparing these comments since before Sload posted his position. Once we attracted Temple-Zero I saw this conversation happening, though I am a bit surprised it came up early. I’m going to attempt to flush out the issues and then propose a compromise.

===The Facts===
# The Lore Community considers MK’s out of game writings to be canon. This is important because they are the experts on Lore. Their opinions matter.
#The UESP doesn’t have a license to MK’s out of game works, and since they are not truly part of a larger work, we’d need them. I have talked to a few people (not MK or Bethesda), and I can definitely see that there may be trouble getting the license. This is not a showstopper. We can link to TIL as necessary. This has its downsides, since we can’t control the material that’s on TIL, but it could fulfill the need for sources.
#If we get a lot of out-of-game sources, we need people that know the material. Right now, I only see one long term person (Benould). Temple-Zero has been around a bit, and I think he can be trusted to stay, but I’d rather see at least one more person.
#The Lore Section as it currently stands needs major help. It is nothing compared to either the Morrowind or the Oblivion section in terms of detail.
#We are not owned by Bethesda, though we do have an important relationship with them. It is in our best interest to not piss them off. This is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I think it needed to be said.

===My Positions===
#In general, in-game content needs to be preferred. Basically, if Akatosh appears and explained the Dragon Break differently in ESV, we’d accept that version even over MK’s objections. This does have its limits. We can’t count up the number of NPCs in the Imperial City and call that its lore population.
#MK and other Developer’s work can be accepted as expert testimony. In a void of information, their work can bridge gaps.
#We can’t split articles based on OOG info or not. That’s going to cause too many organizational difficulties.

===Proposal===
#We need to cite information, where it is in game or not. That means we need to investigate getting a citation add-on if we haven’t already. This is critical in expanding the Lore section due to conflicting view points that take place both in and out of the games. This obviously means both IG and OOG source will be included.
#Fan information does not belong on the wiki.

===Why my proposal is different===
I believe both Nephele’s and Gaebrial’s proposals lend themselves to problems with keeping IG and OOG sources separate. That’s going to take a lot of work on a section as big as Lore. It is different from Sload in that preference is given to the in game sources. Overall, I think it is a very workable solution that I hope can please everyone. That being said, if anyone wants to add anything to this, talk here, I'm willing to change some portions. -[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is a workable solution, if we can get consensus behind it. Whether to host or link is a separate discussion, let alone negotiations with the involved parities. I think (short) quotes and links will suffice. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm sorry but I can't support this. It looked like we were heading for a compromise but this seems to be a step back. As I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348967&oldid=348958 said] earlier we ''must'' have a section that contains ''no'' unofficial material so that the pages can be used in gamespaces. Anything else is not appropriate for the types of user we typically see on the site. I think the fact that one group of people has been ready to move so far in this debate has caused you to forget how strongly we feel. My preference is still for '''no''' OOG material at all but this proposal puts in-game and unofficial on almost the same level. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::For what it's worth (and I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion), ex-developper Douglas Goodall made the following statement in his [[General:Douglas Goodall Interview|interview]]: ''"Books that are actually published in one of the Elder Scrolls games have precedence over ramblings on the forums."''. I think he has a point there. Which is not to say we should be ignoring all non-game sources, but I do think it makes sense to keep material that is not game-sourced outside of the game namespaces. In other words, keep it in the Lore namespace only. That means that any material which gets transcluded onto gamespace pages should only include information seen in the games. However, the gamespace pages should have links back to the Lore namespace, where the other material can be seen. The reasons for this are the same as the reasons why we don't discuss the details of a Morrowind quest on an Oblivion page, even if it is somehow related. (E.g.: [[Oblivion:A Rat Problem]] and [[Morrowind:Exterminator (Fighters)]]. The pages link to eachother, but say very little - you want the whole story, go to the linked page.) The same should go for the Lore namespace and any of the game namespaces. Thus [[Morrowind:Vivec (god)]] should really be about Vivec ''as he relates to the game of Morrowind''. Any information about Vivec that does not relate to the game of Morrowind or which cannot be seen in any of the in-game sources should stay on [[Lore:Vivec (god)]]. This means that the first section of the Lore page, which is transcluded on the Morrowind page, needs to include only material seen in the game. Anything else should be in the non-included part of the article (and of course, properly sourced, but I think we've gone over that enough). --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 01:13, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wait, the sticking point is what part gets transcluded onto to OB game pages, Rpeh? Some fancy noinclude can handle that, right? (Editors note: Most Lore articles, at least in part, also appear on game pages; the multi-purpose part that Nephele mentioned earlier) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Noinclude tags aren't going to work when the text that needs to be excluded is inextricably merged into every paragraph in the article though. More than two or three pairs of noinclude tags will make the article impossible to edit. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:25, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: What part and how much of an article does the transclusion entail, anyways? If the topic is so obscure that oog lore is needed for a passable summary, what is it doing in the namespace? That 'probable reader' thing works both ways.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 01:32, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

(Outdent)But your main concern is that OOG is found in OB pages, right? I agree that the confusion would be big if OOG is sitting on an OB page. In case of Amulet of Kings, the OB article probably would have to be severed from Lore, but OB content is very mature at this point. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, just a few pages that won't be transcluded. I don't see this to be a show-stopper, either have separate pages, IFEQ or noincludes. OB shouldn't stop Lore from being acurate, OB should just be accurate to what's in the game, with links to the Lore article for those that are interested. OB articles wouldn't really deal with references anyways, the main sourcing there as in MW would be links. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 02:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree, more or less, with everybody. I can support Ratwar's proposal, with the modification mentioned by Rpeh & Lurlock - that where a Lore page is transcluded onto non-Lore pages, the bit that is transcluded must contain only information from 100% official, in-game, sources. The rest of the Lore article can contain information from out-of-game sources if required, as long as these sources (in fact, all sources) are properly referenced and cited.
: I also agree with TZ's point that if the topic of a Lore article is so obscure that it cannot be summarised without using out-of-game resources, it shouldn't be transcluded onto non-Lore pages. If there is a need for a game-namespace page on the same subject (e.g. Amulet of Kings), then as Benould says, the two articles should be kept separate, possibly with links in the game-namespace article to the Lore article 'for further information' for those who are interested in such.
: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 02:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think the two-page idea is quite right. Nearly, but not quite. In the case of the Amulet of Kings, the Oblivion article doesn't need to mention the unofficial material at all, but definitely benefits from some of the history surrounding the item. On the other hand the Lore page has got to mention the Oblivion version of the story to be a complete story of the... well... lore surrounding it. Whichever version of the story you want to believe, lore means "the body of knowledge, esp. of a traditional, anecdotal, or popular nature, on a particular subject" so to exclude one version of events would be a mistake.
:: It's worth saying that there are only a few pages where this will be an issue, but on those pages, I think we have to take the two sections approach. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 04:16, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't support any proposal to change lore pages so that they fit in the other namespaces, or as the case is here, not improve the lore pages so that they fit into the gamespaces. I am fine with a two page idea, but I think the separating the page into sections is a recipe for an organizational nightmare. New editors aren't going to know the rules since it isn't obvious. With two pages, the game information only part (which I currently think should be a subpage of the main Lore article) could have messages explaining its existence. Doing this on regular pages would simply cause more confusion.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 19:41, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::::How many pages are we talking about here? [[Oblivion:Mannimarco]] is severed from Lore, Akatosh redirects to [[Oblivion:Nine Divines]], [[Oblivion:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]] transcludes. Is there any other conflicting stuff that does get transcluded into the Oblivion gamespace, since that's where the big pot-holes are, that the OOG content is attempting to fill. I hope we're not squabbling over a non-existing problem, or one that is very minor. Can a tech-savvy person please make a list and get us an overview? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:06, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::As I've said before, the lore section is chaotic and incomplete right now. The style guide is often ignored, and there are obscure text links in there that have nothing to do with this debate. If we limit any new standards to future edits regarding oog lore, and those subject to case-by-case review, is there that much of a problem?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 21:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nobody is claiming the Lore space is anything but a mess at the moment, but it doesn't need unofficial material to fix the problem. This proposal seems to have got back to treating unofficial material the same as official, and as such I don't support it. In general, I'm not going to support any proposal that doesn't make a clear distinction between official and unofficial material. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You mean besides the external link icon and the linkt hat opens a new tab, bringing you to a page with a proper disclaimer?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Source critique ==

This is a proposal to add a template with a source critique to ''each and every'' source; book, fragment, obscure, ingame or out-of-game. If we're treating them like historical sources, as Apophis2412 was getting at, they have to be critiqued. This is necessary and what rpeh was asking for, Proweler was hinting at and incorporates some of all proposals. The TIL has some of it with its categorization into Historical/Fiction/Lore etc, [http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/ here] for example, our book description/author and bylines have some of it, but neither are really extensive to the level of detail that is needed. That way, every single page where the texts are used doesn't have to make that judgment call.

An example of why Source critique is needed:

The [http://www.imperial-library.info/interviews/skelm.shtml Skeleton's Man Interview] for example is sourced only to a now defunct [http://www.m0use.net/~skelm/ Hall of Adventurers] at m0use.net, no date, no further details. From what I could gather, it is a Teaser, in-character by MK and others at the time of the release of "Redguard", while working on MW. Somewhere, somehow it should be mentioned that its quoting [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=482103&st=20&p=6918676&#entry6918676 here] ended the discussion about the disappearance of the Dwarves in the forums.

Source critique would describe how this text came about, identify the writer and as in-character if applicable, category - as mentioned, and viewpoint/skew/bias. It would also allow a brief judgment, with clarifications. Just a quick write-up, things can be added, although the entry should be brief.

Example: "2920" - A fictional but well-researched retelling of the events of the last year of the First Era,
*by Carlovac Townway Writer:Ted ? - in-game: OB, MW (however we called it OGG, IG)
*Main characters are the Tribunal, Reman III. Potentate
*Spans from the war of the Reman Empire with Morrowind to the assassination of Reman by the Morag Tong.
*Keywords: First Era, Night Mother (anything not mentioned previously)

All relevant words are hyperlinked and indexed, so if I were to look up information in search about the Morag Tong, it'll pop up under Sources. Any discussions would be on the talk page of the source, so things are transparent for future researchers.

If deemed useful, creating this source critique would depend heavily on both communities, and can be applied here as well as the TIL (if they want that, of course). Such a joint effort could build *gasp* bridges, educate, create interest in the Lore sources and help every single Lore article. It would also let us discuss the texts, which is the Hobby part of it ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think I understand what you're saying, and what I get out if it is this: Rather than a project to add critiques to every solitary source, make a once-size-fits-all template so that any issue regarding the source may be addressed with ease, and perhaps a source with a critical template could be flagged in its reference text. Consensus in the talk pages would be very important, however.

:And I like the thinking behind Ratwar's proposal, as it seems to benefit from being a fresh perspective in terms of identifying the true issues and pitfalls of using all sources. I'm reasonably certain the obscure texts do not require licenses. MK exerts unofficial control over his writing and its being hosted on TIL, and anything put on a forum generally isn't restricted by anythinge except courtesy. But I am not asking for the obscure texts to be hosted anyway, especially as the external link is all the disclaimer you will need in many cases.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 15:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'd be fine just external links, but what I was trying to say is that for us to host them, we'd need some kind of 'okay' from MK (or the other author in question). --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Resolution? ==
Debate seems to have stopped. How is this question resolved? A decision of all the admins? A proposal to the community? It's time to make a decision. I support Ratwar's proposal as it does not share the fatal flaws of some others, which would split sources and make the criteria for citations too byzantine and arguable to be easily navigated by users who aren't very familiar with the site. This would handicap the rejuvenation of the lore section and besides, it is the place of uesp to present a comprehensive picture of everything that is Elder Scrolls. This is the UNOFFICIAL Elder Scrolls Site, it is not the place to make such judgements over material. These resources are essential. Their use can have limits and qualifications, but forcing them into narrow categories and supporting roles overcomplicates editing and discourages their implementation. This makes any sort of obscure text editing difficult and clouds the true issue over their trustworthiness suitability to the topic.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 13:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Not only the debate has stopped. Any momentum that existed to improve the Lore namespace has stopped as well. What looked liked a consensus has been abandoned over posturing. I am disappointed. There may be no editors left to implement the changes that are so vigorously discussed above. "Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

UESPWiki talk:Lore

2008-08-20T22:03:49Z

Benould: /* Resolution? */ Not only the debate has stopped

{| class=wikitable style="float:right"
! Related Discussions
|-
|
* [[:Category:Archive-Tamriel|Archived discussions about the Tamriel namespace]]
|}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==Sources for Lore Articles==
:''The first section of this discussion (everything up to my contribution at [[#Nephele|Nephele]]) was originally posted at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]]. I've moved it all here because it is general discussion about the Lore namespace, rather than discussion specifically about what belongs on the [[Lore:Main Page|Main Page]] of the Lore section. Also, any guidelines that are adopted as a result of this discussion will be posted on [[UESPWiki:Lore]]; this keeps the discussion together with the guidelines.'' --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
===The Case for Kirkbride===

As most readers of this page are indubitably aware at this point, there has been something of a tempest in a teapot regarding the contributions of the user Temple-Zero. I admit readily that I involved myself in this community fully at his behest, and that I agree with his principles fully. This essay is an attempt to explain and justify the position he and I are taking in a non-bombastic way.

There are a few people who have significantly contributed to the "lore" of the TES series in an official context - Ken Rolston, Kurt Kuhlmann, Marilyn Wasserman, Douglas Goodall, Gary Noonan, Ted Peterson, and Michael Kirkbride. Of these, the latter two's contributions have been by far the most significant, with Peterson writing proliferously for the series and Kirkbride being the primary force behind worldbuilding and lore since 1996. The difficulty that arises is that Kirkbride has contributed, as of today, 20 works which have not appeared in TES games, in addition to several collaborations with other writers. Others have contributed similarly, though not to nearly the same extent. These works have been archived by The Imperial Library [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/ on this page]. There appears to be some disagreement over whether these qualify as "lore."

The argument many members of this community have put forth is that something is not "lore" unless explicitly endorsed by Bethesda Softworks (or one of the associated companies involved in the production of TES games) by appearing in a game. Though this may sound like a simple and successful way to organize lore into "canon" and "non-canon," this line of reasoning is specious and not accepted by any prominent member of the lore community.

The idea that Bethesda is the source of canon does not hold up with Bethesda's own policy. "Ius, the Animal God" is not serious lore, its own author readily admits that. ''Arena'' is not an accurate depiction of Tamriel except insofar as it has the provinces right and the cities are kind of accurate. Even the Pocket Guide was ignored when creating ''Oblivion'', something which would be inexplicable if not for one of the texts some editors argue should not be treated as lore. If the games are conflicting, how can it be ''them'' that is canon, and the texts which repair this conflict not?

The reality is that Mr. Kirkbride is the primary moving force for TES lore. He was the primary author of the First Pocket Guide to the Empire, Varieties of Faith, and every single creation myth except the Khajiit's, he drew the art which inspired the design of virtually every aspect of Morrowind's visuals - from the Ministry of Truth to corpus beasts to the Telvanni mushroom towers - he is the voice of Vivec and the author the Thirty-Six Lessons, and the man behind Mankar Camoran. Almost every major character from the lore is either his creation or someone he expanded on immeasurably - from Pelinal and Alessia to Tiber Septim and Zurin Arctus to Sotha Sil and Almalexia. The only major exceptions are the events of ''2920'' and Barenziah and her children, which are Peterson's invention. Dismissing him as a "dev," or one of many in a large group of contributors, is folly. Similarly, dismissing half his corpus as "forum posts" is equally unwise.

You cannot fully understand ''The Thirty-Six Lessons of Vivec'' without "Vehk's Teachings," or grasp their ultimate implications without "A Letter from the Fifth Era of Tamriel." You cannot account for Oblivion's plot-holes without "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "From the Many-Headed Talos." The story of the Alessian Revolt is not complete without the "Lament for Pelinal," and the in-game version of "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is missing half its text. "Lord Vivec’s Sword-Meeting With Cyrus the Restless" is a sequel to ''TESA: Redguard'' and his contributions in the Trial of Vivec bring the story of ''Morrowind'' and ''Tribunal'' to a close. "The Imperial Census of Daedra Lords" gives invaluable information on the Daedra, and "Cosmology" gives equally important information on the metaphysical geography of the TES universe. I can continue to describe the significance of the eleven other texts at hand, but I think my point is made.

When Temple-Zero says "TES is literature" he means it. The view that has developed slowly from the gestations of the lore community sees Kirkbride as an author like any other, and his works as a story that has developed over more than a decade. Lore is ultimately just the cataloging of this story for ease of understanding. If UESP ignores such significant contributions to this story because they aren't included in the video game that allowed this story to exist, then UESP's lore section remains crippled and useless as it so much is currently. The obscure texts are not unsourced and non-canon, they are ''essential'' to our understanding of this universe and stories within it. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 08:26, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree with your argument. In my personal opinion, this edit should form the foundation of our discussions on how to proceed from here. What is the purpose of the wiki "Lore" section is maybe the bigger issue, what audience are we trying to reach? Without a basic agreement on these two issues, Lore namespace will remain piece-meal; with a varying, sometimes dubious quality. Much more can be said, but as many probably agree, we need to discuss this in the community. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::Indeed. If UESP aims only to inform the average player of the basics of the games' backstory, then it can settle with in-game sources. But it could be more than that, it could be a source players newly interested in lore could go to learn about things unhindered by the poetics of the in-game sources, or by their conflicting narratives, and also providing background as to how consensus was formed and links to the original sources. The obscure texts are essential to our understanding of this.

::Certainly treating these sources with scorn will only alienate the lore community from this website, making it useless by virtue of not being taken seriously. As will comments that suggest that the lore community is somehow insigificant, along the lines of insinuating that we can go off and "discuss" in our "forums" as if you have any audience but us. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 20:59, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Does wiki have some sort of charter? Because unless reluctance to include non-canon material is in writing somewhere, its inclusion seems very much in keeping with the nature of the site, in some ways. UESP doesn't judge, it only reflects and records. In the articles dealing with aspects of the games, every conceivable detail finds a place- useful, interesting, or not. This allows it to be used as an open-ended resource for a variety of purposes. It is not a targeted runthrough of the subject with clear goals in mind. It is wiki's job to show or reference everything, EVERYTHING that there is to be seen, a database of details to minor to be explored in something as cursory and efficient as a walkthrough. The entirety of Elder Scrolls, just as Wikipedia tries to be the sum of all knowledge. Withholding lore does not make sense in such a place. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::But like Wikipedia, we do not appreciate faulty inceptions in our articles, which brings us back to the non-canon discussion that took place earlier. We want verified, sourced material straight from the horses, in this case Bethesda's, mouth. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 23:01, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
This site isn't about Bethesda. It's about Elder Scrolls. What is your fascination with this faceless corporation? You aren't affiliates. It's hard for me to take this viewpoint seriously when no one explains it, only reiterates it. It's not that hard- I've heard one passable justification before now.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 23:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:A faceless corporation? While not every person at Bethesda may have contributed anything to the ES lore, the current canon we hold is what has been agreed upon by the developers at Bethesda. Yes, there are developers who may have contributed the major part to the lore, but that does not mean that what they say outside the official sources is inrefutably true. We don't know what happens inside Bethesda, for all we know the developers vote for every plot arch before they continue upon it. What Kirkbride says outside an official source may be what he would have written, but as he doesn't say "This is official" we can't take it for canon without placing question marks to its validity. There has not been stated on the site that unofficial sources can never be used, the major issue has been with you automatically taking them for true. You have been jumping to conclusions right from the beginning and are taking a very cynical approach to anyone who questions the validity of such sources. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 03:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Question: If what is found under [http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text Obscure Texts at TIL] is mostly contract work done for Bethesda, how can it not be considered part of the Lore, even by the old standards - only Bethesda sanctioned material? What is contract work there, what isn't? Do we have any written standards on what is admissible? Anyone care to enlighten me? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

First, apologies for the length of this post but I think we have a lot to talk about.

I think there are three areas of disagreement: the perspective of the articles, the sources for them, and the degree to which conclusions should be drawn.

To quote the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Perspective|Style Guide]], "Within Lore articles, it is more appropriate to write from the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe. The articles are still expected to be encyclopedia-style, but designed as if they were reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel. Gameplay details should be avoided in Lore articles; game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen." Although the section is still marked as a proposed guideline, it's been up there for months and nobody has ever argued against it, That means that additions like [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Nede&curid=12249&diff=347662&oldid=347661&rcid=351122 this one] should not be made because it's pretty clear that a citizen of Tamriel wouldn't know what the developers have been saying. The previous version of the text is perfectly accurate, neutral and fits with the required style; the new edit simply pushes a personal viewpoint. The average citizen is much more likely to believe a more "impressive" history - in our own universe the Romans' version of history held that they were directly descended from Trojan refugees, rather more lofty than "Another Italic tribe that happened to get lucky".

As a little bit of background, the reason for the Lore space being different in perspective is that we had several complaints about the site being written from an all-seeing, all-knowing point of view, with some believing it spoiled the games. We decided that it was almost impossible to avoid doing this in the gamespaces but that the Lore space would be an ideal place to write from a citizen's viewpoint. I'm well aware that most of the pages don't quite work like that at the moment; most focus has been on "finishing" the game pages (inasmuch as such a thing is possible). A few pages have been rewritten in the new style, however - [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3ADark_Brotherhood&diff=313090&oldid=313020 my edit] to the Dark Brotherhood page was intended to act as an example of how even the game sections of Lore pages can fit with the style. Since then, the article has grown and become much better through the additions made by people like Apophis2412 that have been made in the same style. In his case, opposing theories were presented with equal prominence, which is the correct way to write when there is disagreement.

As far as source material is concerned, I don't think anybody will be massively shocked when I say that I strenuously oppose the inclusion of sources from outside the games. My main reason for this is simply - where do you draw the line? Material that MK wrote in an official capacity for Bethesda? Material written by MK for fun? Material improvised by devs in a roleplay? What about somebody like Douglas Goodall? We [[General:Douglas_Goodall_Interview|know]] that he isn't a fan of the way things have developed so what if he wrote some lore that brings things back to his way of thinking? I know that's a hypothetical question, but it's one that is worth asking.

The "obscure texts" are material that, for whatever reason, has ''not'' been put in the games. Obviously, anything that appeared after SI came out can't really be included anywhere, but for the rest of it, it was available and yet not included for whatever reason. You say that the fact the in-game "Where were you when the Dragon Broke?" is half the size of the other means that we have to use the latter; I say that half the material was deliberately cut so we have to use the former.

The points you make about the games being internally inconsistent is a good one, but then we already know that they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon retconned]* once, with the Warp in the West, so I don't see that it's a deal breaker. There are things going on that your typical citizen of Tamriel doesn't know about, as I'm sure they'd admit.

::

* ''the irony of linking this particular post to a WP article flagged for containing original material has not escaped me.''

Let me give you another piece of history from the site. We've had several edit wars about the ranks of people in Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=190339&oldid=187427] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=202684&oldid=201953] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=207839&oldid=202712] [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion%3AArquen&diff=220731&oldid=207842] for just four such examples on one page) The site policy on this is that we always use the values from the data files, which gives us a quick and easy way to decide any issue like this that comes up. By drawing an analogous line and saying that only texts that appear in the games (plus the PGE, which at least comes with them) can be used, questions about the legitimacy of material are answered easily.

This brings me to the last point - conclusions. There have been several cases where edits are presented as facts where they are actually extrapolation ([http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AKhajiit&diff=332997&oldid=332990] and [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore%3AGods_A&diff=331035&oldid=320426] are two examples). This for me is the most disturbing trend in recent edits. If this kind of content appears regularly we're going to be lost in a wasteland of unverifiable pages that will undoubtedly be the subject of edit warring. Even having said that, there are instances where extrapolation ''can'' be acceptable. Lurlock recently [[Morrowind_talk:Camonna_Tong#Gap_in_the_Ranks|posted]] a theory to explain why there is a huge gap in the ranks in the Morrowind Camonna Tong, the basis for which is that there are people living in Vvardenfell (and Cyrodiil) that we don't see. In this case, it's pretty easy to prove. In the case of Oblivion, for example we have the [[Oblivion:Night Mother Rituals!|Night Mother Rituals]] edition of the Black Horse Courier being written by one Agnes Earheardt. Since no NPC in the game has that name there must be people we don't see - QED. On the other hand, his suggestion that the unseen people outnumber the seen by 50 times is just a guess. It's an informed guess and he gives his reasons for making it, but it's a guess nonetheless. Personally, my guess would be more like 75 times, but I'm not going to put that on an article either.

In conclusion, this is a potentially very exciting time for the site. The Lore section has always been the poor relation of the site and I'd love to see it spruced up, but not by including material of dubious veracity. In any case, all material should be supported with citations. Benould gave a [[User_talk:Temple-Zero#References|good example]] of how to do that, and it should happen with all these edits so people can find the supporting material quickly and easily.

–[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Just to follow up Rpeh's comments on source material, I am also opposed to the inclusion of non-game material. If we are going down the path of including everything that a developer (or whatever you want to call them) has said in a 'semi-official' capacity, where do you draw the line? For example, if you include Gary "Wormgod" Noonan's forum posts as 'official', do you also count the 'Morrowind Advanced' mod as official, because he wrote it? I would argue that, despite being written by a BethSoft developer, it is very much an unofficial mod as it is not officially supported and distributed by BethSoft. I would could forum posts and other 'semi-official' works in the same manner. Just because somebody who works for BethSoft happens to say something about something somewhere, it doesn't make it official. What if MK posted something along the lines of "Actually, Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon" - does that become official canon simply because MK said it? --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should concentrate less on determining what 'canon' means in the context of TES's "spaghetti lore" and more on the usefulness of this wiki. As the lore community — an important part of our audience — sees MK's views as taking precedence over in-game material as well as over material by other developers, we should edit the Lore section with this in mind. That is, we might want to write something to the effect of "source X says Y, Michael Kirkbride says Z" whenever such contradictions occur — and link to a "Michael Kirkbride" article where we explain that the lore community sees him as having a "privileged" status among the developers. If we simply ignore MK's forum posts/Obscure Texts (and by "ignore" I refer to not writing anything about it; I'm not referring to not treating it as the absolute truth), we will miss an important part of TES lore. Treating MK-Lore as absolute truth would be better than this in ''my'' opinion, but as it seems that a great deal of this wiki's editors are opposed to such an approach, we might find the compromise I've just presented as being a good solution instead. [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:If I had been asked about this a few days ago I would have probably been of the opinion not to consider these texts canon. I do not like Mk's texts very much and they're not a part of "my ES world". (The only one I really like is "Fall of Ald-Ruhn") However the recent discussion on this site has changed my opinon a bit: How much I may dislike them, they are still a part of the Elder Scrolls however and thus cannot be ignored. Since this site's goal is to be a major source of information about Elder Scrolls this site does not have the luxury to simply ignore them.

:Vallagar has some interesting points. We could of course add a section to each article dedicated to sources not found within the game. I'm saying that we don't add information coming from these outside texts to the main part of the article but rather devote a seperate section of the article to it. I'm also of the opinion that we must still seperate the dev-texts from the in-game sources but that we atleast allow people to find out what is inside them. Perhaps we can even put a disclaimer on the top of the lore page, explaining UESP's and the community's opinion on this and let the reader decide wether they want to consider it canon.

: I also agree with Sload when he says that this might be a great opportunity for UESP to improve it's lore section and thus make it a lore site comparable to TIL. On the other hand, one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints.

: The biggest problem I see at the moment with these outside texts is deciding what is a credible source and what is not. If we include MK's texts, do we also include Ken Rolston's texts about Caius Coscades? If we consider the RP: Trial of Vivec, a credible source, does that make Ted Peterson's RP's also a viable source of information? And what do we do about texts like these: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=754160&hl= and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=607899&hl= ??
:Are they lore or just a jest?

: Another problem is the very nature of Mk's texts. Texts like "Short life of Uriel Septim" or "On: Morrowind" are your standard historical texts. You can take information straight from the text and add it to the UESP article. They aren't much open to interpetation. MK's works (like "Sithis" or "The 36 sermons") are more of a theological nature. In some ways you can compare them to the Bible. The difference with normal texts is that can't take information straight from the article but have to interpete what the texts says.

:If the discussion on what is and what is not canon cannot be easliy decided then it might be an idea for UESP to make use of a system of canonicity levels like the Star Wars Franchise uses. See here for an example: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database

:[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 08:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)Apophis2412

:: To quote Apophsis2412: '''''one could also argue that the place to go for ES lore is and will always be TIL, while UESP is and has always been the place to go if you need gameplay hints'''''
:: I think we need to be careful that we are not simply duplicating TIL - the UESP doesn't exist to simply regurgitate stuff that is found elsewhere on the web, but to fill its own niche. I think the above quote also answer's Valaggar's question about the usefulness of the wiki - UESP is viewed primarily as a 'gameplay hints' site, not a 'lore' site.
:: (Maybe we should have chosen something other than 'Lore' as the title for the moved 'Tamriel' domain, or even not bothered moving it)
:: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: True, but one must not forget that this site also has articles about lore that Til doesn't have, like our articles about all the factions (MW Great Houses for example), and the articles about important people (Vivec, Almalexia, Sotha Sil for example).

[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 09:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: First, I see a trend among all the responses above that I would like to reply to. You are all coming to the same set of concerns from a variety of angles, whether questions of style or 'UESP doesn't do lore.' You are very skeptical that we should consider the texts official and question our rationale for using them. Well, you have some valid concerns, but I have to ask you, is that enough to completely ignore them? Pretend they never existed and scrub the many insights they have provided from the sight and ban their discussion? This sounds like an extreme portrayal of the situation, but it is what you seem to be asking. Sload, Benould, and I argue that obscure texts should be acknowledged valid as citations, evidence, and sources. We don't ask that you put them on the site and grant them pride of place, only that they be given their intended status of aids to understand ES lore. When you respond to this pointing out the unclear semantics of the situation and possible slippery slopes and negative effects, you follow a course of reasoning that will only be satisfied by their complete and absolute banishment. Is this what you really want? If so, then you should probably contest our claims that you might as well not have a lore section, because we are indeadly earnest on that point.

::::Rpeh: That is an interesting post, because I can't really highlight any irreversible conflicts. Those are concerns, but not principled objections to the material itself. We are arguing for the basics here, and if your concerns are the qualifications we have to work with, then that's fine and dandy, because we're getting somewhere. But if we are to resolve this, then you're going to have to realize that some things are a little slippery for the rule of thumb, though everyone can submit to the rule of law. You all act like you fear the rabble that will tramp through the site if we relax these constrictions (there aren't enough of us to constitute a mob) and point to areas where trespasses may occur. Well, that's where admins come in, to separate the shades of grey, and from your reluctance, I'm beginning to think you aren't very optimistic about your chances. You have to use your judgment to draw the line, that is what you are there for. And it will be much easier when the editors are working for you, not against you. This is the messy part of the revolution, I hope. How you categorize the sources as does not matter, as you won't be including or describing them on the site. They will only be used as references, and you will be admirably placed to view the content and decide if it is a joke, or too vague. When you cite something on Uesp, you are not crediting a source, you are pointing to a point of information or insight within that source. Decide if that is valid, and nevermind the package. That doesn't matter, and it's downright ridiculous to complain about the confusion from obscure texts when the game's lore and internal continuity is more tangled up by far. The site seems to handle it all admirably, however. Maybe you just need someone as knowledgeable in lore as most of the admins are with the games.

::::And because I'm up to that part: "What happens if Ted Peterson says Vivec is the illegitimate child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon?" Because Ted Peterson knows less about lore than Michael Kirkbride does. It seems to me the only reason official material is worthy of such respect is because of the convenience of copyright. In substance it is often less reliable, and needs to be rationalized and updated in other, unofficial contexts.

::::Valaggar has some good ideas, but I bet Rpeh would find them all lacking in terms of the requirements of the style guide. Well, I had read that quote he provided before, but assumed it meant something else, because I don't see uesp's posts as anything remotely like 'in-character.' In practice, it doesn't seem like a style so much as a guide of what to leave out. Console commands and easter egg notes have an exception? It seems like you are touting the objectives of a goal no one pays any heed towards fulfilling. But I can say that if you believe it is grounds to stifle all candidness about the origins of sources and conflicts in lore to the point of their being left out, consider this the first objection.

::::Apophis, I will try to answer your concerns. The beauty of the obscure texts is that they ARE unofficial. They are not sitting there in your face and asserting the authority of their canon truth. They are there as references, an invitation to explore the subject more closely. They ask that you view the content inside and judge that, not the format in its entirety. If Ted Peterson wrote a poem that was a joke about T Rex's getting it on and sprinkled it with the birth dates of all the Septim Emperors, some of the details would be worth examining. I wouldn't want to put it up next to some of the more serious texts, but it would still be there, informing our thinking. The writers own Tamriel, the company just owns the game. If you must categorize the different levels of non-canon lore, then gut it up and use your judgment.

:::Gaebrial, don't be a defeatist.

::::In conclusion, I don't think I ask for much. Right of footnote, essentially. I leave it to the admins to flood the lore section with prods, flags, and disclaimers if they want to. Linked articles on the nuances of the sources and prominent theories that cannot be drawn by a simple reading of explicit text? Analyses on bias, conflicts and retcons in the real world context of the subject? we can handle it. Resolving disputes is impossible when we differ on such a fundamental level. Meet me here, and I will work towards resolving any of the concerns you have brought up as they arrive. I can't work with you until we are working with the same material. [[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::If Lore is supposed to be as seen as by an average citizen, follow that thought for a second. The situation here reminds me of Temple dogma, which should be familiar to anyone who has played Morrowind. There is the Temple doctrine that described the situation and the death of Nerevar, the Apotheosis of the Almsivi, and most people were happy with that for 3000 years. There were dissenting voices that were tossed into the Ministry of Truth, or that went into hiding. There was also the oral tradition of the Ashlanders and the report of Sul, which were ridiculed. Although some of these diverging opinion existed in form of texts and books, they were hidden in the Secret Library, marked not safe for public consumption. When things got out of hand with Dagoth Ur, these very people and documents were needed to bring about a solution. The higher ranks were, begrudgingly, able to adjust to the new "truth", Vivec gave 3 different sources, and admitted to murder, yet the god Vivec did not. The clincher is. no-one believes you that Almalexia is dead after the Tribunal Main Quest, and that she went mad and killed Sotha Sil, even if this is clearly the case.

:::::I liken these afore mentioned "Obscure Texts" to the oral traditions of the Ashlanders, and the texts of the Dissident Priests, alternative views of history, that may very well prove crucial to the understandings, even if they're not accessible to the average citizen of Cyrodiil. In-game dogma ''only'' may not be sufficient, I believe the Obscure texts are a helpful addition, and they are sufficiently limited in scope, no flood gates needed. Anyways, I am glad we're taking this discussion now, Lore namespace will be better for it, one way or another. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 11:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Temple-Zero, I don't believe you've responded to any of my three points. To go through a paragraph at at time... First, Yes I do indeed think that anything outside the games should not be included for the reasons already stated. You obviously feel the obscure texts are worthy of consideration and I feel exactly the opposite. Material that hasn't appeared in the games shouldn't be used as a source because Bethesda haven't considered it worthy of inclusion. However, I obviously disagree with your point about killing the Lore section. I think it should be a section about Lore ''as it relates to the games'' whereas you're talking about opening it up to any other material. I don't believe that is an invalid choice. As others have stated, we're not trying to create a duplicate of TIL.
::::::Second, "that's where admins come in"? I've been trying to keep the more speculative material off the site and haven't exactly had a very nice response. I'm not complaining about confusion from the obscure text, I'm saying there will be confusion about what is acceptable and what isn't and there's only one way to resolve that.
::::::Paragraph three... I don't know what it means. That quote isn't what Gaebrial wrote so I'm not sure how it fits. However, you've inadvertently proved my point - you seem to say that if Ted Peterson says something that contradicts Michael Kirkbride then we should ignore the former. In other words, you're picking and choosing from source material based on your beliefs. That is exactly my problem with including material not from the games.
::::::Fourth, I admitted that the Lore space isn't right in terms of style at the moment but I'm darn sure there aren't any console codes or easter eggs in that namespace. If you've found some then, to use an expression of yours, delete with extreme prejudice!
::::::Fifth, Valaggar's suggestion is interesting but it's not a solution as it simply moves the problem to another place. If such a system was used I would give any of the current obscure texts the lowest possible "reliability" score whereas you seem to regard them as just as reliable a source as the in-game books. So instead of reverting each others textual edits we end up reverting each others scores.
::::::Sixth, it's the willingness to include anything at all that I find disturbing. A joke about T Rex should be treated as just that and it should only "inform our thinking" insofar as it shows what a funny guy Ted Peterson is.
::::::So that's my position: No non-game material. It just isn't going to work. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

To comment on the qeustion what would happen when Ted Peterson would declare Vivec to be love child of Azura and Mehrunes Dagon. The Imperial Library has always used the following standard for the obscure texts. They must be verifiably written by a developer and they must be in character. The latter is most important in this case because being written in character will take the dev-author out of the equation. At which point the fictional author will be patted on the back for cracking a great joke.

I'd put in right in place but this wiki style debate system doesn't make that easy.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

===Nephele===
There have been multiple debates over the last week or so about what content belongs on UESP's articles, and in particular whether or not to include information from books that have never appeared in an Elder Scrolls game. Some of the other discussions have taken place at:
* [[Lore talk:Vivec (god)#Non-Canon Material - Hogithum Hall]]
* [[User talk:Temple-Zero]]
* The discussion previously at [[Lore talk:Main Page#The Case for Kirkbride]] has been moved here, as explained above
One term that's been used a few time is "canon", although in my opinion that seems overly dogmatic. I don't think we're trying to establish any universal standards -- the goal is only to establish guidelines for UESP. Other websites, in particular TIL and the Lore section of the Official Forums, will have their own standards and guidelines that are appropriate for their sites.

These are comments that I started writing a few days ago, so some of the ideas predate much of the other discussion. But I've also tried to update these comments based on what I've seen elsewhere, and in particular I've tried to incorporate other people's ideas and preferences into the proposed guidelines. I know it's long, so if you want, just skip to the [[#Proposed Guidelines|Proposed Guidelines]]. But the rest of includes a lot of rationale and responses to what's been said before.

====Background/Perspectives====

The basic problem here is, I believe, establishing what is "true" in the Elder Scrolls universe. The in-game content is not always sufficient to establish the facts: the content is not comprehensive, it's at times contradictory, and is also likely to contain mistakes (evidenced by changes in books between games, plus occasional obvious typos/mistakes, etc.). So do we limit UESP articles to incomplete (or possibly even incorrect) information? Or do we try to expand the articles to include additional information? And, if so, what additional information?

I think in most cases there is no single universally valid answer to the questions: whether it's that the developers wanted to give themselves "wiggle room" to incorporate future plot twists, or whether it's that they wanted a rich and complex mythos, the fact is that the Elder Scrolls literature contains contradictions. Ultimately, each fan is free to make his or her own decisions about which versions he or she likes most; each of the millions of fans will come up with an individualized storyline, whether or not a website says "this is the unique and official storyline."

There is a pretty wide variety of types of content that end up being used in the community as sources for lore. The first few that come to mind are:
# Content that has appeared in game, including content from books, notes, and dialogues.
# Pocket Guides to the Empire (PGE). They have not appeared in-game, but have been released as printed content purchased with (specific editions of) the game.
# Drafts of in-game content/PGE, some of which have been made available, for example on TIL.
# Other books written by the game developers (in particular Michael Kirkbride) that have been posted on TIL but have never appeared in-game.
# Articles written by librarians at TIL
# Discussions on forums between community members
Reliability is not guaranteed with any type of source -- even in-game content. But also it cannot all be considered equally valid or authoritative -- somewhere a line has to be drawn. UESP has tended to only include #1 and #2; the discussion is about whether some of the other types of content should also be used as sources for UESP articles.

Clearly these different types of sources are not all equally authoritative. But even what we mean by "authoritative" is subject to debate. When it comes to establishing the "true" facts about any topic, there are at least two different standards:
* What was the intended meaning when the information was originally written?
* What will be the interpretation in future Elder Scrolls games?
So we can ask, for example, "Who are the [[Lore:Nede|Nedes]]?" One way to try to reconcile the differing accounts is to turn to the people who wrote the information and find out what they meant at the time. However, we are also assuming that there will be future ES games, with new books some of which may provide new information about the Nedes, so we would like to not add information that ends up being proven wrong by future games. The basic paradox is that what will appear in future games is not necessarily consistent with the once-intended meaning.

Although the developers of any future Elder Scrolls games will presumably want to maintain continuity, they also want to (even have to) be given the creative freedom to come up with new, original ideas. Would any of us want to play TES5 if we could predict exactly what would happen in the game? New information will be added, some of which may intentionally diverge from what's previously been stated and some of which may accidentally diverge. Since Michael Kirkbride is no longer directly responsible for developing ES games, there is no guarantee that his perspective will be integrated into any new game. The lore added by Oblivion seems to confirm that the developers do not consider themselves 100% constrained by MK's vision of the lore. I think it's safe to assume that future games will feel more constrained by facts that have appeared in-game -- or at least they cannot undo what has previously appeared in a game. But I think anything else is subject to developer whim.

On the other hand, completely eliminating all out-of-game sources of information is very limiting. The person who originally wrote a given text is clearly qualified to provide useful information about the text. Was a particular word a typo? Was the text meant to be a joke, a metaphor, or a literal history? Was the text written independently from other texts on the topic or were the facts in the texts coordinated? Facts about the game's development cannot be changed by future game-writers (even if the facts are not taken into account when writing the new games). And some information that is currently only available out-of-game probably will be incorporated into the game in future. Writing articles ignoring those facts leads to inaccurate articles -- even while writing articles incorporating all out-of-game facts will also lead to inaccurate articles. We can't predict the future, so we can't know for sure what out-of-game information will become part of the games, but there are probably cases where we can be reasonably certain about what to expect.

This problem is not unique to Elder Scrolls games. Apophis2412 posted a very interesting link to [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon Star Wars' canon]. However, in the case of Star Wars, the person responsible for much of their lore (i.e., Lucas) owns the franchise, guaranteeing that his ideas will be honoured. Also, with the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database Holocron continuity database] there are some clear statements about will and will not allowed be in future Star Wars releases. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues are similar, and we do ultimately have to come up with some type of similar ranking -- whether it's explicitly stated, or whether each of has our own personal ranking.''

====Lore on UESP====

Decisions about what content gets added to UESP articles need to be based upon the characteristics of UESP: Who are UESP's readers? What content do the readers look for and expect to find on the site? What are the site's overall objectives? How will the wiki nature of the site affect article content? Therefore, what sources are used on UESP articles can not be decided based upon abstract principles. Also, since UESP and TIL are two different websites with different purposes, the content and guidelines on each site will reflect each site's purpose. The two sites should complement each other -- not contradict one another, but also not be identical to each other. So, what works best for TIL is not automatically appropriate for UESP.

UESP, for better or for worse, has tended to focus pretty much on what happens in the games. This has in part developed because we have been putting a lot more time into the game-specific versions of the site. Nevertheless, the majority of our readers are here to find out how to the play games and no matter how much we develop the Lore namespace, that is likely to remain true. Therefore, the Lore articles should be accessible to (and useful for) people who have only ever read one or two books (or perhaps even no books -- but are just trying to understand the story behind a quest line). They should also be accessible to people who have read every single book in-game, and are only now starting to reach out to the web to find out more about those books. These people are not the same audience as the typical TIL reader.

Taking into account readers' expectations is even more important on a wiki than a typical website. If readers think information is missing from an article, they'll end up trying to add it to the article -- no matter what the site's guidelines say, no matter what's on the talk page. While patrollers or other editors can then undo inappropriate edits, it is still best for everyone concerned to try to come up with guidelines and content that will meet readers' expectations from the beginning.

Another factor is the overall content hosted on UESP. We only host the books that have appeared in the game (or with the game, in the case of PGE) and I doubt that is going to change in the near future; the out-of-game books only appear on TIL. UESP should not ignore information just because it's not hosted on the site, but nevertheless what is present on the site shapes the site. One goal for the Lore section is to add full links to all of the books on the site: someone reading one of the books should be able to easily jump to more complete information about anything discussed in the book. Therefore, a top priority is to make sure that all of the topics covered by the in-game books are documented. It's also important that the summary articles be designed with that use in mind. Many (if not most) readers are likely to pull up a summary article after reading a related book, and therefore the summary article has to acknowledge all of the related books. We can't just decide that Book X is all incorrect and therefore refuse to include any facts from Book X in articles, because we will have readers who have only ever read Book X and therefore expect to see that information in articles. Instead, we have to include any "false" facts, but then explain (no matter how briefly) why the facts are false.

In other words, UESP's overall focus on game content inevitably means that UESP's Lore section has to place a higher priority on in-game books than out-of-game books. Places such as Hogithum Hall are not a priority for UESP -- the place is never mentioned anywhere in the game, therefore people whose only ES experience comes from the games will never do a search on UESP for Hogithum Hall. On the other hand, [[Lore:Ius, Animal God|Ius, Animal God]] is a priority for UESP. Whether or not Ius was a joke, Daggerfall readers are going to encounter this book; they are going to do searches for Ius. So we need to have an article on Ius, even if Ius is not truly considered to be part of the lore. We need to include Ius on pages such as [[Lore:Gods I]] and [[Lore:Gods by Pantheon]] because readers who have read the in-game book will expect to see Ius listed there (for example, someone who read the book a week ago and now wants to find it again, but only remembers it was something about an animal god -- that reader will expect to be able to find Ius if they scan through a list of the known gods). In that context, what is or is not in the game provides a very real set of guidelines for what readers will expect to find on UESP, and therefore for what the editors of UESP should try to make available.

As a semi-aside, I also wanted to squeeze in a response to one point made in other discussions. Yes, Kirkbride's work can be considered a unified work of literature. However, that does not automatically mean that UESP's purpose should be to document Kirkbride's literary vision. I am quite sure that the vast majority of UESP's readers have never heard of Kirkbride; I myself only began to realize his role in the games' development and lore within the last year. In other words, to most readers on the site, he is only relevant to the extent that what he has written appears in the game -- and therefore to those readers what he has written outside of the game is not relevant. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, the site's articles still need to be written so they make sense to such readers. Therefore, the logistical reality is that out-of-game content included because it fits into Kirkbride's overall vision needs to always be accompanied by some explanation of why the information is relevant. You cannot just assume that "Kirkbride said X" is a sufficient explanation for readers -- although "the game Daggerfall said X" is a sufficient explanation, given the site's focus on documenting games.

On the other hand, UESP's readers clearly also include people who are knowledgeable in Lore. The new editors whose interest in the Lore section precipitated these discussions are also readers (welcome everyone!), whose interests and expectations should be accomodated by the site. They should be able to use UESP as a useful reference tool. If we don't make our articles useful to all sections of the community, then the likely alternative is that people who are knowledgeable in Lore will find another website where their views can be summarized (since TIL is not a wiki and is not set up for community-written summary articles). That would lead to unnecessary fractures within the community, not to mention duplicated effort. In general, the biggest limitation to a wiki's content is manpower: finding editors who are willing to take the time to write new content. Therefore new content, backed by new editors who are willing to continue adding new content, should only be disallowed if the content clearly diminishes the site's quality and usefulness.

Also, readers fundamentally come to a game website to learn information about the game that they could not figure out in-game. If someone was solely interested in reading the in-game books, that person wouldn't really need a website. People turn to websites to find out what else is known and what else is available. Although our articles should prioritize and organize the available information on a topic, we shouldn't censor relevant information. Why not let our readers have access to everything that is known about the topic, and let each reader decide for himself/herself which sections to read and which theories to believe. Note, however, than providing access to all the information does not imply that the articles should be undifferentiated information dumps. Well-written and well-edited articles make value judgments about which information is most useful, in part by deciding what type of "access" is appropriate for that information: direct quotation of a text; paraphrasing a text; mentioning a few key differences about a text; adding a link to the text in the "See Also" section; adding a link to a discussion that mentions the text; etc.

====Proposed Guidelines====
The following are some strawman guidelines. These can hopefully be used as a starting point to come up with a set of guidelines to which everyone can agree.
* '''Multi-topic articles''' such as [[Lore:People_A]], [[Lore:Dictionary A]], and [[Lore:First Era]] should not contain any information from out-of-game sources, and also should not contain any controversial points.
** Basically, any article that contains snippets about multiple different topics should stick to basic, universally accepted facts about those topics.
** If there are any facts that need additional explaining, then the topic needs to have its own article (e.g., [[Lore:Vivec (god)]] instead of just a snippet on [[Lore:Gods_V]]).
** This is in part just a logistical issue. Having references appear on multi-topic pages is awkward. Discussions about a topic belong on that topic's discussion page, rather than on a multi-topic talk page. It's not an attempt to limit what's covered overall on the site -- just a question of where the content belongs.
* '''In-game sources''' (including PGE) should be the primary focus of articles, including summarizing those books and explaining the meaning of those books.
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has been '''written by a game developer''' can be used as a source for UESP articles.
** This includes additional books, drafts of in-game books, developer interviews, etc.
** Any information derived from out-of-game content must have a reference. The reference needs to include a link to the out-of-game content. I think it would also be useful to include some standard phrase in all out-of-game references (e.g., "Out-of-game content") that links to an explanation of the relevance (including limitations, pitfalls, reservations, etc.) of out-of-game content. A disclaimer, in other words.
** Out-of-game content should only be used when it helps to explain in-game content. This is a somewhat subjective limitation, but I don't think that UESP needs to start documenting every fact mentioned in out-of-game content.
*** Or, alternatively, out-of-game content should be included (i.e., a summary of the content, or details quoted from the content) only when it is necessary to prevent UESP articles from ''contradicting'' the accepted lore. Emphasis on contradicting: it must not just be that UESP's information would otherwise be incomplete.
** In cases where UESP's information is incomplete (instead of contradictory), a link to the out-of-game content can be included in the notes section of an article, instead of summarizing or quoting the content in the article. This makes the content available to only those readers who are interested. The note would be fairly minimal, e.g., "Other sources that describe Vivec include: Book X, Book Y".
* '''Out-of-game content''' that has '''''not'' been written by a game developer''' in general does not belong in UESP articles.
** Talk page discussions can link to any content. If the consensus of the discussion is that the information is relevant to the article, then it can be added to the article -- but the talk page discussion needs to happen first.
* '''Original research''' should be avoided in UESP articles.
** Original research is a core principle of wikipedia, reflecting that the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia is to summarize what's already known, rather than to come up with new information.
** The implication is that even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material, not just an editor's forum post, for example).
** Exceptions to this rule may be possible, but those exceptions need to be discussed on the talk page. If everyone on the talk page can agree that the inferred conclusion is indeed logical and valid, then it can be added. In some cases, everyone may find a watered-down version of the statement acceptable. But a consensus has to be reached before original research belongs in an article.

Given the level of disagreement so far, I think it may be best to start by just seeing whether there are any ''strong'' objections to any of these points. If anyone has a disagreement, your comments will be more useful if you can state what specifically is problematic about the guideline ''and'' come up with a modified version of the guideline that you would find acceptable. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 15:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==== Hear, hear ====

What objections I have to the main points are in large part assuaged by the details, and possibilities for exception and discussion. This is the sort of thing I was looking for. (-An approving Temple-Zero, clothed in an anonymous IP address)[[User:24.97.239.147|24.97.239.147]] 18:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Proposal (Sload)===

*'''Multi-topic articles''' should be handled differently. Alphabetical directories are, for the most part, useless due to their incredibly low singal-to-noise-ratio.
:*Multi-topic articles like "List of Emperors of the Third Empire" would be useful, as there is not enough to say about these people otherwise. I'm trying to think of a similar example in which we know enough about a group of people to make a list.
:*Otherwise, they should link to something relevant to that person. Going off People A, Ada'Soom Dir-Kamal is a redirect to Kamal, Agnorith to List of Emperors of the Third Empire#Kintyra II, Akorithi and Aubk-i to Warp of the West.
:*Authors should link to their work. Authors of multiple books, such as Waughin Jarth, should be a disambuguation page saying "Waughin Jarth is the author of..."
:*If a character could be filed under multiple topics, but is not significant enough to deserve their own page, discussion should be held to decide how that situation is handled.
*'''In-game and out-of-game sources''' are the same thing and should not be treated differently. Out-of-game lore is significant to our understanding of lore and ''absolutely cannot under any circumstances be ignored.''
:*This includes anything by any of the seven people mentioned in my first essay, especially Ted Peterson and Michael Kirkbride.
:*Any information must have a reference to its source, whether a UESP book, a TIL obscure text, a forum post by one of the seven above. If an obscure text is still included in TESF's archive, its original post, rather than its TIL copy, is preferable.
:*No reference to whether a source is out-of-game is necessary. This suggests doubt in the source. Further, all out-of-game sources will be obvious by their location; that is, not at UESP.
:*Content, whether in-game or out-of-game, is not always relevant. For example, though MK has told a wonderful story about guars in southern Morrowind being striped, guars are not significant enough ''in lore'' that they deserve their own page to hold that information, and it isn't significant to an article about the province of Morrowind. Similarly, in-game books which are just stories about otherwise non-characters, like ''Banker's Bet'' or one of the countless others, do not contain significant information, and the UESP need not catalog their characters.
:*Note on roleplays: In a roleplay in which a developer participated in, only their contributions are canon. This especially applies to the Trial of Vivec. Ted Peterson participated in Loranna's RP, but as I understand its only significant details were made canon by the third pocket guide.
*'''Fan works''' should not be included in the UESP by any stretch of the imagination, such as "monkeytruth" like Albides' "Orc Creation Myth." Though these have a place in the community, they are not canon lore.
*'''Original research''' is unacceptable by all stretches of the imagination.
:*Exceptions are certainly possible for certain widely accepted but not confirmed interpretations of especially difficult works. Adventurous Putty's interpretation of the Tsaesci Creation Myth comes to mind. They should be clearly refered to as non-canon interpretations, reflecting their status.

I have provided an example article, a revision of Tsaesci, [[User:Sload/Tsaesci|here]]. It covers everything a wouldbe loremaster should know about them, their basic history, the confoundingness of their creation myth, Putty's interpretation, and the conflict with the Pale Pass quest, which Kirkbride was adamant about.

I intend to argue in favor of this counter proposal soon. UESP has so much to gain and so little to lose. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 00:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with almost all of Nephele's suggestions, but I'm still opposed to the inclusion of "Out-of-game content that has been written by a game developer". If such material material was written while the developer was at Bethesda then it is material that has been excluded deliberately; if it was written after they had left the company then it has the same status as fanfiction. Those in favour of including this material claim it's essential in making other information clear and unambiguous. I say that if in-game Lore is confusing it's because that's how Bethesda want it for their own purposes.
::Having said all that, Nephele's suggestion for differentiating between in- and out-of-game material is a good start towards a compromise. I would accept the inclusion of unofficial sources if they were referred to in a separate section of a page. So, the article on Vivec (god) might have a section at the bottom of "Other Theories" (or something similar) and then go on to mention the forum roleplay about Hogithum Hall, making clear that the material is not from the games.
::If that doesn't sound like much of a compromise, I'd remind the reader that my preferred solution is to ignore unofficial material entirely. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 05:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The way to keep saying that they were excluded is oversimplified and inaccurate, and I think you know it. Lore is meant to be complex and confusing, but understandable. The obscure texts are the only thing that make it so, in many cases. They are necessary in large part because animators aren't fantasy artists, and the realities of game design in a chaotic corporate setting can wreak havoc on a simple piece of concept art, much less the more complex details of Nirn.
:::But I will say that when you hold an absolute position, you can't expect much of a compromise.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Not at all. I've put forward the two options that I see. If you have a third explanation I'd be happy to read it. And I have suggested a compromise. I'd also be happy to hear your response to it. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

===Counter-Counter Proposal===
Having read and considered the various arguments, I feel I am willing to shift my position from my earlier posts. Apologies if this is just repeating or reiterating things that have been said above.

====An Important Fact====
'''Without the Elder Scrolls games, the entire Lore of Tamriel would not exist outside the minds of a small group of people in Maryland.'''

Is there anybody who does not agree with this (geography notwithstanding)?

Given that Fact, I think it is perfectly logical to focus on the in-game material in preference to, but not to the exclusion of, other material. Personally, I would place lore material in one of four categories:

1. In-Game References. These have to be the starting point. The Lore is based on the Game, so the Game must take priority when discussing the Lore.

2. Other BethSoft Material. By this I mean out-of-game material produced by an individual (or individuals) ''in their capacity as a BethSoft employee''. This can support, expand upon, clarify, or contradict in-game references. One obvious example here is the PGE, but I would also include here interview responses and works such as the books written by MK ''in his capacity as a BethSoft employee''.

3. Other Developer Material. By this I mean other material that is produced by individuals who have been involved in the development of the Elder Scrolls world, but which was not produced in any official capacity. Here, I would include those works by both Kirkbride and Goodall, for example, that were produced after they ceased to be involved in Elder Scrolls development. I would also include in this section RPs such as Hogithum Hall, as the involvement of developers in a RP on the official forums does tend to give it a kind of 'semi-official' status.

4. Non-developer material. Stuff created by fans, including fanfiction and RP, as well as interpretations of various aspects of Lore. These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles.

My preference and my suggestion is for Lore pages to be organised along the lines of the following template:

First, a summary section describing the subject as it is defined within the games. Except in very exceptional circumstances, this summary should only include category 1 material (in-game references). Where the subject is listed on multi-topic articles, this summary could be transcluded, with a 'see article for more details' line (as is done with a number of articles currently).

Second, one or more sections expanding upon the details contained in the summary. This should focus on category 1 material, but can also include category 2 material where such material ''expands upon or clarifies'' the category 1 material.

Third, a section summarising other category 2 material, such as that material that directly contradicts category 1 material, with links to the original source. I don't see any need to go into too much detail - those who are interested can click on the supplied links.

Fourth, a 'Notes' or 'See Also' section with links to any category 2 material that is relevant but which is not required to provide a complete description of the subject. So, category 2 material that merely supports and reinforces the category 1 material should go here. ''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here.

Any disputed material should be discussed on the relevant talk page, to come to some sort of consensus about (a) whether it should be included, and (b) where and how it should be added to the article. And the key word here is '''consensus'''.

Finally, not everybody here is a Loremaster, so if the 'canonicity' of material added by a Loremaster is disputed, the onus should be on the Loremaster to provide the necessary links and references to prove the validity of the material. It's the same for Lore articles as it is for other pages on the site - if somebody else disputes your edit, it is up to you to provide evidence that your edit was correct and valid.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 10:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT) (forgot to login)

: That's the kind of solution I was trying to describe above, but Gaebrial has done it more clearly and with more detail - thanks. I can support this compromise as I think it's the best of both worlds. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 12:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind. For example the absence of the legions, the counselors, the ban on levitation and other such things should be taken with a fair amount of skepticism because they're products of a games development, not so much of world. Though if in-game material takes preference it will be impossible to argue against this because #1 makes the game the most important source.

:: There should be no distinction between the in-game sources, out-of-game sources, interviews and obscure texts. Their value should be argued on the merits of the actual writing in Tamriel and not it's origins outside of Tamriel. If not, it's possible to say that books such as 'The Amulet of Kings' which don't even make sense historically are more reliable then say the Nu-Mantia intercept which resolves most consistency issue's around the Amulet of Kings.

:: Any sort of tiered system will have these problems whenever a lower-graded texts conflicts with higher-graded material while being more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting then the higher=graded material.

:: Putting the Onus on the lore master using the obscure text somewhat negates the whole point of this discussion because rather then deciding now how to handle the obscure text it gets redirected to a hundred different places.

:: Although it is good practice to source all information, the onus shouldn't just fall on the lore master but anybody who adds or corrects or removes information. [[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 06:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:::Taking the above a point at a time...
:::-''The games are only a way to get the image of Tamriel across and should be considered with this in mind.''
:::But without the games there would not be an 'image of Tamriel'. Without the games, we would not be having this discussion.
:::-''(rest of paragraph 1)'' (I won't repeat it in its entirety)
:::The removal of spells (for example) has been largely explained away by the passing of laws. Yes, it's a cop-out to explain limitations brought about by the game engine or they way they have coded the world, and this could probably be mentioned as such on those pages comparing the games (e.g. levitation being removed from Oblivion because of the way the cities were created). However, on the ''Lore'' pages, the laws banning the use of certain spells (Passwall and Levitate are the two that spring to mind) are what should be mentioned - we shouldn't be stating that the Levitate spell was removed from Oblivion on the ''Lore'' page, but that the Levitate spell was banned by the relevant Act. I'm not sure how else you would handle these things, but if you've got any specific ideas, I'd be happy to hear them.
:::-''Paragraph 2''
:::Under what criteria is the Nu-Mantia intercept classed as official? Simply because it was written by MK? Did he write it as an Elder Scrolls developer, or as a private individual? What was its purpose? If we can prove that it was written to be an official Elder Scrolls document, then we can use it more or less as a 'primary' source (category 2 above). If we can't prove this, it has to remain as 'semi-official' (category 3), and should be noted accordingly in any article.
:::-Paragraph 3 - ''more comprehensive, more detailed and less conflicting''
:::Not to mention less official.
:::Incidentally, I don't see a tiered system as causing problems, as long as it is made clear that one exists, why it exists, and why a particular text is treated as more 'reliable' than another.
:::-''Paragraph 4''
:::I'm not sure I understand your point here.
:::-''Paragraph 5''
:::I agree. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was isolating Loremasters in particular. Anybody who makes an edit that is subsequently challenged must provide evidence that their edit was correct.

:::As I said before, the whole point about disputed material is '''consensus'''. If the ''consensus'' is that a particular text is not official and should not be mentioned in an article, then it doesn't get mentioned. If certain people want to include that text, they need to give reasons why it is official enough to be included, and if the ''consensus'' changes based on their reasons, then the text can be included.

:::I would also like to introduce another 'c' word - '''compromise'''. I think that 'traditionalists' in the community who would rather not use ''any'' out-of-game resources have, in general, shifted their position to one of compromise. I don't think I've seen any movement in the positions of the 'loremasters' - the message I'm getting is "we'll keep arguing our point until you come around to our way of thinking".
:::--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 06:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::No compromise in the "Loremaster Camp?" What? What you meant was "we'll keep arguing our point until you actually read our posts." I've been making mewling noises over compromise for pages now. Do you think I co-authored Sload's proposal? Obviously I prefer it, but I liked Nephele's as well. I may be mistaken, but that applies to older users who want to see things change as well.
::::(And Nu-Mantia wasn't written by MK alone, and it really needs to be taken as truth because without it, Oblivion's plot doesn't make a lick of sense and is crazier than Sheogorath's cheese fetish and worse than the Eragon movie)[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 09:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I have read your posts. All of them. And the comments you have made on your edits. I have also read the comments on your user page. Your attitude comes across as "I'm a Loremaster, so you should let me add what I want to add to the Lore section in the way that I want, without questioning it". I'm sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's how it appears.

::::: As Sload said on your user page: ''I believe that paw-prints can change this if you will only let him. I implore all parties involved not to let this chance to create a wonderful encyclopedia of lore slip through their fingers.'' I think that most members of this community would welcome any move to improve the site's content, but you have to abide by the guidelines that are in place, that underpin and structure the site. That is, this site focuses on and emphasises the in-game content above any other. If you wish to argue that the in-game content is clarified and explained by certain out-of-game content, then fine, but that is how it should be described on the UESP - it should not be given equal billing to in-game content because '''the focus of this site is on in-game content'''.

::::: <big>'''''If you're happy with the proposals, why are we still arguing about things?'''''</big>

::::: By the way, I've read Nu-Mantia, and B's analysis/interpretation of it. I agree that it explains inconsistencies surrounding Chim el-Adabal*, and I've previously heard the theory that everything the 'hero' has done so far in the ES games has weakened the barriers between Mundus and Oblivion. However, the fact that it nicely explains everything and was written (or largely written) by MK doesn't make it an official source, and therefore it should not be given equal prominence with official sources. Is this so hard to understand and accept?

::::: <nowiki>*</nowiki> Apropos of nothing (as people like to say around here), Chim el-Adabal sounds interestingly Arabic. From what I can remember, '''''a'''l-Adabal'' means something like 'manners' or 'rules' - as in ''al-Adabal-Mufrad'' and ''al-Adabal-Shar'iyah''. Apologies to scholars if I've misremembered.

::::: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Why are we still arguing? You tell me (after you fix your font size, of course). I have largely stopped, except for one specific response 2000 words ago. But see, it doesn't matter how many of my comments you read when you persist in acting like they don't exist. ie, the 'why no compromise?' complaints, or this insufferable rehashing of 'not official,' which has been going on for the last week, and if you have read my posts, should seem counterproductive right now, so I won't respond further.
:::::I am still awaiting secondary comments from Sload and Nephele, thought I suppose in the meantime I will ask why. if you list categories 3 and 4, you never mention them in the body text, because it seems incomplete. Although it is also possible that 72 kilobytes of text (as my browser warns me) is swimming before my eyes.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 10:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The font size was deliberate. I'm sorry that you think that saying something is 'not official' is insufferable. I don't think stating the [[UESPWiki:Style Guide#Accurate and Verifiable|site policy]] is counterproductive to a discussion about the contents of the site. However, I do agree that maybe we should step back and await comments from others.

I also agree that this discussion is getting a bit long and difficult to follow. To answer your question, I said "''Relevant'' category 3 material can also be linked to here." in the fourth section of my proposed template, and I said "These all fall under Original Research, and should not be included in Lore articles." of category 4 material.

--[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 11:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'll be willing to try any compromise. Just don't make the hurdles so high that any inclusion of out-of-game material is a hassle. Having edited a lot of lore articles in recent days, I am surprised how much that can be argued with in-game sources. Any time I read a gamebook, things jump out at me and scream to be included to support points and enrich pages. If everyone just did some of that when reading source books, I believe that our Lore pages will be in better shape shortly. If nothing else, the "filling the holes" outside material can give some clues on how things hang together, whether you agree with a particular source or not. The more we work on lore namespace, the better it gets. i know that's a truism, but it does apply. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

'''Gaebrial,''' I'll refrain from addressing each comment individually because I don't think there will be any end to this discussion if you keep repeating that the games are the most important source of information, while I say that they are also a flawed source of information and as such they shouldn't trump any other flawed source of information. So instead I'll comment on your largest objection against the obscure texts and the compromises you suggested.

Discussing the validity of a text every time it gets used is a waste of time. All Obscure texts have the same properties, they don't appear in the game and they are written in-character by a developer so they can all be decided about right now - which I garnered was the impression of this discussion.

You don't consider these text to be less reliable for only the reason that they don't appear in the game. However the games already use materials that are unreliable, contradictive and incomplete. So being in the game means nothing for their reliability. Yet texts that are written by the same developer, that clarify and expand existing concepts, are considered less reliable then the already contradictive, incomplete materials that happen to be in the game, how can that position ever hold? As such a tiered system of reliability based on a texts presence in or with the game is completely out of place.

Before Oblivion there was period where the devs posted freely on the forums and talked about Tamriel. They did this with understanding that their out of character posts would be taken as their uninformed opinion on the matter while in character posts could be considered as much part of lore as anything else. Their in character material was written with this in mind so it should not be considered any less reliable.

As such on ESF:Lore there is a consensus that they are accepted as equal to other materials. While I realize that the ESF:Lore isn't the UESPWiki but it is the source for most of the lore expertise so it should count for some.

While I would also love to reach a compromise,I do not see a middle any ground. Either the texts are used on an equal basis, or they are not. You might feel that offering to push back the debate to the actual articles is a compromise, it not only delays this debate and decision, it multiplies it in every article that it touches on! Just as a tiered system can not be seen as a compromise because the criteria used do not say anything about reliability.

[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 05:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

:'''Proposal''' I just saw that rpeh posted on til summarizing this discussion as "it must just be flagged as it is" while not an accurate summary, it does seem like the thing everybody can accept.

:I don't think explicitly mentioning this is aethestically pleasing, but perhaps something can be done with the reference symbols. I don't know how the wiki works but stuff like [] or {} to mark the differences in source. Alternativly it can be completely ignored as the sources are listed at the bottom of the article anyway.

:06:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::Having had some discussions in a more efficient manner in other places I can see the use of this tiered system when it's used to facilitate the reader who may or may not be familiar with all the material rather then as a system to describe a sources accuracy.

::I reckon this proposal will work with the following change: The fourth section should be a full fledged explanation rather then a notes section because most of the texts in the 3th category are often too complex or too large to merely link too. The reader wouldn't see the forest for the trees.

::[[User:62.251.15.186|62.251.15.186]] 07:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT) Proweler

::: It looks like we can agree that ''some'' variant of Gaebrial's system can be used. It's clear that nobody's going to be 100% happy but if we can come up with a good system then maybe we can at least please most of the people most of the time.
::: To step back for a minute: any system is going to have to work for all the pages in all the ways they work. That means as standalone articles, as transclusions into alphabetical lists and as transclusions into game pages. As I see it, that means there will have to be a section, preferably at the top of the article, that tells the brief, in-game theory. Without wanting to be dogmatic, this is going to ''have'' to be the case because otherwise we're going to cause inordinate confusion to the site's readers, most of whom read the material through the game pages and who really aren't interested in the intricacies of the lore.
::: After that, the difference between the two viewpoints comes down to the prominence that can be given to non-game material. Do we have two different detailed sections - one without OOG lore and one with? Do we use Gaebrial's sections idea to lead to tiers of information?
::: If we can agree on an introductory section with '''no''' out-of-game material then I suppose I can agree to the inclusion of such material in a second section, but with a couple of caveats. First, all OOG material must be ''fully'' cited. That doesn't just mean a link to TIL - it means also describing the place and time that the source was first presented, meaning that people can judge for themselves whether or not they want to trust it. Secondly, only material that doesn't break the POV of the Lore space can be used. That means "The Nu-Mantia Intercepts" or "Vehk's Teachings" would be acceptable but ''not'' interviews with developers.
::: On a personal note, I'd like to thank Proweler for joining the debate and being apparently agreeable to compromise. It looks like we can get things moving again now. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 08:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== A proposal ==

I could go through and give comments to the individual points, but bear with me for a second. After having followed the discussion above, my take is that the conflict boils down to this:

Both sides don't want to have their viewpoints of ''Lore'' diminished.

Let me try to explain this with an example of one of the greatest mysteries of the TES series, the "Disappearance of the Dwarves". We were given many clues, books, fragments, even quests, stumbled over mysterious ruins where machines and Animunculi still functioned. The debate over what happened to the Dwemer occupied players for many years.

As it stands now, the ES forum presents it as this: We know what happened to the Dwarves. (We're done with that, go away. ;))

The wiki mentions many clues, but not the answer.

If you're a player, would you just have the answer presented to you, a "cheat" so to speak? Would you not equally feel cheated if only clues were presented, if an answer exists? I propose that all in-game clues are presented, the scholars involved, Fyr, Yagrum Bagarn, Demnevanni etc. followed by

"Kagrenac was devoted to his people, and the Dwarves, despite what you may have read, were a pious lot-he would not have '''sacrificed so many of their golden souls to create Anumidum's metal body''' if it were all in the name of grand theater. Kagrenac had even built the tools needed to construct a Mantella, the
'''Crux of Transcendence'''." - Skeleton Man's Interview (my emphasis)

One without the other is either boring, or incomplete or false. We need both, the puzzle pieces and the accepted answer. I propose a peer-reviewed article incorporating the base principles suggested in Nephele's write-up, and then the other "sides" can see if they're satisfied. I feel the theoretical discussion has gone far enough, we need to see what such a new article looks like. After all, that's what the wiki offers to its users, articles. I shall attempt to write [[Lore:Disappearance of the Dwarves|Disappearance of the Dwarves]] as an outline of such an article, any help and critique is very welcome. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not going to post a full response right now because I'm hoping others will respond first, but I will say that if you're writing an article based on disputed material you should do it in a sandbox instead of the Lore space. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 14:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
With all the dirt flying and Benould's renovations, the Lore section IS a sandbox right now. /gigglesnort The sourcing and formatting refute present policies often enough, never mind what we decide here. No one seemed to mind when Martin's mother was listed as Gemile, and that family tree is bloody old. A new standard is and good, but bend all our stubs into knots over the scruples of it.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Have your cake ==

An opportunity has been lost here.

I am not interested in dealing with the sort of people I will find here. I should have taken some good advice, this just isn't worth it.

Nephele, I greatly respect what I have seen from you and I would have liked to have known you. Temple-Zero and Benould, there is no point pursuing this further. Rpeh, I am sure you will be satisfied. UESP is defended against us fools who actually know what we're talking about.

Be seeing you. [[User:Sload|Sload]] 01:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
: This is exactly what Gaebrial meant when he talked about compromise. You are sticking rigidly to your view that there is no difference between in- and out-of-game texts and refuse to countenance any kind of distinction being made. If you won't move from that belief, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Discussion is about compromise and those of us who were opposed to ''any'' inclusion of unofficial texts have already made a big move in your direction.
: To portray me as "satisfied" that UESP has lost somebody who could have been a useful editor is utterly untrue, but you don't seem to have understood any of the comments above on the suitability of material, the nature of our readership or our willingness to compromise. I'm not sure that an editor so unwilling so listen to the community would find themselves at home here in any case. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::To clarify something; Sload made this edit only a few minutes after he had been discussing with Rpeh on IRC, which was basically a reiteration of what has been stated here. This has led me to believe that no compromise is being sought by Sload. I apologize to Nephele, Benould and Gaebrial in advance, I know you worked hard on compiling a good proposal, but I have to vote for not having out-of-game sources at all (or only be an exception). Had we agreed on a compromise I still think it wouldn't have made any difference on the discussion on individual pages. Both parties would still have end up having lengthy discussions on every controversial edit. --[[User:Timenn|Timenn]] < [[User_talk:Timenn|talk]] > 04:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::What's Daveh's opinion? Just out of curiosity.
::: It would seem Sload is not alone in thinking that a compromise is not reachable. I looked at the discussion at Til and saw that other lore-guru's/masters/khans like Albides and Sload think that TES lore is not complete without the Obscure Texts. Their main argument seems to be that many holes in the in-game lore, holes that are filled up by the Obscure texts. Secondly many of the "higher mysteries" of TES (like the Dreamsleave, the Eantiamorph and Chim) are only briefly mentioned in the ingame books. We need the Obscure texts to explain them. Some, like Sload and Albides, have accused the people who came up with a compromise as either being biased or flat-out wrong. Others have thanked Nep~hele (and others) for coming up with a proposal for compromise, but have said that a compromise is still not an option.
::: The main question, that I haven't seen anyone here asking himself, is if these people are right. They do know more about lore then we do so who knows? Are the loremasters living in an ivory tower and do they fight about dogma like a bunch of die-hard Christian theologians or is what they say right? Discussions about these sort of topics have popped up at the ES forums from time to time and have generally not lasted long. The end result was always that the loremaster'stance was taken as being canon. (examples : http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=738606&hl=cult and http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=855895&st=60&p=12524154&#entry12524154)

::: ''Encylopedias, such as UESP are built on objective truths. If solid proof isn't found, then subjective opinions such as yours can't go into them.''

:::The following qoute was postec on TIl by Michaelsuarez, a member of UESP. The TES lore, with it's many different and conflicting sources isn't much different from your standard historical discussion. Deciding which sources take precedence over others, combining sources to form theories, use new sources to overthrow older theories. In the scholarly field of history, these sort of things happen all the time. In history, unlike the natural sciences, all knowledge is subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.
::: Many people think that nationalism is one of the reasons the First World War started. Many people do not realize however is that this is not the absolute truth. It's just a subjective truth. A group of scholars interpeted the sources and were of the opinion that there was a connection between the two. There is evidence to support this theory, but unlike the natural sciences historical evidence can be interpeted in a number of different ways. An historian, using the same sources, can come to a radically different interpetation.
:This is also the case with TES lore. The Dissapearance of the Dwarves, the Night Mother, Pelinal Whitestrake, the nature of the Daedra Lords, these things can't be taken directly from the source material, they must be interpeted and combined with different sources. The result is not an objective truth, but a subjective one. UESP is a source of subjective knowledge without maybe even knowing it. Take for example lore:Dark Brotherhood. The second theory about the formation of the DB is clearly wrong. It states that the DB was formed after the murder of the lats potentate (2e 421). There is however solid proof that the DB was already formed in 2e 358-360. I could add this to the article, but under the current guidelines that is not allowed, because it is my personal opinion, not solid fact.

::: I'm still in for a compromise, but I'm not sure if both sides seem to be ready for this.

:::[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 07:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Rat’s Viewpoint==

Alright, I have been involved with these discussions to some extent, but I haven’t actually posted my opinion here. I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before I decided to charge into no-man’s land. I’ve actually been preparing these comments since before Sload posted his position. Once we attracted Temple-Zero I saw this conversation happening, though I am a bit surprised it came up early. I’m going to attempt to flush out the issues and then propose a compromise.

===The Facts===
# The Lore Community considers MK’s out of game writings to be canon. This is important because they are the experts on Lore. Their opinions matter.
#The UESP doesn’t have a license to MK’s out of game works, and since they are not truly part of a larger work, we’d need them. I have talked to a few people (not MK or Bethesda), and I can definitely see that there may be trouble getting the license. This is not a showstopper. We can link to TIL as necessary. This has its downsides, since we can’t control the material that’s on TIL, but it could fulfill the need for sources.
#If we get a lot of out-of-game sources, we need people that know the material. Right now, I only see one long term person (Benould). Temple-Zero has been around a bit, and I think he can be trusted to stay, but I’d rather see at least one more person.
#The Lore Section as it currently stands needs major help. It is nothing compared to either the Morrowind or the Oblivion section in terms of detail.
#We are not owned by Bethesda, though we do have an important relationship with them. It is in our best interest to not piss them off. This is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I think it needed to be said.

===My Positions===
#In general, in-game content needs to be preferred. Basically, if Akatosh appears and explained the Dragon Break differently in ESV, we’d accept that version even over MK’s objections. This does have its limits. We can’t count up the number of NPCs in the Imperial City and call that its lore population.
#MK and other Developer’s work can be accepted as expert testimony. In a void of information, their work can bridge gaps.
#We can’t split articles based on OOG info or not. That’s going to cause too many organizational difficulties.

===Proposal===
#We need to cite information, where it is in game or not. That means we need to investigate getting a citation add-on if we haven’t already. This is critical in expanding the Lore section due to conflicting view points that take place both in and out of the games. This obviously means both IG and OOG source will be included.
#Fan information does not belong on the wiki.

===Why my proposal is different===
I believe both Nephele’s and Gaebrial’s proposals lend themselves to problems with keeping IG and OOG sources separate. That’s going to take a lot of work on a section as big as Lore. It is different from Sload in that preference is given to the in game sources. Overall, I think it is a very workable solution that I hope can please everyone. That being said, if anyone wants to add anything to this, talk here, I'm willing to change some portions. -[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 12:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is a workable solution, if we can get consensus behind it. Whether to host or link is a separate discussion, let alone negotiations with the involved parities. I think (short) quotes and links will suffice. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm sorry but I can't support this. It looked like we were heading for a compromise but this seems to be a step back. As I [http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=UESPWiki_talk%3ALore&diff=348967&oldid=348958 said] earlier we ''must'' have a section that contains ''no'' unofficial material so that the pages can be used in gamespaces. Anything else is not appropriate for the types of user we typically see on the site. I think the fact that one group of people has been ready to move so far in this debate has caused you to forget how strongly we feel. My preference is still for '''no''' OOG material at all but this proposal puts in-game and unofficial on almost the same level. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 00:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::For what it's worth (and I really don't want to get too involved in this discussion), ex-developper Douglas Goodall made the following statement in his [[General:Douglas Goodall Interview|interview]]: ''"Books that are actually published in one of the Elder Scrolls games have precedence over ramblings on the forums."''. I think he has a point there. Which is not to say we should be ignoring all non-game sources, but I do think it makes sense to keep material that is not game-sourced outside of the game namespaces. In other words, keep it in the Lore namespace only. That means that any material which gets transcluded onto gamespace pages should only include information seen in the games. However, the gamespace pages should have links back to the Lore namespace, where the other material can be seen. The reasons for this are the same as the reasons why we don't discuss the details of a Morrowind quest on an Oblivion page, even if it is somehow related. (E.g.: [[Oblivion:A Rat Problem]] and [[Morrowind:Exterminator (Fighters)]]. The pages link to eachother, but say very little - you want the whole story, go to the linked page.) The same should go for the Lore namespace and any of the game namespaces. Thus [[Morrowind:Vivec (god)]] should really be about Vivec ''as he relates to the game of Morrowind''. Any information about Vivec that does not relate to the game of Morrowind or which cannot be seen in any of the in-game sources should stay on [[Lore:Vivec (god)]]. This means that the first section of the Lore page, which is transcluded on the Morrowind page, needs to include only material seen in the game. Anything else should be in the non-included part of the article (and of course, properly sourced, but I think we've gone over that enough). --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 01:13, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wait, the sticking point is what part gets transcluded onto to OB game pages, Rpeh? Some fancy noinclude can handle that, right? (Editors note: Most Lore articles, at least in part, also appear on game pages; the multi-purpose part that Nephele mentioned earlier) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 01:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Noinclude tags aren't going to work when the text that needs to be excluded is inextricably merged into every paragraph in the article though. More than two or three pairs of noinclude tags will make the article impossible to edit. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 01:25, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: What part and how much of an article does the transclusion entail, anyways? If the topic is so obscure that oog lore is needed for a passable summary, what is it doing in the namespace? That 'probable reader' thing works both ways.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 01:32, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

(Outdent)But your main concern is that OOG is found in OB pages, right? I agree that the confusion would be big if OOG is sitting on an OB page. In case of Amulet of Kings, the OB article probably would have to be severed from Lore, but OB content is very mature at this point. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, just a few pages that won't be transcluded. I don't see this to be a show-stopper, either have separate pages, IFEQ or noincludes. OB shouldn't stop Lore from being acurate, OB should just be accurate to what's in the game, with links to the Lore article for those that are interested. OB articles wouldn't really deal with references anyways, the main sourcing there as in MW would be links. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 02:19, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree, more or less, with everybody. I can support Ratwar's proposal, with the modification mentioned by Rpeh & Lurlock - that where a Lore page is transcluded onto non-Lore pages, the bit that is transcluded must contain only information from 100% official, in-game, sources. The rest of the Lore article can contain information from out-of-game sources if required, as long as these sources (in fact, all sources) are properly referenced and cited.
: I also agree with TZ's point that if the topic of a Lore article is so obscure that it cannot be summarised without using out-of-game resources, it shouldn't be transcluded onto non-Lore pages. If there is a need for a game-namespace page on the same subject (e.g. Amulet of Kings), then as Benould says, the two articles should be kept separate, possibly with links in the game-namespace article to the Lore article 'for further information' for those who are interested in such.
: --[[User:Gaebrial|Gaebrial]] 02:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't think the two-page idea is quite right. Nearly, but not quite. In the case of the Amulet of Kings, the Oblivion article doesn't need to mention the unofficial material at all, but definitely benefits from some of the history surrounding the item. On the other hand the Lore page has got to mention the Oblivion version of the story to be a complete story of the... well... lore surrounding it. Whichever version of the story you want to believe, lore means "the body of knowledge, esp. of a traditional, anecdotal, or popular nature, on a particular subject" so to exclude one version of events would be a mistake.
:: It's worth saying that there are only a few pages where this will be an issue, but on those pages, I think we have to take the two sections approach. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 04:16, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't support any proposal to change lore pages so that they fit in the other namespaces, or as the case is here, not improve the lore pages so that they fit into the gamespaces. I am fine with a two page idea, but I think the separating the page into sections is a recipe for an organizational nightmare. New editors aren't going to know the rules since it isn't obvious. With two pages, the game information only part (which I currently think should be a subpage of the main Lore article) could have messages explaining its existence. Doing this on regular pages would simply cause more confusion.--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 19:41, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
::::How many pages are we talking about here? [[Oblivion:Mannimarco]] is severed from Lore, Akatosh redirects to [[Oblivion:Nine Divines]], [[Oblivion:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]] transcludes. Is there any other conflicting stuff that does get transcluded into the Oblivion gamespace, since that's where the big pot-holes are, that the OOG content is attempting to fill. I hope we're not squabbling over a non-existing problem, or one that is very minor. Can a tech-savvy person please make a list and get us an overview? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:06, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::As I've said before, the lore section is chaotic and incomplete right now. The style guide is often ignored, and there are obscure text links in there that have nothing to do with this debate. If we limit any new standards to future edits regarding oog lore, and those subject to case-by-case review, is there that much of a problem?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 21:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nobody is claiming the Lore space is anything but a mess at the moment, but it doesn't need unofficial material to fix the problem. This proposal seems to have got back to treating unofficial material the same as official, and as such I don't support it. In general, I'm not going to support any proposal that doesn't make a clear distinction between official and unofficial material. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 02:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You mean besides the external link icon and the linkt hat opens a new tab, bringing you to a page with a proper disclaimer?[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 20:01, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Source critique ==

This is a proposal to add a template with a source critique to ''each and every'' source; book, fragment, obscure, ingame or out-of-game. If we're treating them like historical sources, as Apophis2412 was getting at, they have to be critiqued. This is necessary and what rpeh was asking for, Proweler was hinting at and incorporates some of all proposals. The TIL has some of it with its categorization into Historical/Fiction/Lore etc, [http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/ here] for example, our book description/author and bylines have some of it, but neither are really extensive to the level of detail that is needed. That way, every single page where the texts are used doesn't have to make that judgment call.

An example of why Source critique is needed:

The [http://www.imperial-library.info/interviews/skelm.shtml Skeleton's Man Interview] for example is sourced only to a now defunct [http://www.m0use.net/~skelm/ Hall of Adventurers] at m0use.net, no date, no further details. From what I could gather, it is a Teaser, in-character by MK and others at the time of the release of "Redguard", while working on MW. Somewhere, somehow it should be mentioned that its quoting [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=482103&st=20&p=6918676&#entry6918676 here] ended the discussion about the disappearance of the Dwarves in the forums.

Source critique would describe how this text came about, identify the writer and as in-character if applicable, category - as mentioned, and viewpoint/skew/bias. It would also allow a brief judgment, with clarifications. Just a quick write-up, things can be added, although the entry should be brief.

Example: "2920" - A fictional but well-researched retelling of the events of the last year of the First Era,
*by Carlovac Townway Writer:Ted ? - in-game: OB, MW (however we called it OGG, IG)
*Main characters are the Tribunal, Reman III. Potentate
*Spans from the war of the Reman Empire with Morrowind to the assassination of Reman by the Morag Tong.
*Keywords: First Era, Night Mother (anything not mentioned previously)

All relevant words are hyperlinked and indexed, so if I were to look up information in search about the Morag Tong, it'll pop up under Sources. Any discussions would be on the talk page of the source, so things are transparent for future researchers.

If deemed useful, creating this source critique would depend heavily on both communities, and can be applied here as well as the TIL (if they want that, of course). Such a joint effort could build *gasp* bridges, educate, create interest in the Lore sources and help every single Lore article. It would also let us discuss the texts, which is the Hobby part of it ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think I understand what you're saying, and what I get out if it is this: Rather than a project to add critiques to every solitary source, make a once-size-fits-all template so that any issue regarding the source may be addressed with ease, and perhaps a source with a critical template could be flagged in its reference text. Consensus in the talk pages would be very important, however.

:And I like the thinking behind Ratwar's proposal, as it seems to benefit from being a fresh perspective in terms of identifying the true issues and pitfalls of using all sources. I'm reasonably certain the obscure texts do not require licenses. MK exerts unofficial control over his writing and its being hosted on TIL, and anything put on a forum generally isn't restricted by anythinge except courtesy. But I am not asking for the obscure texts to be hosted anyway, especially as the external link is all the disclaimer you will need in many cases.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 15:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'd be fine just external links, but what I was trying to say is that for us to host them, we'd need some kind of 'okay' from MK (or the other author in question). --[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 17:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Resolution? ==
Debate seems to have stopped. How is this question resolved? A decision of all the admins? A proposal to the community? It's time to make a decision. I support Ratwar's proposal as it does not share the fatal flaws of some others, which would split sources and make the criteria for citations too byzantine and arguable to be easily navigated by users who aren't very familiar with the site. This would handicap the rejuvenation of the lore section and besides, it is the place of uesp to present a comprehensive picture of everything that is Elder Scrolls. This is the UNOFFICIAL Elder Scrolls Site, it is not the place to make such judgements over material. These resources are essential. Their use can have limits and qualifications, but forcing them into narrow categories and supporting roles overcomplicates editing and discourages their implementation. This makes any sort of obscure text editing difficult and clouds the true issue over their trustworthiness suitability to the topic.[[User:Temple-Zero|Temple-Zero]] 13:30, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Not only the debate has stopped. Any momentum that existed to improve the Lore namespace has stopped as well. What looked liked a consensus has been abandoned over posturing. I am disappointed. There may be no editors left to implement the changes that are so vigorously discussed above. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Morrowind talk:Trainers

2008-08-19T20:43:56Z

Benould: /* Proposed redesign */ thoughts

==Replacing this page==
Before I make this drastic change, I thought I'd put it to a peer review. I plan to replace this page with [[User:TheRealLurlock/Sandbox3|this one]], which sorts by skill rather than by location. The new page would also make the [[Morrowind:Master Trainers]] page obsolete, since the trainers are ordered by skill level rather than alphabetical, so the Masters are on the top of each section. Additionally, such details as "Hostile" have been added, and the exact levels to which they will train each skill are visible on the page. The TOC on top and bottom makes it easy to find pages by skill. Only problems I see are 1.) It's 3 times as long, since every trainer is listed in 3 sections for each skill they train, and 2.) Some people might want a by-location list, though I can't imagine why. If anybody has any reason why they don't want this page replaced, let me know here. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 19:30, 2 December 2006 (EST)

:The table you've made is clear and shows exactly the details I want to know when I'm looking for a trainer, so in my opinion, there's no reason to keep the old one. As you say, it's long though, and I think it should eventually be broken up by skill, on seperate pages that contain all relevant info on each skill, but that requires a basic redesign of all skill-related pages, so I'll add that proposal to the [[UESPWiki_talk:Morrowind_Redesign_Project|Morrowind Redesign Talk page]] page, once I've thought it through. Nothing you should hold back the replacement of this page for though. [[User:Isak|Isak]] 15:18, 3 December 2006 (EST)

== Numbers mis-match (formerly: Abelle Chriditte section) ==

A change here is either questionable, or it may be evidence that a lot of other numbers need changing. Abelle Chirditte teaches Conjuration and Mysticism in addition to being the Master trainer for Alchemy. According to the Construciton Set, her level in these two skills is 81. (This is the only way the game knows how high to allow you to train with any given NPC.) The page was recently changed to indicate that she will train up to 82 points. Now I think this indicates one of several possibilities:
*The game actually calculates whether you can train or not based on a ≤ for your skill prior to training, rather than just a < calculation. If this is the case, then EVERY number on this page is off by one. I sincerely hope that's not true, because that would be a real pain to fix.
*Edwin Herdman had some spell effect on them which increased their skills by one point each, and NPCs only look at your natural un-modified skills to determine if you can train in them.
*Edwin had a mod that alters this.
*NPC skills are leveled, and if you meet her later in the game, her skills will be higher than they are listed in the Construction Set.
*There are multiple versions of the game where her training values differ for some reason.
*Edwin is simply mistaken.
I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but these numbers are directly out of the Construction Set, so if there are other factors involved, we need to figure out what they are and determine if other changes need to be made. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 23:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:I've gone through other trainers, and for all that I've been able to check (Abelle, and Erer and Muriel at Dirty Muriel's Cornerclub) the numbers came out the same - one level higher than in the list. I'm reverting all my changes for now, because the consistency definitely suggests that the original numbers are valid or at least form the basis for the "true" numbers (noted in one of the possibilities you give).

:A special spell effect: I don't believe so. In this relatively new game I do not have any items with constant enchantments equipped now, although I have picked up a number of special items (Cuirass of the Savior's Hide being the only one), but I believe I trained with Abelle before the Corprus Disease mission. All the effects I have listed are standard.
:A mod that alters this. I have the following installed: Morrowind GotY PC with Tribunal and Bloodmoon. Six of the [[http://www.elderscrolls.com/downloads/updates_plugins.htm|official expansions]] - all but the Entertainers Plugin (no clue why I missed installing that one). Better Heads, including the optional Tribunal and Bloodmoon packages. Better bodies, as well. That's all. A few tweaks to the INI file as well (based off Tweaktown's, plus disabled hit fader).
:Levelled: Possible; by the time I started checking things I had carefully raised many of my base attributes to 100 (simply by watching attributes being raised and using lots of gold), without using any master trainers (if you have enough gold, the guild and House Hlaalu trainers in Balmora can raise you in this fashion - in other words, little goes over 60, if even that). I will try this again in a new game to see what happens.
:Multiple versions: That would be fun to fix...that said, I have the latest version. The patch for players without Tribunal or Bloodmoon doesn't apply to the Game of the Year edition.

:I have fooled around with only a few variables in the console - strength, acrobatics, speed - but was careful at the beginning of the game when power-leveling (just spawned myself some money to use and ran around Balmora leveling everything with trainers to get max level bonuses for three skills at each level-up). I shall start a new game, disable the two unofficial mods (Better bodies/heads), get the Entertainers mod, and investigate this further. If I get the same results, maybe (yet another) reinstall is in order. --[[User:Edwin Herdman|Edwin Herdman]] 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The weird thing is, if my first theory about the ≤ instead of < calculation is correct, then theoretically, the Master Trainers should be able to train you to 101 in their highest skill, rather than simply 100. Unless these are an exception to the rule. Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to put a note at the top saying that the values listed refer to the maximum your skill can be at ''prior'' to receiving training, with the exception of the Master Trainers, of course, since no skill can be naturally raised above 100. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 10:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The game has a concrete (at least it is supposed to be) rule that you cannot train a skill over one of its governing attributes. If you have an enchantment or manually set one of your attributes over 100, you will be able to train any skill influenced by that attribute at level 100, but it doesn't register as a skill increase (so there still is some sort of safeguard). You lose gold and a message states that you have increased your level to 100.
:::I tried levelling via trainer on an older save, and Erer was able to train me in Destruction to 82. So this seems to be consistent behavior for my install of the game. I still have to try it on a new install, just don't have enough time at the moment. --[[User:Edwin Herdman|Edwin Herdman]] 00:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note explaining the numbers==

(Arbitrary break with the last discussion, although this is a continuation.) I think that the note on the top of the page adequately explains things (although I would add that you can try to train again but will fail if your skill is at 100 and the governing attribute is at least 100; you lose money), but I wonder what the purpose of keeping the numbers the way they are is. If nobody wants to spend the time to change all the numbers, I'll do it. That said, I would rather the note at the top be moved to the bottom (and altered so that it explains why the numbers appear different in the CS), and the numbers altered so that new players can just glance at them and see the maximum value a trainer can raise them to. I'm not going to go ahead and change it without some consent, but I think the current version has some negatives. --[[User:Edwin Herdman|Edwin Herdman]] 18:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think the comment belongs on the top, only because everybody who visits this page will see the top of it, and few will scroll all the way to the bottom, as it is quite long. (And the last skill is "Unarmored", which nobody cares about.) I'm reluctant to change all the numbers, only because we generally try as much as possible to use the true numbers straight from the Construction Set whenever possible. (Plus, you'd also have to adjust the numbers on every individual trainer page to match - and there's about to be a lot of those.) I think it's best to leave the numbers as is, with a clear explanation for how they work, which is pretty much the way it's set up now. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 12:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Split==
Let's face it, this page is huge. I'm considering splitting it into [[Morrowind:Combat Trainers]], [[Morrowind:Magic Trainers]], and [[Morrowind:Stealth Trainers]]. What do people think about that? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 12:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:Are there any cross-discipline trainers? How about splitting it down into one subpage per skill? [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] 10:56, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
I like the idea, I'll help you out on the day you decide to do it. --[[User:Jesus lover|Jesus lover]] 23:05, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
::I think that is a fantastic idea, an this page can become a redirect, which could show the three sections as links, as opposed to deleting this page altogether, which would actually be quite confusing. '''YAY'''.
:::I think it's a very good idea. However, I would split it by skill, as it is already, and make this page a general description of how to train and how to get it cheap, etc. I would also include a table of contents to the skill trainers pages. --[[User:DrPhoton|DrPhoton]] 04:22, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Proposed redesign ==

I've set up an example of a plan I thought of for this page on my [[User:TheRealLurlock/Sandbox_VIII|sandbox]]. (Just did Acrobatics for now.) The idea being that this allows the page to show ALL the trainers, without making it huge and cumbersome like it was before. I basically used the criteria we had before for "notable" trainers - anything 70 or above getting the tables as they currently exist, and anyone below that gets put into just a list with their names linked and nothing else. The sub-pages at [[Morrowind:Acrobatics Trainers|Acrobatics Trainers]], etc. would remain unchanged, and a link is provided for anyone who really wants to see all the nitty-gritty details, but this page still serves as a home page for trainers, listing all of them and providing details on the select few at the top. Any thoughts on this? --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 15:59, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
:Looks pretty clean and useful. I like this solution, if all those links don't affect page load speed. Now if there just was an elegant way to describe which trainers are cheaper then others to train with, but it probably is not worth the hassle. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 16:43, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Tribunal:The Missing Hand

2008-08-19T19:59:16Z

Benould: Undo revision 352776 by Volanaro (Talk) already mentioned in sentence below

{{Tribunal Main Quest Trail}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Missing Hand, The}}
{{Quest Header|Giver=[[Tribunal:Almalexia|Almalexia]]
|Start=the [[Tribunal:Temple_Courtyard|Temple]]
|Reward=Your Choice of a permanent Divine blessing
|ID=TR_MissingHand_02 (also TR_MissingHand_01)
|Prev=[[Tribunal:A Show of Power|A Show of Power]]
|Next=[[Tribunal:The Blade of Nerevar|The Blade of Nerevar]]
|Loc=[[Tribunal:Temple_Courtyard|Temple]], [[Tribunal:Godsreach|Godsreach]]
|SuggLevel=30+
|SuggItem=Healing Magic
|Difficulty=Difficult
|image=TR-npc-Salas Valor.jpg
|imgdesc=Kill Salas Valor for Almalexia
}}

==Quick Walkthrough==
#Speak with [[Tribunal:Almalexia|Almalexia]] who will tell you of [[Tribunal:Salas Valor|Salas Valor]].
#Find Salas Valor in the [[Tribunal:Godsreach|Godsreach]] district, dressed like a High Ordinator.
#Talk to Salas, which will start combat, and kill him.
#Return to Almalexia once Salas is dead to receive your reward.

==Detailed Walkthrough==
===Almalexia===
Speak once again to Lady [[Tribunal:Almalexia|Almalexia]] in the [[Morrowind:Tribunal Temple|Temple]] to receive your next task. It appears that one of her Hands of Almalexia (her personal guards) has abandoned her. [[Tribunal:Salas Valor|Salas Valor]] is now spreading slander and lies about the goddess to those who will listen, though Almalexia attributes this to madness caused by her very presence. Salas can currently be found somewhere in the streets and sewers of [[Tribunal:Mournhold|Mournhold]]. Your task is to stop him from slandering the goddess by any means necessary.

===Salas Valor===
Finding Salas can be more difficult than usual since few people know anything about him. You won't find out anything until you start asking around in the Godsreach district, where most people will tell you of seeing one of the Hands of Almalexia wandering around the area. He will look like an ordinary High Ordinator, but his equipment has the magical shine to it. Be well prepared beforehand, as combat will start as soon as you finish speaking with him. Salas is one of the tougher fights in the game. He has a lot of health, heals himself, casts a few spells, is magic resistant (though not completely), and deals a decent blow with his sword (which drains your strength). Healing potions, magical shields, and enchanted armors and items are highly recommended.

Once Salas is dead, feel free to loot the nice selection of enchanted items from his corpse. However, beware of equipping the cuirass or the helmet, since talking to a High Ordinator or Hand of Almalexia with either of these items equipped will cause them to attack you, just like equipping Indoril armor in Vvardenfell. Likewise, avoid wearing this armor near the regular Ordinators when you return to Vvardenfell.

Of course, you can learn why he has abandoned Almalexia by asking him about being an Ordinator. He will explain that his duties and the God's personality had driven him to leave.

===Return to Almalexia===
The deed done, return to Almalexia to report. She grieves for the loss of Salas (well, a little) and offers you several possible rewards:
:#'''Her Ironskin''': Constant 5 point bonus to [[Morrowind:Unarmored|Unarmored]], [[Morrowind:Light Armor|Light]]/[[Morrowind:Medium Armor|Medium]]/[[Morrowind:Heavy Armor|Heavy Armor]]
:#'''Her Guard Against Terror''': Constant [[Morrowind:Resist Paralysis|Resist Paralysis]] (20%)
:#'''Her Reflected Glory''': Constant [[Morrowind:Fortify Health|Fortify Health]] (10 points)

==Notes==
*It is possible to start this quest without speaking to Almalexia. After completing [[Tribunal:A Show of Power|A Show of Power]], you may find Salas Valor in Godsreach, and you can kill him on your own, then speak to Almalexia for your reward. She will offer you an alternative reward: '''Her Tamed Lightning''', Constant [[Morrowind:Lightning Shield|Lightning Shield]] (10 points), although if you choose it you still end up with '''Her Guard Against Terror''': Constant [[Morrowind:Resist Paralysis|Resist Paralysis]] (20%).
*During the fight, you can duck inside a building, if you need some time to heal or regroup. When you come back outside Salas will still be there at the same health level.
*One of the easier ways to kill Salas is to use a spell or item of [[Morrowind:Jump|Jump]], and a stack of [[Tribunal:Dwarven Dart|Dwarven Dart]]s from the Dwemer ruins in [[Tribunal:Bamz-Amschend|Bamz-Amschend]]. Cast the spell and speak with Salas, then jump on top of the nearest building, feel free to drop all of your armor, because he won't be able to reach you and this will most likely ensure that you can jump high enough. Once on top of a building, take out your darts and attack him. Take your time lining up the shot, as there is no rush, and he should fall in a few hits with the Dwemer darts, leaving you unscathed to pick up his and your armor.

==Quest Stages==
{{MW Quest Stages Notes}}

{|class=wikitable
|+TR_MissingHand_02
!Index!!Journal Entry
|-
|1||Almalexia has sent me to deal with Salas Valor, one of Her elite guards, the Hands, who has gone mad, and who now presents a threat to Almalexia. She says She pities him, and knows that he is not responsible for his actions, but She says he is very dangerous, and I may not be able to spare his life.
|-
|10||I went to speak with Salas Valor, but it is almost as though he had been waiting for me. He seemed to know that Almalexia had sent me, and that she wanted one or both of us dead. He told me to make my peace with the gods, then attacked me.
|-
|90||Salas Valor is dead. Any threat he represented to the peace of Mournhold is now eliminated. I should report to Almalexia.
|-
|{{nowrap|100 {{fin}}}}||I reported to Almalexia that Salas Valor is dead, and that any threat he represented to the peace of Mournhold is now eliminated. She was pleased, and rewarded me with a special divine blessing.
|-
|{{nowrap|110 {{fin}}}}||I reported to Almalexia that Salas Valor is dead, and that any threat he represented to the peace of Mournhold is now eliminated. She was pleased, and offered to reward me with a special divine blessing. I declined her blessing, however, and I think she was less pleased by that.
|}

{|class=wikitable
|+TR_MissingHand_01
!Index!!Journal Entry
|-
|1||I encountered a Dunmer named Salas Valor dressed in splendid armor. He seemed very angry -- perhaps a little mad -- and more than a little dangerous.
|-
|10||I encountered a Dunmer named Salas Valor dressed in splendid armor. He seemed very angry -- perhaps a little mad -- and more than a little dangerous. I asked him about his armor, and he said it is the armor of Almalexia's Hands, Her most loyal and trusted guards and followers. He says he was one of Her Hands, but no more.
|-
|90||I have killed Salas Valor.
|}

{{Quest Footer|Prev=[[Tribunal:A Show of Power|A Show of Power]]|Next=[[Tribunal:The Blade of Nerevar|The Blade of Nerevar]]|Up=[[Tribunal:Main_Quest|Main Quest Page]]}}

Morrowind:Manor District

2008-08-19T19:50:56Z

Benould: not a stub anymore, incomplete

<noinclude>
{| width=100% style="border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; background:#b5cbea; text-align:center"
|• [[Morrowind:People in Ald'ruhn|People]] • [[#Maps|Maps]] • [[#Notes|Notes]] • [[Morrowind:Quests in Ald'ruhn|Quests]] • [[#Redoran Council Hall|Council Hall]] • [[#Shops|Shops]] •
|}
</noinclude>
{{incomplete|Manor details}}
__NOTOC__
{{Place Summary
|type=Landmark
|zones=1
|occupants=NPCs
|location=[[Morrowind:Ald'ruhn|Ald'ruhn]]
|locationcode=Ald'ruhn, Manor District
|image=MW-Places-UnderSkar.jpg
|imgdesc=Manor District, Under-Skar
|AddAbove=The 
}}
All House Redoran Councilors live ''Under-Skar'' in the Manor District in [[Morrowind:Ald'ruhn|Ald'ruhn]], entrances clockwise from the entrance are: Ramoran, Sarethi, Llethri, Council Hall, Arobar, Morag Tong Guildhall and Venim Manor. Fine shops are available on the bottom floor, for kinsman services see the Council Hall. The wealth in the manors attracts many [[Morrowind:Aengoth the Jeweler|thieves]], and not just for the many drawers with jewelry and extravagant clothing.
{{newLeft}}
==== Ramoran Manor====
Clad in [[Morrowind:Dwemer Armor|Dwemer Armor]], you'll find [[Morrowind:Hlaren Ramoran|Hlaren Ramoran]] in the Ramoran Private Quarters. Despite the success in his life, he has little personal happiness.
==== Sarethi Manor ====
Right down the stairs, [[Morrowind:Athyn Sarethi|Athyn Sarethi]] will be your sponsor in advancing to higher ranks and is your first contact in order to be named [[Morrowind:Redoran Hortator|Redoran Hortator]]. He is somewhat at odds with Archmaster Bolvyn Venim.
==== Llethri Manor ====
[[Morrowind:Garisa Llethri|Garisa Llethri]] is found in his Private Quarters. His family is somewhat out-of-control.
[[Image:MW-Places-RedoranCouncilHall.jpg|right|thumb|Inside the Redoran Council Hall]]
==== Redoran Council Hall====
The Redoran Council Hall holds training facilities, guest rooms and services for kinsmen. [[Morrowind:Neminda|Neminda]] in the entrance of the Redoran Council Hall will give guidance, if you want to become a Redoran Kinsman. The temporary home of Councilor [[Morrowind:Mistress Brara Morvayn|Morvayn]] is located in the back of the entry hall. [[Morrowind:Galsa Gindu|Galsa Gindu]] will assist you in building your Redoran Stronghold. [[Morrowind:Guls Llervu|Guls Llervu]] offers healing potions and spells to all factions, among them Mark, Recall and Almsivi Intervention.
==== Arobar Manor====
[[Morrowind:Miner Arobar|Miner Arobar]] is found in the Arobar Manor Bedrooms.
==== Morag Tong Guildhall====
As usual, writs are available here for budding assassins, helping in bringing justice and tipping the scale in feuds. Training and [[Morrowind:Thieves Tools|Thieves Tools]] are among the services here and [[Morrowind:Goren Andarys|Goren Andarys]] is the guild steward. [[Morrowind:Salyni Nelvayn|Salyni Nelvayn]] offers useful spells for the trade, among them Damage Health, Paralyze and Damage Fatigue.
==== Venim Manor====
[[Morrowind:Bolvyn Venim|Bolvyn Venim]] is the current Archmaster of House Redoran. He leads the House with a uncharacteristically strong hand, not shying away from kidnapping his rival's son. Most of the retainers here are clad in customized Dwemer Armor, bearing witness to the wealth of their master, who is sporting [[Morrowind:Ebony Armor|Ebony Armor]] himself.
{{NewRight}}
[[Image:MW-npc-Llether_Vari.jpg|right|thumb|The Enchanter Llether Vari]]
==== Shops====
On the bottom floor of the giant shell are three fine shops. The [[Morrowind:Bivale_Teneran|Clothier]] is actually a Hlaalu informant. The [[Morrowind:Cienne Sintieve|Alchemist]] has [[Morrowind:Scrap Metal|Scrap Metal]]. The [[Morrowind:Llether_Vari|Enchanter]] has a wide array of spells and useful magical items, among them a [[Morrowind:Last Wish|Last Wish]] Shortsword in bad repair.

===Notes===
*If you explore the manors, you'll find many items without Guard, ripe for the taking.
{{NewRight}}
===Maps===
[[Image:MW_Map_AldRuhnManorDistrict.jpg|thumb|Map of Ald'ruhn's Manor District]]
* For detailed interior maps, see [http://neon.chem.bg.ac.yu/morrowind/atlas/ald-ruhn/index.html#skar here].

User talk:Benould

2008-08-18T11:03:21Z

Benould: /* "Idiot" */ by Administrators only

{{notice|I am taking a break. Send me an e-mail when the Lore discussion is done.}}

{{notice|'''Welcome to my talk page!''' Feel free to leave me a message or ask a question. To add a new topic, you can just click on the "+" tab at the top of this page (for more info, see [[Help:Editing Pages|Editing Pages]] and [[Help:Editing Pages#Editing a Discussion Page|Editing a Discussion Page]]). I'm usually able to answer questions within a day.}}

'''Archives''':
* '''2008''':
;[[User talk:Benould/Archive-2008-01|March/April]]
;[[User talk:Benould/Archive-2008-02|May/June]]
'''Cookies''': [[User:Benould/Cookie Jar|My cookie jar]]
{{TOCright}}

== Collective Items ==

Ya Benould I got one question, its not really important, kind of off topic, but Do you know where to find the commemorative plate in morrowind? Or the jar of grease? You see I’m a collector, and I need these last pieces for my collection. I've looked everywhere in the game and on the web, so this is my last resort; I normally wouldn't bother people like this. Well any help would be appreciated.

Thanks [[User:Hyrenaqil|Hyrenaqil]] 10:28, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:Commemorative Plate [[Morrowind:Clutter]] have the ID's <code>misc_com_plate_02_tgrc / misc_com_plate_06_tgrc </code>
:Jar of Grease [[Tribunal:Item List]] ID <code>Misc_flask_grease</code>

:If you're on the PC, you can look those codes up in the Construction Set (which I don't have), which gives you their location. Alternatively, you can use the [[Morrowind:Console]]. Good luck in your hunt, --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:45, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the help, but i also play on the xbox, so the codes can't help me much, but thanks anyways. I'll ask someone who has a PC to check out there locations on the Construction Set. Do know any person who would be willing to help and has a PC. --[[User:Hyrenaqil|Hyrenaqil]] 09:39, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Neither of them actually exist in the game, I'm afraid. You'll need the console to get them which means they're PC only. –[[User:Rpeh|Rpeh]]•[[User_Talk:Rpeh|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Rpeh|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Rpeh|E]]• 09:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks no wonder I couldn't find them. I guess I won't have to collect them. I appreciate the help, you've saved me a bunch of time. -- [[User:Hyrenaqil|Hyrenaqil]] 17:25, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Morrowind:Level ==

I see you fixed the misinformation that Anarchangel keeps adding to Morrowind:Level about Misc skills not adding to attributes. I already deleted it twice before. --[[User:Brf|Brf]] 17:11, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Data Requests ==

Benould, could I ask that in future you make requests for editors to supply you with data on the appropriate article talk page instead of making redundant requests on multiple editors' talk pages? It seems like that would significantly reduce the chance of having three editors do the same work to provide you with same data three times over. And having the discussion on a neutral page such as an article talk page would make it a bit more obvious that some coordination of effort might be needed. From my point of view, at least, it is somewhat unpleasant to spend a couple of hours trying to respond your request, only to email the data then immediately find out that you'd asked another editor to do the same task in the meantime. The request was only just over a day old, and I thought my post just hours earlier would have provided some indication that I was responding to the request. Six hours doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of time to be allowed to complete the task without having my efforts discarded as unnecessary. --[[User:Nephele|Nephele]][[User_talk:Nephele|Talk]] 19:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:Nephele, first of all, thank you for taking the time trying to get me the data, I am sorry that this misunderstanding has come about. I agree, a message on the appropriate page would be better, if such message indeed would get attention. I know that you're not normally too deep in the MW/TR/BM, that's why I posted on your personal page with this -what I thought- simple request. I did not ask Lurlock the same task, he jumped in on your task page, and once it became a back-and-forth between him and me, we moved to his page as to not to bombard you with "New Message" notices. In the [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock#Tribunal_item_list|subsequent postings]], he stated that such a list wouldn't be automated, and it gave me the impression that'd it be not reasonable to ask you to do this. At this point, it was important to get an overview how much missing entries we were actually talking about and Lurlock stated he had some pre-made list, which he then dumped on his sandbox. As it turned out, what was missing was comparatively little, and I was able to fill things last night and this morning with the help of a newly-discovered [http://www.elricm.com/nuke/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=MWCSData&file=index&mycs=yes&id_cat=12#tribunal source]. The good news is that most of the work is now done, and Tribunal is better for it. Again, thank you. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== SandBox ==

I can't figure out how to make my own SandBox, and I need to experiment. please help me. [[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 00:29, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Simple, behind your user name, type /sandboxname. Example: <nowiki>wiki/User:Jklack/nameyoursandox</nowiki> --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 00:39, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

this still doesn't make sense to me. Do I search it and make a page. I already know what to type i just need to know where to type it. [[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 20:39, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
::I just cut and pasted that, made the sandbox. Still unclear? <nowiki>http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Jklack/nameyoursandox</nowiki> is the whole address, just replace "nameyoursandox" with what you want to call it ;) Sandboxes are are sub-pages of you (non-existing) user page, you might want to create that first, like <nowiki>http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Jklack</nowiki> It then says the page doesn't exist, would you want to create it? Check the Welcome message on your Talk page, it has several useful links about wiki editing, or click [[UESPWiki:Getting_Started|here]] and you'll pick it up in no time at all. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:43, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

When I tr to make my own page a popup apears and says:
*do you want to save this file, or find an online program to open it?
** options: '''find''' '''save''' '''cancel'''
[[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 23:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

: I just created your user page, click on your signature ([[User:Jklack|Jklack]]) here to be taken there. Then, look at the top of the page where it says "Edit". That should let you modify your page. What browser are you using? --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 23:34, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

When I click edit the popup comes up still. [[User:Jklack|Jklack]] 23:41, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:You did not say what Browser you are using. My recommendation would be to reset your browser settings, or if that fails, download Firefox and scrub your computer for any spyware. We do not use popups. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 00:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

== PGE ==

I notice that you're posting the PGE up there. You might want to specify somehow that it's the 3rd Edition, which is distinctly different from the 1st Edition (included with Morrowind) in many areas. The 1st Edition should probably also be posted, for the sake of comparison. (There's no 2nd Edition that I'm aware of.) Granted, the 3rd Edition is more up to date, but there's still some content in the 1st that is not in the 3rd, so we should have both. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 14:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
:You mean like the line "These are the transcripts of the Pocket Guide to the Empire, Third Edition."? I know we have the 1.st PGE available for download at [http://www.uesp.net/redguard/files/redfiles.shtm redguard files]; you'd have to talk to Ratwar if we can host these beyond that. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 16:00, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, but the page names don't specify, and if we post both in this way, there'll be pagename conflicts between the two that we'll need to deal with. As for old files - well, I mean we have it on the site, but it's the old site, and nobody goes there anymore, we probably should have it on the wiki somewhere. I think if we've gotten around the potential legalities enough that we're posting the 3rd Edition without worrying, we're probably okay posting the first as well. --[[User:TheRealLurlock|TheRealLurlock]] [[User_talk:TheRealLurlock|Talk]] 17:42, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Which is why there was a talk page entry up about it, how to structure the tree. As long as the PGE 3rd. Edition finds its home before we massively start linking, I am fine with what ever, perhaps the current page can link to the 1.st edition as well. For editing purposes, a disambiguation page would be a disservice, and we probably need either redirects PGE, PGE1, PGE3 or a template like <nowiki>{{PGE}}</nowiki>, because typing the whole smear will get tedious fast. So move away, categorize, but soon, so the linking can get underway, good sir ;) --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 18:14, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==Hey==

Yeah, would you mind checking your IRC window? I want to talk to you...--[[User:Ratwar|Ratwar]] 23:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

== question ==

Hello, I see that Temple-zero has added things to Lore:Nedes and Lore: Greedy Man that comes from the MK-texts. Does this mean the discussion about what is canon and what is not is already over???

[[User:Apophis2412|Apophis2412]] 02:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:No, it is not over, see [[Lore_talk:Main_Page#The_Case_for_Kirkbride|here]] for the preliminary statements; a formal discussion will be forth-coming on the [[UESPWiki:Community Portal]]. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 03:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Edit messup ==

If you happen to find the time, do you think you could check [[User:Alphaman/sandbox|my sandbox]] and see if you can point out which parts caused the messup? (as opposed to your fix of the [[Shivering:Crucible]] page). We talked about this for a minute tonight in the irc channel. :) Thanks, --[[User:Alphaman|Alphaman]]•[[User_Talk:Alphaman|T]]• 02:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks, I see where I went wrong now :)--[[User:Alphaman|Alphaman]]•[[User_Talk:Alphaman|T]]• 14:41, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Userpage deletions ==

Just so you know, if a user requests their userpage or sub-pages to be deleted, such as [[User:Benould/PGE/Temple Morrowind|this one]], it meets the criteria for speedy dedletion, in other words it might be worth using the <nowiki>{{speed}}</nowiki> tag instead of the <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> one. Just saves the hassle of the 1 week wait period. --[[User:Volanaro|Volanaro]] 15:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:I would agree, except they all link to <nowiki>[[User:RobinHood70/PGE]]</nowiki> I I don't feel like I can tag RH's pages. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 15:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Heh. ==

You make me laugh. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 19:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:Glad to be of service, the world needs more laughter. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Comments ==

Sorry, my bad. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 01:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Apology ==

Sorry. I didn't know that all user pages and changes to them were patrolled. Could you advise me on a problem I'm having with my user page? [[User:Orange-laser-cube|Orange-laser-cube]] 12:00, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
:No problem, ask away. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 16:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

::Well when I go to add some faction userboxes on my user page, they all get misaligned for some reason. Large vertical spaces appear between the userboxes. I've tried to fix this, but I can't quite seem to get it right. Could you tell me how to organize userboxes correctly, possibly in a column? [[User:Orange-laser-cube|Orange-laser-cube]] 18:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
:::If I understand you correctly, you're looking for a floating division, like the example [[User:Benould/Opel|here]]? <nowiki><div style="float:left"></nowiki> and close it afterwards with <nowiki></div></nowiki>. hope this helps, --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 19:01, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes that's what I was trying to do. Thanks. [[User:Orange-laser-cube|Orange-laser-cube]] 19:53, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Idiot" ==

Just block him. Skip all warning procedures. He's nothing but a vandal and should be given a chance. [[User:Daedryon|Daedryon]]•[[User_Talk:Daedryon|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Daedryon|C]]•[[Special:Emailuser/Daedryon|E]]• 02:28, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:And its attitudes like that that alienate potentially constructive editors, a warning might b enough to make him stop or evn start contributing constructively. --[[User:Volanaro|Volanaro]] 05:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Daedryon, blocking is done by Administrators only and then only after following the needed procedures described in the [[UESPWiki:Blocking_Policy|Blocking policy]]. The only outright blocks are levied against personal attacks and bots. This keeps actions from being done at-a-whim, and transparent enough to be reversible. Just revert the vandalism, give advice or warning depending on the situation; don't worry about blocks. Always [[UESPWiki:Assume_Good_Faith|assume good faith]]. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 07:03, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Morrowind:Shut the Mines Down

2008-08-18T10:51:30Z

Benould: Undo revision 352276 by 195.241.37.171 (Talk)Llethri is the more recognizable name

{{Morrowind House Redoran Trail}}
{{Quest Header
|Giver=[[Morrowind:Garisa Llethri|Garisa Llethri]]
|Start=[[Morrowind:Ald'ruhn|Ald'ruhn]]
|Reward=[[Morrowind:Ebony Boots|Ebony Boots]]
|Disp=+10/20 Disposition
|ID=HR_CalderaDisrupt
|Prev=[[Morrowind:Evidence of Corruption|Evidence of Corruption]]
|Next=None
|Loc=[[Morrowind:Ald'ruhn|Ald'ruhn]], [[Morrowind:Caldera|Caldera]], [[Morrowind:Caldera Mine|Caldera Mine]]
|ReqRank=None
|AddBelow=
|image=MW-place-Caldera Mine.jpg
|imgdesc=Caldera Mine
|Rep=+10 [[Morrowind:House Redoran|Redoran]] Faction Reputation, +1 Reputation
}}

==Quick Walkthrough==
#Talk to [[Morrowind:Garisa Llethri|Garisa Llethri]] in his manor in [[Morrowind:Ald'ruhn|Ald'ruhn]] for duties.
#Either organize a slave revolt:
##Talk to people around [[Morrowind:Caldera|Caldera]] to learn that if [[Morrowind:Dahleena|Dahleena]] were freed, the slaves might revolt.
##Find a slave key in the guard tower and free Dahleena.
#Or kill the mine operators:
##Kill [[Morrowind:Odral Helvi|Odral Helvi]] and [[Morrowind:Stlennius Vibato|Stlennius Vibato]].
#Return to Llethri to complete the quest.

==Detailed Walkthrough==
===Duties===
Once you complete the [[Morrowind:Evidence of Corruption|Evidence of Corruption]] quest for him, [[Morrowind:Garisa Llethri|Garisa Llethri]] in his manor in [[Morrowind:Ald'ruhn|Ald'ruhn]] will ask you to go and shut down the [[Morrowind:Caldera Mine|Caldera Mine]] for him.

===Disrupting the Mine===
Talk to people around [[Morrowind:Caldera|Caldera]] to learn that if [[Morrowind:Dahleena|Dahleena]] were freed (or killed), the slaves might revolt, causing the mine to close. Choose either method and report back to Llethri to complete the quest. He will reward you with a pair of [[Morrowind:Ebony Boots|Ebony Boots]] and a [[Morrowind:Reputation|reputation]] point.

An alternative way of closing the mine is to kill the mine operators [[Morrowind:Odral Helvi|Odral Helvi]] and [[Morrowind:Stlennius Vibato|Stlennius Vibato]]. If you take this route, Llethri tells you that you have caused "political problems" and you will receive neither the ebony boots nor the reputation point.

==Notes==
* A slave key can be found at the top of the mine's guard tower.
* You can get this quest regardless of having Redoran membership, by simply freeing a slave.

==Quest Stages==
{{MW Quest Stages Notes}}

{|class=wikitable
|+HR_CalderaDisrupt
!Index!!Journal Entry
|-
|10||Garisa Llethri has asked me to disrupt the ebony mines in Caldera. If I shut the mines down, I will have won Garisa Llethri's support.
|-
|30||I was told that if I got rid of Dahleena, nobody could work the mines.
|-
|35||I was told that if I killed Odral Helvi and Stlennius Vibato the Caldera Mines would be shut down.
|-
|50||I freed Dahleena. Now that she's gone, the mines of Caldera will shut down for at least a few days.
|-
|{{nowrap|100 {{fin}}}}||Garisa Llethri thanked me for shutting down the ebony mines in Caldera.
|}

{{Quest Footer|Prev=[[Morrowind:Evidence of Corruption|Evidence of Corruption]]|Next=[[Morrowind:House Redoran#House Redoran Quests|Find New Quest Giver]]|Up=[[Morrowind:House Redoran#House Redoran Quests|House Redoran Quests]]}}

Oblivion:Emperor Uriel Septim

2008-08-18T06:22:37Z

Benould: Undo revision 352241 by Idiot (Talk)nonsense

{{NPC Summary
|image=OB-npc-Uriel Septim VII.jpg
|imgdesc=Uriel Septim VII
|refid=00032A18
|baseid=00023F2E
|loc=[[Oblivion:Imperial Prison Sewers|Imperial Prison Sewers]]
|race=Imperial
|gender=Male
|class=Noble
|level=1
|health=232
|magicka=0
|resp=100
|aggress=0
|essential=Until [[Oblivion:Escape From Prison|Escape From Prison]] ([[Oblivion:Scripted Deaths|Scripted Death]])
|faction={{Faction|Emperor faction, for Uriel and Martin}}
}}
'''Uriel Septim VII''' (3E 346 - 3E 433; ruled 368 - 433) was the son of Pelagius IV and twenty-first emperor of the Septim dynasty. He plays a central role in four ''[[General:Elder_Scrolls|Elder Scrolls]]'' games - ''Arena'', ''Daggerfall'', ''Morrowind'', and ''Oblivion'' - which collectively cover the last forty-four years of his 65-year rule.

''Oblivion'' opens at the very end of Uriel VII's reign, shortly following the triple assassination of his grown sons [[Tamriel:People_G#Geldall Septim|Geldall]], [[Tamriel:People_E#Enman Septim|Enman]] and [[Tamriel:People_E#Ebel Septim|Ebel]]. Having been advised by his councilors to go into hiding, he attempts to flee the [[Oblivion:Imperial_City|Imperial City]] through a secret underground tunnel which passes through the player's prison cell. Here, he invites the player to join his entourage and asks him or her to find his illegitimate son and bring him to the palace to be crowned emperor. He also gives the player the [[Oblivion:Amulet of Kings|Amulet of Kings]],
which must be worn at all times by a member of the Septim bloodline, or the barrier between Tamriel and Oblivion will dissolve.

Uriel is killed shortly afterward by members of the [[Tamriel:Daedra|Daedra]]-worshipping [[Oblivion:Mythic Dawn|Mythic Dawn]] cult. Shortly after his death, portals to Oblivion begin appearing all over [[Oblivion:Cyrodiil|Cyrodiil]] and the forces of the Daedric Prince [[Tamriel:Mehrunes Dagon|Mehrunes Dagon]] invade Tamriel.

Uriel Septim VII is voiced by veteran actor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Stewart Patrick Stewart] in ''Oblivion''.

User talk:Idiot

2008-08-18T06:19:27Z

Benould: Warning

== Warning ==

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not add nonsense to UESPWiki, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 02:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
|}

File:Mainpage-logo.jpg

2008-08-18T06:18:01Z

Benould: revert nonsense

JPEG version of the [[:Image:Mainpage-logo.png|main page logo]].

Lore:Sancre Tor

2008-08-16T20:41:07Z

Benould: quote — remada, amulet of Kings/reman/dragon fires

<noinclude>{{Lore Places Trail}}</noinclude>
:''"But after nine months that mound of mud became as a small mountain, and there were whispers among the shepherds and bulls. A small community of believers gathered around that growing hill during the days of its first churning, and they were the first to name it the Golden Hill, Sancre Tor. And it was the shepherdess Sed-Yenna who dared climb the hill when she heard his first cry, and at its peak she saw what it had yielded, an infant she named Reman, which is "Light of Man." And in the child's forehead was the {{Lore Link|Amulet of Kings|Chim-el Adabal}}, alive with the [[Lore:Dragonfires|dragon-fires]] of yore and divine promise, and none dared obstruct Sed-Yenna when she climbed the steps of {{Lore Link|White Gold Tower|White-Gold Tower}} to place the babe [[Lore:Reman|Reman]] on his Throne, where he spoke as an adult, saying I AM CYRODIIL COME." — {{Lore Link|Remanada}}''
[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Sancre Tor|Sancre Tor]] was once the location of a holy shrine of {{Lore Link|Tiber Septim}}. It is located in the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Jerall Mountains|Jerall Mountains]] in [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Cyrodiil|Cyrodiil]], north of the city of [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Chorrol|Chorrol]]. However, the fortress of Sancre Tor was corrupted by the [[Lore:Underking|Underking]], causing it to be sealed shut by the Grandmaster of the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Blades|Blades]] in the 36th Year of the Reign of Tiber Septim. In the years after Tiber Septim's reign it was gradually forgotten, decaying into a haunted ruin.<noinclude>

==See Also==
*For more information, see the [[Oblivion:Sancre Tor|Oblivion Sancre Tor article]].</noinclude>

Lore:Remanada

2008-08-16T18:50:37Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|OB=yes
}}</noinclude>
'''Chapter 1: SANCRE TOR AND THE BIRTH OF REMAN'''

And in those days the empire of the Cyrodiils was dead, save in memory only, for through war and slug famine and iniquitous rulers, the west split from the east and Colovia's {{sic|estrangment|estrangement}} lasted some four hundreds of years. And the earth was sick with this sundering. Once-worthy western kings, of {{Lore Link|Anvil}} and {{Lore Link|Sarchal}}, of {{Lore Link|Falkreath}} and {{Lore Link|Delodiil}}, became through pride and habit as like thief-barons and forgot covenant. In the heartland things were no better, as arcanists and false moth-princes lay in drugged stupor or the studies of vileness and no one sat on the Throne in dusted generations. Snakes and the warnings of snakes went unheeded and the land bled with ghosts and deepset holes unto cold harbors. It is said that even the {{Lore Link|Chim-el Adabal}}, the amulet of the kings of glory, had been lost and its people saw no reason to find it.

And it was in this darkness that King {{Lore Link|Hrol}} set out from the lands beyond lost Twil with a sortie of questing knights numbered eighteen less one, all of them western sons and daughters. For Hrol had seen in his visions the snakes to come and sought to heal all the borders of his forebears. And to this host appeared at last a spirit who resembled none other than {{Lore Link|Alessia|El-Estia}}, queen of ancienttimes, who bore in her left hand the {{Lore Link|Dragonfires|dragonfire}} of the {{Lore Link|Akatosh|aka-tosh}} and in her right hand the jewels of the covenant and on her breast a wound that spilt void onto her mangled feet. And seeing El-Estia and Chim-el Adabal, Hrol and his knights wailed and set to their knees and prayed for all things to become as right. Unto them the spirit said, I am the healer of all men and the mother of dragons, but as you have run so many times from me so shall I run until you learn my pain, which renders you and all this land dead.

And the spirit fled from them, and they split among hills and forests to find her, all grieving that they had become a villainous people. Hrol and his shieldthane were the only ones to find her, and the king spoke to her, saying, I love you sweet Aless, sweet wife of {{Lore Link|Shor}} and of {{Lore Link|Auriel|Auri-el}} and the Sacred Bull, and would render this land alive again, not through pain but through a return to the dragon-fires of covenant, to join east and west and throw off all ruin. And the shieldthane bore witness to the spirit opening naked to his king, carving on a nearby rock the words AND HROL DID LOVE UNTO A HILLOCK before dying in the sight of their union.

When the fifteen other knights found King Hrol, they saw him dead after his labors against a mound of mud. And they parted each in their way, and some went mad, and the two that returned to their homeland beyond Twil would say nothing of Hrol, and acted ashamed for him.

But after nine months that mound of mud became as a small mountain, and there were whispers among the shepherds and bulls. A small community of believers gathered around that growing hill during the days of its first churning, and they were the first to name it the Golden Hill, {{Lore Link|Sancre Tor}}. And it was the shepherdess Sed-Yenna who dared climb the hill when she heard his first cry, and at its peak she saw what it had yielded, an infant she named {{Lore Link|Reman}}, which is "Light of Man."

And in the child's forehead was the Chim-el Adabal, alive with the dragon-fires of yore and divine promise, and none dared obstruct Sed-Yenna when she climbed the steps of White-Gold Tower to place the babe Reman on his Throne, where he spoke as an adult, saying I AM CYRODIIL COME.

'''Chapter 2: THE CHEVALIER RENALD, BLADE OF THE PIG'''

And in the days of interregnum, the Chim-el Adabal was lost again amid the petty wars of gone-heathen kings. West and east knew no union then and all the lands outside of them saw Cyrodiil as a nest of snakemen and snakes. And for four more hundreds of years did the seat of Reman stay sundered, with only the machinations of a group of loyal knights keeping all its borders from throwing wide.

These loyal knights did go by no name then, but were known by their eastern swords and painted eyes, and it was whispered that they were descended from the bodyguard of old Reman. One of their number, called the Chevalier Renald, discovered the prowess of {{Lore Link|Cuhlecain}} and then supported him towards the throne. Only later would it be revealed that Renald did this thing to come closer to Talos, anon Stormcrown, the glorious yet-emperor Tiber Septim; only later still, that he was under instruction by a pig.

Long glory was wife to the all the knights of the dragon-banner, who knew no other and were brothers before beyond many seas and now were brothers under the law named the blade-surrender of Pale Pass. And having vampire blood these brother-knights lived for ages through and past Reman and then kept guard over his ward, the coiled king, {{Lore Link|Versidue-Shaie}}. The snake-captain Vershu became Renald became the protector of the northern west when the black dart was hooked into Savirien-Chorak.

[Here torn pages indicate that the rest of this ancient book has been lost.]

Morrowind:Heavy Armor Trainers

2008-08-16T16:29:13Z

Benould: Undo revision 351736 by 64.252.182.242 (Talk) last level you can train at is 54. all our trainers are like that

{{Morrowind Trainers Trail}}
==[[Image:Heavyarmor attribicon.jpg]] [[Morrowind:Heavy Armor|Heavy Armor]]==
{|class=wikitable width=100%
!Level!!Trainer!!Location!!colspan=2|Other Skills!!Notes
|-
!100
|[[Morrowind:Seanwen|Seanwen]]||[[Morrowind:Vivec Arena|Vivec]], Arena Fighters Training
|{{ID|[[Morrowind:Blunt Weapon|Blunt Weapon]] (68)}}||{{ID|[[Morrowind:Long Blade|Long Blade]] (68)}}
|
|-
!76
|[[Morrowind:Shardie|Shardie]]||[[Morrowind:Buckmoth Legion Fort|Buckmoth Legion Fort]] (-2,5)
|{{ID|''[[Morrowind:Block|Block]] (100)''}}||{{ID|[[Morrowind:Long Blade|Long Blade]] (86)}}
|
|-
!71
|[[Morrowind:Ulms Drathen|Ulms Drathen]]||[[Morrowind:Molag Mar|Molag Mar]], Armigers Stronghold
|{{ID|''[[Morrowind:Long Blade|Long Blade]] (100)''}}||{{ID|[[Morrowind:Block|Block]] (71)}}
|
|-
!54
|[[Morrowind:Wayn|Wayn]]||[[Morrowind:Balmora|Balmora]], Guild of Fighters
|{{ID|[[Morrowind:Armorer|Armorer]] (54)}}||{{ID|[[Morrowind:Blunt Weapon|Blunt Weapon]] (54)}}
|
|-
!52
|[[Morrowind:Ondi|Ondi]]||[[Morrowind:Khuul|Khuul]], Thongar's Tradehouse
|{{ID|[[Morrowind:Axe|Axe]] (57)}}||{{ID|[[Morrowind:Long Blade|Long Blade]] (52)}}
|
|}

Lore:Poison Song V

2008-08-16T08:37:22Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Poison Song, v5, Book V
|title=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]'', Book V
|MW=yes
}}</noinclude>
For two days, the House healers attended Tay in his bed, and Baynarah sat by his side, holding his hand. He was feverish, neither asleep nor awake, screaming at invisible phantoms. The healers complimented the young man's fortitude. Bodies had washed ashore on the island of Gorne several times, many during the War, but never once had they seen one that lived afterwards.

Aunt Ulliah came in several times to bring Baynarah food: “You must be careful, dear, or when he's all well, he'll have to attend you on your sickbed.”

Tay's fever broke, and at last he was able to open his eyes and see the young woman with whom he had spent seventeen years, all but the first year of his life. She smiled at him, and called for food. In silence, she helped him eat.

“I knew you wouldn't die, cousin,” she whispered fondly.

“I hoped to, but somehow I knew I wouldn't either,” he groaned. “Baynarah, do you remember all those nightmares I told you about? They're all true.”

“We can talk about it when you've rested some more.”

“No,” he croaked. “I must tell you everything now, so you'll know what kind of a monster you call your dear cousin Tay. If there was some way you could have known before, you might not have been so eager to see me well again.”

A tear rolled Baynarah's cheek. She had grown into a beauty, even in the few months he had been away in Mournhold. “How can you think I would stop loving you, no matter what you've done?”

“I saw my old nursemaid Edebah, and spoke to her.”

“Oh,” Baynarah had feared this moment. “Tay, I don't know what she told you, but it was all my fault. You remember when Kena Grafisi taught us about the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:House Dagoth|House Dagoth]], and its corruption. That night, I saw your nursemaid making some kind of altar out on the north lawn, using the symbol of the Sixth House. She must have been doing it for years, but I never knew what it meant. I told Uncle Triffith, and he sent her away. I've wanted to tell you so many times now, but I was afraid to. She was so devoted to you.”

Tay smiled. “And didn't it frighten you even more to wonder if there was any connection between her devotion to me, and her devotion to the accursed House? I know you, Baynarah. You're not one of those women who doesn't choose to use her mind.”

“Tay, I don't know what she told you, but I think she was very troubled, and whatever she thought about you and the Sixth House was wrong. You have to remember that. The ramblings of one madwoman are proof of nothing.”

“There's more,” Tay sighed, and held up his hand. For a moment he blinked, and then turned to Baynarah angrily. “What happened to my ring? If you saw it, you must have known already that everything I'm saying to you is true.”

“I threw the filthy thing away,” Baynarah stood up. “Tay, I'm going to let you rest now.”

“I am the heir of House Dagoth,” Tay was wild-eyed, almost screaming. “Raised after the War as House Indoril, but driven by the Song of my ancestors. When we were young, I killed Vaster because the Song told me he had stolen my inheritance. When Edebah told me who I was and gave me this ring, I killed her and burned her house to the ground, because the Song told me she had served her purpose. When I returned to Kalkorith's house, my love was there, telling me that she was of the House Dagoth too, and my sister. I fled, and when Kalkorith tried to stop me, I slew him, because the Song told me he was an enemy.”

“Tay, stop,” Baynarah sobbed. “I don't believe a word of it. You've been feverish...”

“Not Tay,” he shook his head, breathing heavily. “The name my parents gave me was Dagoth-Tython.”

“You can't have killed Edebah, you loved her. And Vaster and Kalkorith? They were our cousins!”

“They were not my true cousins,” Tay said coldly. “The Song told me they were my foes. Just as it's telling me now that you're my foe, but I won't listen. And I'll keep from listening... as long as I can.”

Baynarah fled from the room, slamming the door behind her. She took a key from the her startled maid Hillima, and secured the lock.

“Serjo Indoril-Baynarah,” Hillima whispered, with great sympathy. “Is all well with your cousin, Serjo Indoril-Tay?”

“He'll be perfectly fine once he rests,” Baynarah recovered her dignity, wiping the tears from her face. “No one is to disturb him under any circumstances. I'll take the key with me. Now I have much work to do. I don't suppose anyone's spoken to the fishermen about restocking Sandil House's supplies?”

“I don't know, serjo,” said the maid. “I don't think so.”

Baynarah marched down to the docks, and relieved her troubled heart the only way she knew how, by concentrating on small things. Tay's words never left her, but she found temporary comfort talking to the fishermen about their haul, helping determine how much should be smoked, how much should be sent to the village, how much should be delivered fresh to the House larder.

Her aunt Ulliah joined the discussion, oblivious to Baynarah's well-disguised agony. Together, they discussed how many provisions Uncle Triffith and his commanders had devoured during their weeks on the island, when they would be expected to return, and how best to prepare. One of the fishermen on the docks called out, interrupting.

“A boat is coming!”

Ulliah and Baynarah greeted the visitor as she arrived. It was a young woman dressed in the robes of a Temple priestess. As she docked her small boat, Baynarah marveled at how beautiful she was, and strangely familiar.

“Welcome to Gorne,” said Baynarah. “I am Indoril-Baynarah and this is my aunt Indoril-Ulliah. Have we met before?”

“I don't believe so, serjo,” the woman bowed. “I was sent by the Temple to inquire whether word had come from your cousin, Indoril-Tay. He has been missing from his classes for some days now, and the priests have become concerned.”

“Oh, we should have sent word,” Ulliah fretted. “He came here a few days ago, half-drowned. He's better now. Let us escort you up to the house.”

“Tay's resting now, and I asked that he not be disturbed,” Baynarah stammered. “Actually, I know it's dreadful manners, but I need to talk to my aunt for a moment. Would it be too terrible if I asked you to wait for us at the house? You have only to follow the path up the hill and across the lawn.”

The priestess bowed again humbly, and began the walk. Ulliah was scandalized.

“You know better than to treat a representative of the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Tribunal Temple|Temple]] that way,” she snapped. “You can't be so exhausted from tending your cousin to have lost all sense of civility.”

“Aunt Ulliah,” Baynarah whispered, drawing the woman away from the ears of the fishermen. “Is Tay truly my cousin? He believes himself to be ... of the House Dagoth.”

Ulliah took a moment to respond. “It's true. You were just a baby yourself during the War, so you couldn't know what it was like. There was not a part of [[Lore:Morrowind|Morrowind]] that wasn't ravaged. There was even a battle here on the island. Do you remember that burned pile of wreckage you and Tay and poor little Vaster discovered so many years ago? That was the remains. And after the War, when that accursed House was finally defeated, we saw the little innocents, the orphans whose only crime had been born to wicked parents. I admit there were some in our armies, the combined forces of the Houses, who would have had them all slaughtered to annihilate the legacy of Dagoth. In the end, compassion prevailed, and the children of the Sixth House were adopted into the other five. And so we thought that we had won the war and the peace.”

“By the Mother, Lord, and Wizard, if all that Tay believes is true, then there is no peace,” Baynarah trembled. “He claims that the Song of his ancestors called to him, and forced him to slay three people, two of them our Housemen. Cousin Kalkorith and ... when he was a little boy ... Vaster.”

Ulliah held her hands over her tearful face and could not speak.

“And it is only beginning,” said Baynara. “The Song still calls to him. He said there were others who knew, who would help him raise up the Sixth House. His sister...”

“It must be an evil fantasy,” Ulliah murmured. She noticed that Baynarah's gaze was now upon the path leading from the docks towards the house. “Niece, what are you thinking?”

“Did that priestess give us her name?”

The two women ran up the path, calling for guards. The fishermen, who had never seen the mistresses of the house so undone, looked briefly at one another and then followed quickly behind, pulling out their hooks and blades.

The front gate to Sandil House stood wide open, the first of the corpses lying close within. It was now an abattoir, painted fresh with blood. There was Aner, uncle Triffith's valet, gutted but still seated at the foyer table where he had been enjoying his afternoon glass of flin. Leryne, one of the chambermaids, had been decapitated while carrying some once-clean linens up the stairs. The bodies of guards and servants sprawled about the hall like blown leaves. At the top of the stairs, Baynarah had to hold back a sob when she saw Hillima. She lay like a broken doll, slain as she tried to pull herself out onto the narrow window ledge.

No one spoke, not Baynarah, nor Aunt Ulliah, nor the fishermen, as they walked slowly through the blood-drenched house. They passed Tay's sick-room, its door broken open, and no one within. When they heard the sound of footsteps in Baynarah's room down the hall, they approached slowly, cautiously, with great dread.

The priestess from the docks was standing by the bed. In her hand was the silver ring Baynarah had taken from Tay's finger. In her other hand was a long, curved blade, splashed like her once pristine gown, with gore. She smiled prettily and bowed when she saw she was no longer alone.

“Acra, I should have recognized you by Tay's description in his letters,” Baynarah said in her steadiest voice. “Where is my cousin?”

“I prefer to call myself Dagoth-Acra,” she replied. “Your false cousin, my true brother, has already gone to fulfill his destiny. I'm sorry you were not here so he could give you a more permanent farewell.”

Baynarah's face twisted in fury. She motioned for the fishermen, who advanced with their weaponry. “Tear her apart.”

“The Sixth House will rise again, and Dagoth-Tython will lead us!” Acra laughed. Her words were still echoing as she gave the sign of Recall and vanished like a ghost.

{{Book Footer
|Skippage=Poison Song
|Prev=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song IV|Poison Song IV]]''
|Up=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]''
|Next=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song VI|Poison Song VI]]''
}}

Lore:Poison Song IV

2008-08-16T08:20:54Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Poison Song, v4, Book IV
|title=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]'', Book IV
|MW=yes
}}</noinclude>
Acra sat by the hearth in Tay's room, reading her book by the fire. It concerned some minutiae of theosophy that she did not believe in, but nevertheless found morbidly compelling. When the door opened and she heard Tay enter, she finished the paragraph she was reading before looking up.

“I've been here for hours, darling. If I knew you were going to be so late, I would have brought more books,” she giggled. When she saw Tay's face and the state of his clothing, her manner lost all frivolity. “What happened to you? Are you all right?”

“I've been to see my old childhood nursemaid, Edebah,” he said in a strange voice. “It was a sudden change of plans. I hadn't realized she was in [[Lore:Mournhold|Mournhold]].”

“I wish I had known where you were going,” she said, rising slowly from her chair. “I would have loved to have met her.”

“Well, it's too late now. I've killed her.”

Acra inhaled deeply, studying Tay's frozen face. She took his hand. “Perhaps you ought to tell me everything.”

Tay let his beloved lead him to the hearth, where he sat blinking at the fire. He looked down at the silver ring on his finger. “Before I killed her, she gave me this. It's the sealing ring of the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:House Dagoth|House Dagoth]]. She told me I was the bearer of the inheritance, and the Song I hear all the time in my head, the one that called me to kill another boy when I was young, and then Edebah herself, is the Song of my ancestors.”

Tay fell silent. Acra knelt by his side, stroking his ringed hand. “Tell me more.”

“My tutor Kena Gafrisi taught us that the House Dagoth was a curse on Morrowind. He said that when they were all destroyed at the end of the War, the very earth itself breathed in relief,” Tay closed his eyes. “I can see the obliteration. I can even hear it in the Song. Edebah told me that the five Houses adopted the orphan children of Dagoth, raising them in their own traditions. I thought she was mad or a liar, but the real lie was all those years I thought my family was [[Lore:House Indoril|House Indoril]].”

“What are you going to do?” Acra whispered.

“Well, Edebah told me to follow the Song to my destiny,” Tay laughed bitterly. “But the Song led me to kill her, so I don't know if she'd still give me that recommendation now. I know that I need to leave Mournhold. Before I knew what I was doing, I set a fire in her tenement. The guards were called. I just don't know where I'd go.”

“You have many friends to shield you if you prove yourself to be the new leader of the return of the Sixth House,” Acra kissed the ring. “I will help you find them.”

Tay stared at her. “Why would you help me?”

“When you thought I was your cousin of the House Indoril, you did not mind having me though it might well have been incestuous,” Acra replied, meeting his eyes. “I have heard the Song too. It is not as strong with me as it was with you, but I never chose to ignore it. It taught me more than the ridiculous Temple priests and priestesses ever could. I knew that my true name was Dagoth-Acra, and I knew that I had a brother.”

“No,” Tay said through gritted teeth. “You're lying.”

“You are Dagoth-Tython.”

Tay shoved Acra hard against the wall and ran from the room. As he fled through the hall, he heard the sound of Kalkorith's footfall on the stairs behind him, a percussive instrument in the Song that was rising in his heart and head

“Cousin,” the senior initiate was saying. “Have you heard about the fire--"

Tay unsheathed his dagger and turned, burying it to the hilt in Kalkorith's throat. “Cousin,” he hissed. “I am not your cousin.”

The streets of Mournhold were lit by the red glow of the tenement fire, spreading through the tight alleyways by a steady and intense gust of wind. It was as if [[Lore:Dagoth Ur|Dagoth-Ur]] himself was looming over the city, fanning the flames his heir had struck. A House guard, running toward the blaze, stopped at the sight of Tay, standing uncertainly, swaying, before the front door of Kalkorith's house, a bloodied blade in his hand.

“What you done, serjo?”

Tay ran for the forest, his cape whipping behind him by the force of the howling wind. The guard clambered after him, sword drawn. He had no need to investigate the house to see the murder. He knew.

For hours, Tay raced through the wilderness, the Song pushing him onward. The sound of his pursuer faded away. At last, the trees thinned, and he saw nothing before him but air and water. A cliff, a hundred foot long plunge into the Inner Sea.

The Song told him no. It pulled him north, sweetly promising a place to rest among friends. More than friends -- people who would worship him as the heir of Dagoth. As he slowly walked toward the edge of the cliff, the Song became more threatening, warning him not to seek to avoid his fate. There was no escape in death.

Tay spat a curse upon his House and threw himself head first over the cliff.

It was another glorious day on the island of Gorne, the first one in weeks that Baynarah could truly enjoy. Uncle Triffith had important company, Housemen from far away, and she had been required to attend every dinner, every meeting, every ceremony. As a child, she remembered, she had hoped for some attention. Now nothing was more blissful than time away from her duties.

There was only one thing she wanted to do that she had to do indoors, and that was writing a letter to her cousin. But that could wait until the evening, she told herself. After all, he had not written her in many days. It was the influence of that girl, Acra. Not that she seemed disagreeable, but Baynarah knew how one's first love can be all-consuming. At least, she had read about it.

As she walked idly through the wildflower meadow, Baynarah was so distracted with her thoughts that she did not hear her maid Hillima calling. She was quite startled when she turned to see the young servant running up.

“Serjo,” she said, breathlessly. “Please come! Someone has washed up on the shore! It's your cousin, Serjo Indoril-Tay!”

{{Book Footer
|Skippage=Poison Song
|Prev=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song III|Poison Song III]]''
|Up=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]''
|Next=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song V|Poison Song V]]''
}}

Lore:Poison Song III

2008-08-16T08:13:53Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Poison Song, v3, Book III
|title=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]'', Book III
|MW=yes
}}</noinclude>
Tay was eighteen in the year 685 of the [[Lore:First Era|First Era]] when he first saw [[Lore:Mournhold|Mournhold]], the city of spires, home of the goddess. His cousin Kalkorith, already a senior initiate in the Temple, gave him a couple rooms on the ground floor of the house he had purchased. They were small and unfurnished, but [[Morrowind:Bittergreen Petals|bittergreen]] grew outside the windows, and when the wind blew, they filled his bedroom with a lovely spicy air.

The chords of the Song did not trouble him anymore. Sometimes he was even unconscious to it, so low and melodic it had become. Occasionally when he was passing through the streets on the way to the Temple for his instruction, someone would pass him and the Song would rise in intensity before falling away again. Whatever was different about those people, Tay never tried to ascertain. He remembered the last time he had let the Song lead him, and called for him to murder his young cousin Vaster. The memory did not trouble him unduly, but he did not want to hurt anyone again unless he had to.

House couriers regularly brought Tay letters from Baynarah, still back in Sandil House on the island of Gorne. She might have gone to study at the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Tribunal Temple|Temple]], she was certainly intelligent enough, but she chose not to. In a year or two at most, she would have to leave and assume her place in [[Lore:House Indoril|House Indoril]], but she was not in a hurry. Tay welcomed the trivial gossipy news the letters brought, and responded back with news of his own studies and romances.

In his third month in Mournhold, he had already met a girl. She was also a student at the Temple, and her name was Acra. Tay wrote enthusiastically about her to Baynarah, describing her as having the mind of [[Lore:Sotha Sil|Sotha Sil]], the wit of [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Vivec (god)|Vivec]], and the beauty of [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Almalexia (god)|Almalexia]]. Baynarah replied back merrily that if she had known how blasphemous students of the Temple were allowed to be, she might have become an initiate herself.

“You are very devoted to your cousin,” Acra laughed when Tay showed her the letter. “Am I looking at the last remains of a thwarted romance?”

“She's lovely, but I never thought of her that way,” Tay scoffed. “Incest never particularly interested me.”

“Is she a very close cousin then?”

Tay thought for a moment: “I don't know. Truthfully, no one spoke much of either her parents or mine, so I really don't know how we were connected. They were casualties of the [[Lore:Battle of Red Mountain|War of the Red Mountain]], that I know, and it seemed to cast rather a pall on the adults' humor whenever we asked about her parents or mine. After a while, we stopped asking. But you're an [[Lore:House Indoril|Indoril]] too. Perhaps you're a closer cousin to me than Baynarah.”

“Perhaps so,” Acra smiled, rising from her chair. She uncoiled her hair, which had been pulled up in the formal arrangement reserved for well-born priestesses. As Tay watched transfigured, she removed the small brooch that fastened her robe to her shoulder cape. The soft silken fabric slipped down slowly, exposing her dark, slender body to him for the first time. “If we are, does incest particularly interest you now?”

As they made love, the Song began a slow, rhythmic ascension in Tay's head. The vision of Acra before him darkened and was replaced by images from his nightmares before returning again. When finally he collapsed, spent, the room seemed filled with the fiery red clouds of his dream, and the scream of the woman and her child facing death echoed in his head. He opened his eyes, and there was Acra, smiling at him. Tay kissed her, grateful to have her in his arms.

For the next two weeks, Tay and Acra were never far apart. Even when they were at study in opposite wings of the Temple, Tay thought of her, and somehow knew she was thinking of him. They would rush to be together afterwards, ravishing one another in his rooms every night, and in a private corner of the Temple garden every day.

It was while Tay was rushing to see his beloved one afternoon that the Song rose up in powerful strident tones at the approach of an old, ragged woman. He closed his eyes and tried to quiet it, but when he looked again at her purchasing corkbulb papyrus from a street vendor, he knew who she was. His old nursemaid from Gorne, Edebah. She who had abandoned him without even a farewell to join her family on the mainland.

She didn't see him, and as she passed down the street, Tay turned and began to follow. They walked through shadowy passageways into the very poorest part of the city, a quarter which was as alien to him as the wildest principality of [[Lore:Akavir|Akavir]]. She unlocked a small wooden door on a street without a name, and he finally called out her name. She didn't turn, but when he followed, he found that the door had been left ajar.

The chamber was murky and damp like a cave. She stood facing him, her face even more wrinkled than he had remembered it, etched with lines of sorrow. He closed the door behind him, and she took his hand and kissed it.

“You are so tall and strong,” Edebah said, beginning to weep. “I should have killed myself before I let them take me away from you.”

“How is your family?” Tay asked coldly.

“You are my only family,” she whispered. “The Indoril pigs forced me to leave, thrusting their blades in my face, when they discovered that I serve you and your family, not them. That bitch girl Baynarah saw me at a prayer of mourning.”

“You're speaking like a madwoman,” Tay sneered. “How could you love me and my family, but hate the House Indoril? I am of the House Indoril.”

“You are old enough to know the truth,” Edebah said fiercely. Tay had bitterly joked about her madness, but he saw something close to it burning in her ancient eyes. “You were not born of House Indoril; they brought you into their house after the War, like they and the other Houses brought in all the orphans. It was the only way they saw to erase history and remove all traces of their enemies, by raising their enemies as one of them.”

Tay turned toward the door: “I can see why you were taken away from Gorne, old woman. You are delusional.”

“Wait!” Edebah cried, rushing to a musty cabinet. She retrieved from it a glass globe that shimmered with a spectrum of color even in the chamber's gloom. “Do you remember this? You slew that little boy Vaster because he possessed it, and I took it from your room because you were not ready to face the facts of your inheritance and responsibility then. Did you not wonder why this bauble drew you so?”

Tay gasped, and though he did not want to, he said, “I hear a Song sometimes.”

“That is the Song of your ancestors, of your true family,” she said, nodding. “You must not fight it, for it is a song of destiny. It will lead you to do what must be done.”

“Shut up!” Tay howled, “Everything you say is a lie! You're insane!”

Edebah threw the globe to the ground with all her might, shattering it with a deafening retort. The shards melted into the air. All that was left was a small silver ring, simply wrought with a flat crown. The old woman quietly picked it up and handed it to him, while he stood with his back against the door, trembling.

“This is your inheritance, as the bearer of the Sixth House.”

The ring's crown was meant for stamping and sealing official House proclamations. Tay had seen his uncle Triffith's similar ring, crested with the wing which was the seal of House Indoril. This ring was different, with an insect design which he remembered from the day when Kena Gafrisi had taught the House heraldry to Baynarah and him.

It was the symbol of the accursed [[{{NAMESPACE}}:House Dagoth|House Dagoth]].

The Song took over all of Tay's senses. He heard its music, smelled its horror, tasted its sadness, felt its power, and the only thing he could see before him was the flames of its destruction. When he took the ring and placed it on his finger, his mind was not aware of what he was doing. Nor was Tay aware of anything but the Song when he removed his dagger from its sheath and thrust it into his old nursemaid's heart.

Tay did not even hear her final words, when Edebah fell bleeding to the ground, and groaned with a blood-streaked smile, “Thank you.”

When the veil of the Song lifted, Tay did not realize at first he was no longer dreaming. Before him had been flames, the very ones that destroyed the home of his birth, and flames were before him again. But they were flames from a fire he had struck outside the crumbling tenement that were already bursting through walls, consuming the body of his old nursemaid.

Tay fled through the streets as people began to call for the guards.

{{Book Footer
|Skippage=Poison Song
|Prev=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song II|Poison Song II]]''
|Up=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]''
|Next=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song IV|Poison Song IV]]''
}}

Lore:Poison Song II

2008-08-16T08:04:45Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Poison Song, v2, Book II
|title=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]'', Book II
|MW=yes
}}</noinclude>
Tay felt no guilt, which frightened him. All through the long, fast walk away from the gorge, through the woods, across the dry creek bed, he chatted merrily with Baynarah, fully aware that he had just committed murder. Whenever his mind strayed from the conversation, and he thought back on the last moments of Vaster's short life, the Song would soar. He could not think of the boy's death, but Tay knew he was responsible.

“You're a mess!” cried Aunt Ulliah the moment she saw the two children emerging from the woods onto the grounds of Sandil House. “Where have you been?”

“Didn't Vaster already tell you?” asked Tay.

The scene played itself out as Tay knew it would, every dancer in the Song performing their steps as choreographed. Aunt Ulliah saying that she had not seen Vaster. Baynarah, not yet frightened, making up an innocent lie about the threesome not having strayed far, saying he must have gotten lost. A slow but steady rhythm of panic intensifying as night began to fall, and Vaster had not yet returned. Baynarah and Tay tearfully (he was surprised how easy it was for him to cry without feeling) admitting where they had been, and leading Uncle Triffith and a crowd of servants to the junk pile and gorge. The tireless search through the woods as night turned to dawn. The weeping. The light punishment, merely cries of anger, that Baynarah and Tay suffered for losing their young cousin.

It was thought, from their stricken expressions, that the children felt guilty enough. They were sent to bed at dawn while the hunt through the woods continued.

Tay was drifting to sleep when his nursemaid Edebah came into his room. The look of unwavering love and devotion had not left her eyes, and he sank gratefully into his dreams and nightmares with her holding his hand. The Song wafted almost imperceptibly through his consciousness as he again had the vision of the room in the castle. The girl and her baby. The bird in the rafters. The dying fire. The sudden explosion of violence. Breathless, Tay opened his eyes.

Edebah was stealing out the door, softly humming the Song to herself. In her hand was the crystal globe from his satchel. For a moment, he hesitated, about to cry out. How did she know the Song? Was she aware that he had murdered another boy to get the globe?

Somehow he knew that she was helping him, that she knew all and loved him and sought only to protect him.

The next day, and the next week, and the next month were all the same. No one spoke very much, and when they did it was to suggest new places to look for the missing boy. Everywhere had been searched thoroughly. Tay was curious why they never looked in the gorge, but he understood how inaccessible it was.

A side-effect of Vaster's absence was that the tutorial sessions with Kena Gafrisi took on a more serious, even academic quality. The younger boy's high spirits and meager attentiveness had always cut the lessons short, but sensible Baynarah and quiet Tay were ideal pupils. He was particularly impressed by how focused they became during a rather dry history lecture about the heraldic symbols of [[Lore:Great Houses|Houses of Morrowind]].

“The crest of the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:House Hlaalu|Hlaalu]] features a scale,” he sniffed disdainfully. “They see themselves as the great compromisers, as if that were something honorable. Many hundreds of years ago, they were the tribesmen following [[Lore:Resdayn|Resdayn]] who chose--“

“Pardon me, Kena,” asked Baynarah. “But what is the crest with the insect on it?”

“You don't know [[{{NAMESPACE}}:House Redoran|House Redoran]]?” asked the tutor, lifting up one of the shields. “I know you have a sheltered life on Gorne, but you're surely old enough to recognize--"

“Not that one, Kena,” replied Tay. “I think she means the other crest with an insect.”

“I see,” nodded Kena Gafrisi, brow furrowed. “Yes, you would be too young to have ever seen the crest of the Sixth House, the [[Lore:House Dagoth|House of Dagoth]]. Our enemies together with the accursed heretical [[Lore:Dwemer|Dwemer]] in the [[Lore:Battle of Red Mountain|War of the Red Mountain]], now totally destroyed, thanks be to [[Lore:Vivec (god)|Lord]], [[Lore:Almalexia (god)|Mother]], and [[Lore:Sotha Sil|Wizard]]. That House was a curse on our land for millennia, and when at last their pestilence was snuffed out, the very earth itself breathed a cloud of fire and ash in relief, bringing night to day for over a year's time.”

Baynarah and Tay knew they could not speak, but they exchanged knowing glances at one another as the tutor enlarged on the theme of the great wickedness of the Dwemer and the House Dagoth. As soon as the lesson ended, they walked silently out of Sandil House until they were far from all ears and eyes.

The afternoon sun stretched out the shadows of the spear-like trees surrounding the meadow. Off in the distance, they could hear the sounds of the workers beginning their preparations for the autumntide harvest, yelling to one another unintelligibly in coarse and familiar accents.

“That was definitely the symbol on that shield you found at the garbage heap,” Baynarah said at last. “Everything there must be a remnant of the House Dagoth.”

Tay nodded. His mind was on the strange crystal globe. He felt a light vibration of soundless music touch his body, and knew he was discovering a new cadence of the Song.

“Why would our people have burned and discarded all that?” he asked thoughtfully. “Do you think the House Dagoth was so evil that everything associated with them could have been cursed?”

Baynarah laughed. At the height of day, all talk of curses and the evil Sixth House were pure supposition: something to add romance to one's life, but nothing to worry about. The two children walked back to the castle for yet another in a series of cold, quiet dinners. As the night fell, Baynarah looked through the treasures she had picked up in the junk heap. By the light of the moons, the small jars, the torc with orange gemstones, the bits of tarnished silver and gold of no obvious purpose, all took on a sinister aspect.

Revulsion overtook her feeling of admiration instantly. There was a strange energy to them, a tincture of death and corruption that was undeniable. Baynarah ran to the window and vomited.

Looking out to the dark open lawn below, she saw a figure below lighting an arrangement of candles in the shape of a large insect, the symbol of the House Dagoth. When it looked in her direction, she pulled back, but she saw the face illuminated by the tallows. It was Edebah, Tay's nursemaid.

The next morning, Baynarah left the castle grounds early, bearing a large sack filled with her treasures. She carried them to the dumping ground and left them there. Then she returned, and told her Uncle Triffith what she had seen the night before, leaving out only what had made her sick in the first place.

Edebah was banished from the isle of Gorne without discussion. She wept, begging to be allowed to say goodbye to Tay, but all believed that would be too dangerous. When Tay asked what had become of her, he was told she had to return to her family on the mainland. He had grown too old for a nursemaid.

Baynarah never told him what she knew. For she was afraid.

{{Book Footer
|Skippage=Poison Song
|Prev=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song I|Poison Song I]]''
|Up=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]''
|Next=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song III|Poison Song III]]''
}}

Lore:Poison Song I

2008-08-16T07:52:49Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Poison Song, v1, Book I
|title=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]'', Book I
|MW=yes
}}</noinclude>
It was beginning again. Even though everything seemed serene (the last embers crackling in the hearth; young servant girl and her child slumbering in a chair by the door; a tapestry half-finished against the wall, waiting to be completed tomorrow; one of the moons visible through a milky cloud outside the window; a lone bird, out of sight in the rafters, cooing placidly), Tay heard the first chords of the Song strike dissonantly somewhere far away.

The bird in the rafters croaked and took flight through the window. The baby in the girl's arms woke and began to scream. The Song swelled in intensity, yet still remained subtle and stately in tempo. The movement of everything seemed to take on the rhythm of the music as if strange choreography had been staged: the girl rising to the window, the clouds reflecting back red from the inferno below, her scream, all muted, consumed by the Song. Everything that came thereafter Tay had seen so many times, it had almost ceased to be a nightmare.

He did not remember anything of his life before coming to the island of Gorne, but he understood that there was something different in his past that set him apart from his cousins. It wasn't simply that his parents were dead. His cousin Baynarah's parents had also died in the War. Nor were the other Housemen on Gorne or nearby [[Lore:Mournhold|Mournhold]] unusually cruel to him. They treated him with the same polite indifference that any [[Lore:Indoril|Indoril]] has for every other eight-year-old boy that got underfoot.

But somehow, with absolutely certainty, Tay knew he was alone. Different. Because of a Song he always heard, and his nightmares.

“You're certainly imaginative,” his aunt Ulliah would smile patiently, before waving him away so she could return to her scriptures and chores.

“Different? Everyone in the world thinks they're 'different,' that's what makes it such a common sentiment,” said his older cousin Kalkorith who was studying to be Temple priest and had a firm grasp on paradoxes.

“If you tell anyone else that you keep hearing music where there's no music to be heard, they'll call you mad and bury you in the Shrine of [[Lore:Sheogorath|Sheogorath]],” his uncle Triffith would snarl, before striding away to attend his business.

Only his nursemaid Edebah would listen to him seriously, and just nod with a faint look of pride. But she would never say another word.

His cousin and chief playmate Baynarah was by far the least interested in the stories of his Song and his dreams.

"How tiresome you are with all this, Tay," said Baynarah, after luncheon the summer of his eighth year. He, she, and a younger cousin Vaster walked into a clearing in the midst of flowering trees. The grass was very low, barely up to their ankles, and there were big black piles of leaves from the previous autumn. “Now, shall we get back to it? What shall we play?"

Tay thought for a moment. "We could play the [[Lore:Orsinium#The_Siege_and_Destruction_of_Orsinium|Siege of Orsinium]]."

"What's that?" asked Vaster, their constant companion, three years their junior.

"[[Lore:Orsinium|Orsinium]] was the home of the [[Lore:orc|orc]]s, off in the [[Lore:Wrothgarian Mountains|Wrothgarian Mountains]]. For hundreds of years, it kept growing bigger and bigger and bigger. The orcs would come down out of the mountains and rape and pillage all over [[Lore:High Rock|High Rock]]. And then, King Joile of [[Lore:Daggerfall|Daggerfall]] and Gaiden Shinji of the [[Lore:Order of the Diagna|Order of Diagna]] and someone else, I forget, from [[Lore:Sentinel|Sentinel]] all joined together against Orsinium. For thirty years they fought and fought. Orsinium had walls made out of iron and, try as they might, they couldn't break through."

"So what happened?" asked Baynarah.

"You're so good at making up things that never happened, why don't you make it up?"

So they did. Tay was the King of the Orcs, perched up in a tree they called Orsinium. Baynarah and Vaster played King Joile and Gaiden Shinji and they threw pebbles and sticks up at Tay while he taunted them in his most guttural voice. The three decided that the Goddess Kynareth (played by Baynarah in dual role) answered the prayers of Gaiden Shinji and drenched Orsinium in a torrent of rain. The walls rusted and dissolved. On cue, Tay obligingly fell from the tree and let King Joile and Gaiden Shinji mangle him with their enchanted blades.

For the most of that summer, the year 675 of the [[Lore:First Era|First Era]], Tay was nearly insensible by the power of the sun. There were no clouds, but it rained most every night, so the vegetation on the island of Gorne was bewildering lush. The stones themselves seemed to glow with sunlight, and the ditches burned with white meadowsweet and parsleydown; all around him were soft smells of flower and tree untroubled by wind; the foliage was purple green, blue green, ash green, white green. The wide cupolas, twisting cobbled streets, and thatched roofs of the little village of Gorne, and massive bleached rock of Sandil House all were magical to him.

Yet the dreams haunted his nights and the Song continued whether he was awake or not.

Against Aunt Ulliah's admonishments, Tay, Baynarah, and Vaster had breakfast outdoors every morning with the servants. Ulliah would hold an interior breakfast for herself and any visiting dignitaries: guests were rare, so she often ate alone. At first the servants would dine in silence, attempting gentility, but they broke down and would regale the children with gossip, reports, stories, and rumors.

"Poor Arnyle is laid up with a fever again."

"I'm telling you, they're cursed. The whole lot of 'em. Piss on the faerie and they piss right back on you."

"Doesn't Little Miss Starsia look, oh, just a wee bit tight around the belly region late-ly?"

"She's not!"

The only servant who didn't speak at all was Tay's nursemaid Edebah. She wasn't pretty like the other maids, but the scars on her face did not deform her. Her poorly set broken nose and her short hair gave her a certain alien mystique. She would merely quietly smile at the gossip, and look at Tay with almost frightening love and devotion.

One day, after breakfast, Baynarah whispered to Tay and Vaster, "We have to go to the hills on the other side of the island."

She had used such imperatives before and always had something wonderful to show: a waterfall, tucked away behind ferns and tall rocks; a sunny grove of figs; a discreet still some peasants had set up; a sickly oak, twisted into a kneeling human figure; a collapsed stone wall that they imagined was thousands of years old, the last refuge of a doomed princess they named Merella.

The three walked across through the forest until they came to a clearing. A few hundred feet beyond, the meadow sank to a dry creek bed, filled with small, smooth stones. They followed that into the dark woods where trees canopied high over their heads. Sporadic red and yellow blossoms burst along the moist underbrush, but they became rarer and rarer as the children marched on under the umbrageous oaks and elms. The air crackled with birds ticking a staccato choral piece, a minor chord of the Song.

“Where are we going?” asked Tay.

“It's not where we're going, it's what we're going to see,” replied Baynarah.

The forest surrounded the three children completely, bathed them in its tenebrous hues, and breathed on them with wet chirrups and sighs. It was easy for them to imagine that they were within a monster, walking along its twisted spine of stones.

Baynarah scrambled up the steep hill and peered through the thick mass of shrub and tree. Tay lifted Vaster out of the creek bed and climbed out, gripping soft grass for support. There was no path through the forest here. Brambles and low hanging branches struck at them like the claws of chained beasts. The cries of the birds became ever more stentorious, as if angered at the invasion. One limb drew blood on Vaster's cheek, but he didn't cry out. Even Baynarah, who could pass like an ethereal creature through impenetrable forests, had a braid catch on a bramble, ruining the intricate pattern a servant had woven hours before. She paused to pull out the other braid, so her bright unruly tresses fell freely behind her. Now she was something wild, a nymph guiding the other two through her woodland domain. The Song began to beat like a wild pulse.

They were on a shelf of stone below a cliff overlooking a tremendous gorge, staring over an expanse of cinder. It looked like the scene of a tremendous battle, a holocaust of fire. Charred boxes, weaponry, animal bones, and detritus too annihilated to be identifiable littered the ground. Speechless, Tay and Vaster stepped into the black field. Baynarah smiled, proud that she had finally found something of true wonder and mystery.

“What is this place?” asked Vaster at last.

“I don't know,” Baynarah shrugged. “I thought at first that it was some kind of ruin, but now I think it's a junk pile, just not like any junk pile I've ever seen. Just look at this stuff.”

The three began an unorganized survey of the dusty mounds of refuse. Baynarah found a twisted sword only lightly blackened by flame and began polishing it to read the inscriptions on the blade. Vaster amused himself by breaking brittle boxes with his hands and feet, imagining himself a giant of unbelievable strength. A battered shield attracted Tay: there was something about it that reverberated with the sound of the Song. He pulled it out, and wiped its surface clean.

“I've never seen that crest before,” said Baynarah, looking over Tay's shoulder.

“I think I have, but I don't remember,” Tay whispered, trying to conjure the memory from his dreams. He was sure he had seen it there.

“Look at this!” Vaster cried, interrupting Tay's thoughts. The boy was holding up a crystal orb. As his hand moved over the surface, brushing away grit and dust, a key in the Song rose which sent a shiver through Tay's entire body. Baynarah ran over to look at Vaster's treasure, but Tay felt paralyzed.

“Where did you find that?” she gasped, gazing into the swirl beneath the crystal surface.

“Over in that wagon,” Vaster gestured toward a heap of blackened wood, barely discernible from the other piles but for its cart spokes. Baynarah began digging into the half-collapsed structure, so only her feet could be seen. The Song built in potency, sweeping over Tay. He began walking toward Vaster slowly.

“Give me that,” he whispered in a voice he could barely recognize as his own.

“No,” Vaster whispered back, his eyes locked on the colors reflected in the heart of the globe. “It's mine.”

Baynarah dug through the remains of the wagon for several more minutes, but she could find no treasures like Vaster's. Most everything within was destroyed, and what remained was common-place by any standards: broken arrows, armor shards, guar bones. Frustrated, she pulled herself out into the sunlight.

Tay was alone, at the edge of the great gorge.

“Where's Vaster?”

Tay blinked and then turned back to his cousin with a shrug and a grin: “He went back to show everyone his new plunder. Did you find anything interesting?”

“Not really,” said Baynarah. “We probably ought to get back home before Vaster tells them anything that'll get us in trouble.”

Tay and Baynarah started the walk back at a quick pace. Tay knew that Vaster would not be there when they got back. He would never be returning home again. The crystal globe rested snugly in Tay's satchel, hidden under a pile of junk he had picked up. With all his heart, he prayed for the Song to return and drown out the memory of the gorge and the long, silent fall down. The boy had been so surprised, he hadn't even time to scream.

{{Book Footer
|Skippage=Poison Song
|Up=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song|Poison Song]]''
|Next=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Poison Song II|Poison Song II]]''
}}

Lore:The Wolf Queen, v1

2008-08-16T05:04:11Z

Benould: Mantiarco isn't Uriel Mantiarco, link fix, even if it is red

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Wolf Queen, v1, The
|title=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:The Wolf Queen|The Wolf Queen]]'', Book One
|MWName=The Wolf Queen, Book I
|OB=yes
|OBName=The Wolf Queen, v 1
}}</noinclude>
From the pen of the first century third era sage Montocai:

3E 63:
In the autumntide of the year, Prince [[Lore:Pelagius Septim|Pelagius]], son of Prince Uriel, who is son of the Empress [[Lore:Kintyra|Kintyra]], who is niece of the great Emperor [[Lore:Tiber Septim|Tiber Septim]], came to the [[Lore:High Rock|High Rock]] city-state of Camlorn to pay court to the daughter of King Vulstaed. Her name was Quintilla, the most beauteous princess in Tamriel, skilled at all the maidenly skills and an accomplished sorceress.

Eleven years a widower with a young son named [[Lore:Antiochus|Antiochus]], Pelagius arrived at court to find that the city-state was being terrorized by a great demon werewolf. Instead of wooing, Pelagius and Quintilla together went out to save the kingdom. With his sword and her sorcery, the beast was slain and by the powers of mysticism, Quintilla chained the beast's soul to a gem. Pelagius had the gem made into a ring and married her.

But it was said that the soul of the wolf stayed with the couple until the birth of their first child.

3E 80
"The ambassador from Solitude has arrived, your majesty," whispered the steward Balvus.

"Right in the middle of dinner?" muttered the Emperor weakly. "Tell him to wait."

"No, father, it's important that you see him," said Pelagius, rising. "You can't make him wait and then give him bad news. It's undiplomatic."

"Don't go then, you're much better at diplomacy than I am. We should have all the family here," Emperor Uriel II added, suddenly aware how few people were present at his dinner table. "Where's your mother?"

"Sleeping with the archpriest of [[Lore:Kynareth|Kynareth]]," Pelagius would have said, but he was, as his father said, diplomatic. Instead he said, "At prayer."

"And your brother and sister?"

"Amiel is in [[Lore:Firsthold|Firsthold]], meeting with the Archmagister of the [[Lore:Mages Guild|Mages Guild]]. And Galana, though we won't be telling this to the ambassador, of course, is preparing for her wedding to the Duke of Narsis. Since the ambassador expects her to be marrying his patron the King of Solitude instead, we'll tell him that she's at the spa, having a cluster of pestilent boils removed. Tell him that, and he won't press too hard for the marriage, politically expedient though it may be," Pelagius smiled. "You know how queasy [[Lore:Nord|Nords]] are about warty women."

"But dash it, I feel like I should have some family around, so I don't look like some old fool despised by his nearest and dearest," growled the Emperor, correctly suspecting this to be the case. "What about your wife? Where's she and the grandchildren?"

"Quintilla's in the nursery with [[Lore:Cephorus|Cephorus]] and [[Lore:Magnus|Magnus]]. Antiochus is probably whoring around the City. I don't know where [[Lore:Potema|Potema]] is, probably at her studies. I thought you didn't like children around."

"I do during meetings with ambassadors in damp staterooms," sighed the Emperor. "They lend an air of, I don't know, innocence and civility. Ah, show the blasted ambassador in," he said to Balvus.

Potema was bored. It was the rainy season in the Imperial Province, wintertide, and the streets and the gardens of the City were all flooded. She could not remember a time when it was not raining. Had it been only days, or had it been weeks or months since the sun shone? There was no judging of time any more in the constant flickering torch-light of the palace, and as Potema walked through marble and stone hallways, listening to the pelting of the rain, she could think nothing but that she was bored.

Asthephe, her tutor, would be looking for her now. Ordinarily, she did not mind studying. Rote memorization came easily to her. She quizzed herself as she walked down through the empty ballroom. When did Orsinium fall? 1E 980. Who wrote Tamrilean Tractates? Khosey. When was [[Lore:Tiber Septim|Tiber Septim]] born? 2E 288. Who is the current King of [[Lore:Daggerfall|Daggerfall]]? Mortyn, son of Gothlyr. Who is the current Silvenar? Varbarenth, son of Varbaril. Who is the Warlord of Lilmoth? Trick question: it's a lady, Ioa.

What will I get if I'm a good girl, and don't get into any trouble, and my tutor says I'm an excellent student? Mother and father will renege on their promise to buy me a daedric katana of my own, saying they never remembered that promise, and it's far too expensive and dangerous for a girl my age.

There were voices coming from the Emperor's stateroom. Her father, her grandfather, and a man with a strange accent, a Nord. Potema moved a stone she had loosened behind a tapestry and listened in.

"Let us be frank, your imperial majesty," came the Nord's voice. "My sire, the King of Solitude, doesn't care if Princess Galana looked like an orc. He wants an alliance with the Imperial family, and you agreed to give him Galana or give back the millions of gold he gave to you to quell the [[Lore:Khajiit|Khajiiti]] rebellion in Torval. This was the agreement you swore to honor."

"I remember no such agreement," came her father's voice, "Can you, my liege?"

There was a mumbling noise that Potema took to be her grandfather, the ancient Emperor.

"Perhaps we should take a walk to the Hall of Records, my mind may be going," the Nord's voice sounded sarcastic. "I distinctly remember your seal being placed on the agreement before it was locked away. Of course, I may verily be mistaken."

"We will send a page to the Hall to get the document you refer to," replied her father's voice, with the cruel, soothing quality he used whenever he was about to break a promise. Potema knew it well. She replaced the loose stone and hurried out of the ballroom. She knew well how slowly the pages walked, used to running errands for a doddering emperor. She could make it to the Hall of Records in no time at all.

The massive ebony door was locked, of course, but she knew what to do. A year ago, she caught her mother's Bosmer maid pilfering some jewelry, and in exchange for her silence, forced the young woman to teach her how to pick locks. Potema pulled two pins off her red diamond broach and slid the first into the first lock, holding her hand steady, and memorizing the pattern of tumblers and grooves within the mechanism.

Each lock had a geography of its own.

The lock to the kitchen larder: six free tumblers, a frozen seventh, and a counter bolt. She had broken into that just for fun, but if she had been a poisoner, the whole Imperial household would be dead by now, she thought, smiling.

The lock to her brother Antiochus' secret stash of Khajiiti pornography: just two free tumblers and a pathetic poisoned quill trap easily dismantled with pressure on the counterweight. That had been a profitable score. It was strange that Antiochus, who seemed to have no shame, proved so easy to blackmail. She was, after all, only twelve, and the differences between the perversions of the cat people and the perversions of the Cyrodiils seemed pretty academic. Still, Antiochus had to give her the diamond broach, which she treasured.

She had never been caught. Not when she broke into the archmage's study and stole his oldest spellbook. Not when she broke into the guest room of the King of [[Lore:Gilane|Gilane]], and stole his crown the morning before Magnus's official Welcoming ceremony. It had become too easy to torment her family with these little crimes. But here was a document the Emperor wanted, for a very important meeting. She would get it first.

But this, this was the hardest lock she ever opened. Over and over, she massaged the tumblers, gently pushing aside the forked clamp that snatched at her pins, drumming the counterweights. It nearly took her a half a minute to break through the door to the Hall of Records, where the Elder Scrolls were housed.

The documents were well organized by year, province, and kingdom, and it took Potema only a short while to find the Promise of Marriage between Uriel Septim II, by the Grace of the Gods, Emperor of the Holy Cyrodiilic Empire of Tamriel and his daughter the Princess Galana, and His Majesty King [[Lore:Mantiarco|Mantiarco]] of Solitude. She grabbed her prize and was out of the Hall with the door well-locked before the page was even in sight.

Back in the ball room, she loosened the stone and listened eagerly to the conversation within. For a few minutes, the three men, the Nord, the Emperor, and her father just spoke of the weather and some boring diplomatic details. Then there was the sound of footsteps and a young voice, the page.

"Your Imperial Majesty, I have searched the Hall of Records and cannot find the document you asked for."

"There, you see," came Potema's father's voice. "I told you it didn't exist."

"But I saw it!" The Nord's voice was furious. "I was there when my liege and the emperor signed it! I was there!"

"I hope you aren't doubting the word of my father, the sovereign Emperor of all Tamriel, not when there's now proof that you must have been ... mistaken," Pelagius's voice was low, dangerous.

"Of course not," said the Nord, conceding quickly. "But what will I tell my king? He is to have no connection with the Imperial family, and no gold returned to him, as the agreement — as he and I believed the agreement to be?"

"We don't want any bad feelings between the kingdom of Solitude and us," came the Emperor's voice, rather feeble, but clear enough. "What if we offered King Mantiarco our granddaughter instead?"

Potema felt the chill of the room descend on her.

"The Princess Potema? Is she not too young?" asked the Nord.

"She is thirteen years old," said her father. "That's old enough to wed."

"She would an ideal mate for your king," said the Emperor. "She is, admittedly, from what I see of her, very shy and innocent, but I'm certain she would quickly grasp the ways of court — she is, after all, a Septim. I think she would be an excellent Queen of Solitude. Not too exciting, but noble."

"The granddaughter of the Emperor is not as close as his daughter," said the Nord, rather miserably. "But I don't see how we can refuse the offer. I will send word to my king."

"You have our leave," said the Emperor, and Potema heard the sound of the Nord leaving the stateroom.

Tears streamed down Potema's eyes. She knew who the King of Solitude was from her studies. Mantiarco. Sixty-two years old, and quite fat. And she knew how far Solitude was, and how cold, in the northernmost clime. Her father and grandfather were abandoning her to the barbaric Nords. The voices in the room continued talking.

"Well-acted, my boy. Now, make sure you burn that document," said her father.

"My Prince?" asked the page's querulous voice.

"The agreement between the Emperor and the King of Solitude, you fool. We don't want its existence known."

"My Prince, I told the truth. I couldn't find the document in the Hall of Records. It seems to be missing."

"By [[Lore:Lorkhan|Lorkhan]]!" roared her father. "Why is everything in this palace always misplaced? Go back to the Hall and keep searching until you find it!"

Potema looked at the document. Millions of gold pieces promised to the kingdom of Solitude in the event of Princess Galana not marrying the king. She could bring it into her father, and perhaps as a reward he would not marry her to Mantiarco. Or perhaps not. She could blackmail her father and the Emperor with it, and make a tidy sum of money. Or she could produce it when she became Queen of Solitude to fill her coffers, and buy anything she wanted. More than a daedric katana, that was for certain.

So many possibilities, Potema thought. And she found herself not bored anymore.

{{Book Footer
|Skippage=The Wolf Queen
|Up=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:The Wolf Queen|The Wolf Queen]]''
|Next=''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:The Wolf Queen, {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Morrowind=Book II|Oblivion=v 2|v2}}|Book Two]]''
}}

Lore:Biography of the Wolf Queen

2008-08-16T04:57:36Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|MW=yes
|OB=yes
}}</noinclude>
Few historic figures are viewed as unambiguously evil, but [[Lore:Potema|Potema]], the so-called Wolf Queen of [[Lore:Solitude|Solitude]], surely qualifies for that dishonor. Born to the Imperial Family in the sixty-seventh year of the third era, Potema was immediately presented to her grandfather, the Emperor [[Lore:Uriel Septim II|Uriel Septim II]], a famously kindhearted man, who viewed the solemn, intense babe and whispered, “She looks like a she-wolf about ready to pounce.”

Potema's childhood in the [[Lore:Imperial City|Imperial City]] was certainly difficult from the start. Her father, Prince [[Lore:Pelagius Septim|Pelagius Septim]], and her mother, Qizara, showed little affection for their brood. Her eldest brother [[Lore:Antiochus|Antiochus]], sixteen at Potema's birth, was already a drunkard and womanizer, infamous in the empire. Her younger brothers Cephorus and Magnus were born much later, so for years she was the only child in the Imperial Court.

By the age of 14, Potema was a famous beauty with many suitors, but she was married to cement relations with King [[Lore:Mantiarco|Mantiarco]] of the Nordic kingdom of Solitude. She entered the court, it was said, as a pawn, but she quickly became a queen. The elderly King Mantiarco loved her and allowed her all the power she wished, which was total.

When Uriel Septim II died the following year, her father was made emperor, and he faced a greatly depleted treasury, thanks to his father's poor management. [[Lore:Mad Pelagius|Pelagius II]] dismissed the [[Lore:Elder Council|Elder Council]], forcing them to buy back their positions. In 3E 97, after many miscarriages, the Queen of Solitude gave birth to a son, who she named Uriel after her grandfather. Mantiarco quickly made Uriel his heir, but the Queen had much larger ambitions for her child.

Two years later, Pelagius II died — many say poisoned by a vengeful former Council member — and his son, Potema's brother [[Lore:Antiochus|Antiochus]] took the throne. At age forty-eight, it could be said that Antiochus's wild seeds had yet to be sown, and the history books are nearly pornographic in their depictions of life at the Imperial court during the years of his reign. Potema, whose passion was for power not fornication, was scandalized every time she visited the Imperial City.

Mantiarco, King of Solitude, died the springtide after Pelagius II. Uriel ascended to the throne, ruling jointly with his mother. Doubtless, Uriel had the right and would have preferred to rule alone, but Potema convinced him that his position was only temporary. He would have the Empire, not merely the kingdom. In Castle Solitude, she entertained dozens of diplomats from other kingdoms of [[Lore:Skyrim|Skyrim]], sowing seeds of discontent. Her guest list over the years expanded to include kings and queens of [[Lore:High Rock|High Rock]] and [[Lore:Morrowind|Morrowind]] as well.

For thirteen years, Antiochus ruled [[Lore:Tamriel (continent)|Tamriel]], and proved an able leader despite his moral laxity. Several historians point to proof that Potema cast the spell that ended her brother's life, but evidence one way or another is lost in the sands of time. In any event, both she and her son Uriel were visiting the Imperial court in 3E 112 when Antiochus died, and immediately challenged the rule of his daughter and heir, [[Lore:Kintyra|Kintyra]].

Potema's speech to the Elder Council is perhaps helpful to students of public speaking.

She began with flattery and self-abasement: “My most august and wise friends, members of the Elder Council, I am but a provincial queen, and I can only assume to bring to issue what you yourselves must have already pondered.”

She continued on to praise the late Emperor, who was a popular ruler in spite of his flaws: “He was a true Septim and a great warrior, destroying — with your counsel — the near invincible armada of Pyandonea.”

But little time was wasted, before she came to her point: “The Empress Magna unfortunately did nothing to temper my brother's lustful spirits. In point of fact, no whore in the slums of the city spread out on more beds than she. Had she attended to her duties in the Imperial bedchamber more faithfully, we would have a true heir to the Empire, not the halfwit, milksop bastards who call themselves the Emperor's children. The girl called Kintyra is popularly believed to be the daughter of Magna and the Captain of the Guard. It may be that she is the daughter of Magna and the boy who cleans the cistern. We can never know for certain. Not as certainly as we can know the lineage of my son, Uriel. The last of the Septim Dynasty.”

Despite Potema's eloquence, the Elder Council allowed Kintyra to assume the throne as the Empress Kintyra II. Potema and Uriel angrily returned to Skyrim and began assembling the rebellion.

Details of the [[Lore:War of the Red Diamond|War of the Red Diamond]] are included in other histories: we need not recount the Empress Kintyra II's capture and eventual execution in High Rock in the year 3E 114, nor the ascension of Potema's son, [[Lore:Uriel III|Uriel III]], seven years later. Her surviving brothers, [[Lore:Cephorus|Cephorus]] and [[Lore:Magnus|Magnus]], fought the Emperor and his mother for years, tearing the Empire apart in a civil war.

When Uriel III fought his uncle Cephorus in Hammerfell at the Battle of Ichidag in 3E 127, Potema was fighting her other brother, Uriel's uncle Magnus in Skyrim at the Battle of Falconstar. She received word of her son's defeat and capture just as she was preparing to mount an attack on Magnus's weakest flank. The sixty-one-year-old Wolf Queen flew into a rage and led the assault herself. It was a success, and Magnus and his army fled. In the midst the victory celebration, Potema heard the news that her son the Emperor had been killed by an angry mob before he had even made it for trial in the Imperial City. He had been burned to death within his carriage.

When Cephorus was proclaimed Emperor, Potema's fury was terrible to behold. She summoned daedra to fight for her, had her necromancers resurrect her fallen enemies as undead warriors, and mounted attack after attack on the forces of the Emperor Cephorus I. Her allies began leaving her as her madness grew, and her only companions were the zombies and skeletons she had amassed over the years. The kingdom of Solitude became a land of death. Stories of the ancient Wolf Queen being waited on by rotting skeletal chambermaids and holding war plans with vampiric generals terrified her subjects.

Potema died after a month long siege on her castle in the year 3E 137 at the age of 90. While she lived, she had been the Wolf Queen of Solitude, Daughter of the Emperor Pelagius II, Wife of King Mantiarco, Aunt of the Empress Kintyra II, Mother of Emperor Uriel III, and Sister of the Emperors Antiochus and Cephorus. Three years after her death, Antiochus died, and his — and Potema's — brother Magnus took the throne.

Her death has hardly diminished her notoriety. Though there is little direct evidence of this, some theologians maintain that her spirit was so strong, she became a daedra after her death, inspiring mortals to mad ambition and treason. It is also said that her madness so infused Castle Solitude that it infected the next king to rule there. Ironically, that was her 18-year-old nephew Pelagius, the son of Magnus. Whatever the truth of the legend, it is undeniable that when Pelagius left Solitude in 3E 145 to assume the title of the Emperor [[Lore:Pelagius III|Pelagius III]], he quickly became known as Pelagius The Mad. It is even widely rumored that he murdered his father Magnus.

The Wolf Queen must surely have had the last laugh.

Lore:Chimer

2008-08-16T04:32:19Z

Benould: quote form the changed ones, a bit more, incomplete tag

<noinclude>{{Lore Races Trail}}{{incomplete|history, more on exedus}}</noinclude>
:''"Boethiah showed them the lies of the [[Lore:et'Ada|et'Ada]], the [[Lore:Aedra|Aedra]], and told them [[Lore:Trinimac|Trinimac]] was the biggest liar of all, saying all this with Trinimac's voice! Boethiah told the mass before him the Tri-Angled Truth. He showed them, with [[Lore:Mephala|Mephala]], the rules of [[Lore:Psijic Endeavor|Psijic Endeavor]]. He taught them how to build Houses, and what items they needed to bury in the Corners. He demonstrated the right way to wear their skin. He performed the way to walk to achieve an Exodus. Then Boethiah relieved himself of Trinimac right there on the ground before them to prove all the things he said were the truth. It was easy then for his new people to become the Changed Ones." - [[Lore:The Changed Ones|The Changed Ones]]''

The '''Chimer''' ''(changed folk or Changed Ones)'' are an extinct race of [[Lore:Races|Mer]] that followed [[Lore:Boethiah|Boethiah]], Prince of Plots. The Chimer were of average height with radiant gold skin and yellow eyes. Guided by the prophet [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Veloth|Veloth]], they left their [[Lore:Aldmer|Aldmeri]] home of [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Summerset Isle|Summerset Isle]], and migrated to the land of Dwemereth, later known as [[Lore:Resdayn|Resdayn]] and [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Morrowind|Morrowind]].

After the [[Lore:War of the First Council|War of the First Council]], during which the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Dwemer|Dwemer]] vanished under mysterious circumstances, they were transformed into [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Dunmer|Dunmer]] by the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Daedra|Daedric]] goddess [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Azura|Azura]] as punishment when the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Tribunal Temple|Tribunal]] broke the oath to [[Lore:Gods N#Nerevar|Nerevar]] and [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Azura|Azura]] by using [[Lore:Kagrenac's Tools|Kagrenac's Tools]] on the [[Lore:Heart of Lorkhan|Heart of Lorkhan]] to tap into the Divine.

It is assumed that the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Tribunal Temple|Tribunal]] used divine energies to change their appearance, which explains why they did not appear as Dunmer.

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Vivec (god)|Vivec]], [[Lore:Sotha Sil|Sotha Sil]], [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Almalexia (god)|Almalexia]], and [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Dagoth Ur|Dagoth Ur]] may have been the last living Chimer.
{{Races}}

Lore:The Changed Ones

2008-08-16T04:11:05Z

Benould: links

<noinclude>{{Book Summary
|sortkey=Changed Ones, The
|MW=yes
}}</noinclude>

Of all the [[Lore:et'Ada|et'Ada]] who wandered [[Lore:Nirn|Nirn]], [[Lore:Trinimac|Trinimac]] was the strongest. He, for a very long time, fooled the [[Lore:Aldmer|Aldmeri]] into thinking that tears were the best response to the Sundering. They cried and shamed our ancestors, especially the feminine [[Lore:Altmer|Altmer]]. They even took the [[Lore:Lorkhan|Missing God's]] name in vain, calling His narratives into question. So one day [[Lore:Boethiah|Boethiah]], Prince of Plots, precocious youth, tricked Trinimac to go into his mouth. Boethiah talked like Trinimac for awhile then, and gathered enough people to listen to him. Boethiah showed them the lies of the et'Ada, the [[Lore:Aedra|Aedra]], and told them Trinimac was the biggest liar of all, saying all this with Trinimac's voice! Boethiah told the mass before him the Tri-Angled Truth. He showed them, with [[Lore:Mephala|Mephala]], the rules of [[Lore:Psijic Endeavor|Psijic Endeavor]]. He taught them how to build Houses, and what items they needed to bury in the Corners. He demonstrated the right way to wear their skin. He performed the way to walk to achieve an Exodus. Then Boethiah relieved himself of Trinimac right there on the ground before them to prove all the things he said were the truth. It was easy then for his new people to become the [[Lore:Chimer|Changed Ones]].

Morrowind:St. Delyn Canton

2008-08-16T03:44:20Z

Benould: /* People */ Artisa Arelas

<noinclude>
{| width=100% style="border: 1px #aaaaaa solid; background:#b5cbea; text-align:center"
|• [[#The Plaza|The Plaza]] • [[#The Waistworks|Waistworks]] • [[#The Underworks|Underworks]] • [[#People|People]] • [[#Getting there & Around|Travel]] • [[#Maps|Maps]] • [[#Notes|Notes]] • [[#Related Quests|Quests]] • [[Morrowind:Vivec Homes|Homes]] •
|}
</noinclude>
__NOTOC__
{{Morrowind Places Vivec}}
<div style="float:right">
{|
|[[Image:MW-Places-StDelynCanton.jpg| right |thumb|200px|The St. Delyn Canton]]
|-
|[[Image:MW Sheogorath.jpg| right |thumb|200px|The Statue of Sheogorath]]
|}
</div>
[[Image:M_vivec_stdelyn.png|left|thumb|150px]]
The '''St. Delyn Canton''' is owned by the [[Morrowind:Tribunal Temple|Tribunal Temple]] and offers low-cost housing to deserving members.

====The Plaza====
The St. Delyn Potter's Hall and Glassworker's Hall: You can talk to Alarvyne Indalas for [[Morrowind:Liberate_the_Limeware|Liberate the Limeware]] quest. A few traders have their shops here. You'll might meet an [[Morrowind:Cassius Olcinius|Invisble Man]] wandering the Plaza.

The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise houses the [[Morrowind:Master Trainers|Master Trainer]] in [[Morrowind:Blunt Weapons|Blunt Weapons]], [[Morrowind:Ernse Llervu|Ernse Llervu]], located downstairs in a locked (30pts.) room.
====The Waistworks====
The Glassworker's Hall and the Abbey both have staircases within those areas leading to the Plaza.

====The Underworks====
The Shrine [[Morrowind:Ihinipalit|Ihinipalit]] is guarded by a brute named [[Morrowind:Haki|Haki]], who can be a handful at lower levels. Talk to the Statue inside to get the [[Morrowind:Sheogorath's Quest|Sheogorath Quest]]. The Storage Area is a small maze, starting off with rats in the hallways and ending with undead waiting behind doors.

Behind ''A Worn Cavern Door'' is a chest (trapped & locked 25 pts.) with leveled loot, [[Morrowind:Thieves Tools|Thieves Tools]] and an enchanted weapon. The room is infested by rats, but has a bedroll and a small fire.

=== Getting there & Around ===
Bridges connect to Redoran, Temple and St. Olms. There are no [[Morrowind:Transport#Gondola|Gondola]] services here.
===Notes===
*An abandoned tenement on the outside (Waist North-One) is haunted by an [[Morrowind:Ancestor Guardian|Ancestor Guardian]], which appears to be the remnant of a removed Fighters Guild quest.
* Abolitionist leader [[Morrowind:Ilmeni Dren|Ilmeni Dren]] of the [[Morrowind:Twin Lamps|Twin Lamps]] lives in St. Delyn Canal South-One.
{{NewLine}}
[[Image:MW_Map_VivecStDelyn.jpg|thumb|Map of Vivec's St. Delyn canton]]
===Maps===
* For an aerial overview and detailed interior maps, see [http://neon.chem.bg.ac.yu/morrowind/atlas/vivec/st_delyn/index.html here].

==Related Quests==
===[[Morrowind:Daedric Quests|Daedric]]===
*{{Quest Link|Sheogorath's Quest}}

===[[Morrowind:House Hlaalu#House Hlaalu Quests|House Hlaalu]]===
*{{Quest Link|Literacy Campaign}}
*{{Quest Link|The Twin Lamps}}
*{{Quest Link|Free Hides-His-Foot}}

===[[Morrowind:Imperial Legion#Imperial Legion Quests|Imperial Legion]]===
*{{Quest Link|Maiden's Token}}

===[[Morrowind:Morag Tong#Morag Tong Quests|Morag Tong]]===
*{{Quest Link|Threads of the Webspinner}}

===[[Morrowind:Thieves Guild#Thieves Guild Questst|Thieves Guild]]===
*{{Quest Link|Find Brother Nads}}
*{{Quest Link|Brallion's Ring}}

===[[Morrowind:Tribunal Temple#Tribunal Temple Quests|Tribunal Temple]]===
*{{Quest Link|Foul Cult Beneath St. Delyn Canton}}

===[[Morrowind:Miscellaneous Quests|Miscellaneous]]===
*{{Quest Link|An Invisible Son}}
*{{Quest Link|Liberate the Limeware}}
*{{Quest Link|Sleepers Awake}}

==People==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Name !! [[Image:GenderIcon.png|Gender]] !! Race !! Class !! Faction !! Level !! Health !! Magicka !! Alarm !! Fight !! Location !! Notes 
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Alarvyne Indalas|Alarvyne Indalas]]''
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||13 ||95 ||118 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Glassworker's Hall ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Amili Llaram}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Noble|Noble]] || ||3 ||47 ||86 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Waist South-Two ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Artisa Arelas|Artisa Arelas]]''
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Pilgrim|Pilgrim]] || ||2 ||46 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Badbog gra-Shug}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Orc|Orc]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||2 ||58 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Bradil Elarven}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||2 ||51 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Glassworker's Hall ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Cassius Olcinius|Cassius Olcinius]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Imperial|Imperial]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||6 ||75 ||92 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Plaza ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Dedaenc}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Necromancer|Necromancer]] || ||10 ||76 ||144 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Plaza ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Delmus Rurvyn}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Pauper|Pauper]] || ||2 ||45 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Plaza ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Deras Girando}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||3 ||57 ||84 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Waistworks ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Dolsa Gilvani}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||2 ||46 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Dolyn Rols|Dolyn Rols]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||9 ||88 ||106 ||100 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Drelayn Dredayn}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Priest|Priest]] || ||4 ||52 ||88 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Drelis Ondyn}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Noble|Noble]] || ||4 ||58 ||90 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Drilame Githrano}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Pauper|Pauper]] || ||2 ||40 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Canal North-One ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Dro'Barri}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Khajiit|Khajiit]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||2 ||46 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Plaza ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Dro'Zaymar|Dro'Zaymar]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Khajiit|Khajiit]] ||[[Morrowind:Assassin|Assassin]] || ||15 ||109 ||140 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Canal South-Three ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Drurile Valaai}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||3 ||63 ||21 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Glassworker's Hall ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Elethus Tobor}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Rogue|Rogue]] || ||4 ||59 ||84 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Elmera Verethi}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||3 ||52 ||84 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Glassworker's Hall ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Ernse Llervu|Ernse Llervu]]''
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Monk|Monk]] || ||25 ||163 ||118 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||[[Morrowind:Master Trainers|Master Trainer]]
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Faralenu Henim}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Healer|Healer]] || ||8 ||62 ||96 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Faven Arns}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Noble|Noble]] || ||5 ||63 ||92 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Plaza ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Gols Nilvon}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Pilgrim|Pilgrim]] || ||2 ||51 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Gomeso Sarano|Gomeso Sarano]]''
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||13 ||95 ||118 ||100 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Haki}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Nord|Nord]] ||[[Morrowind:Barbarian|Barbarian]] || ||17 ||166 ||86 ||90 ||85 ||St. Delyn Underworks ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Higil}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Nord|Nord]] ||[[Morrowind:Pauper|Pauper]] || ||1 ||50 ||60 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Canal North-Three ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Ilmeni Dren|Ilmeni Dren]]''
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Noble|Noble]] ||{{Faction|House Hlaalu|5|nocat=yes}} ||14 ||112 ||122 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Canal South-One ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Llonas Felder}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Priest|Priest]] || ||3 ||48 ||86 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Lucretinaus Olcinius|Lucretinaus Olcinius]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Imperial|Imperial]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||10 ||99 ||108 ||100 ||30 ||Lucretinaus Olcinius: Trader ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Mevel Fererus|Mevel Fererus]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||10 ||99 ||108 ||0 ||30 ||Mevel Fererus: Trader ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Nads Tharen|Nads Tharen]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Thief|Thief]] ||{{Faction|Thieves Guild|2|nocat=yes}} ||5 ||0 ||92 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Canal South-Two ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Niden Naros}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Noble|Noble]] || ||4 ||58 ||90 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Waist South-One ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Orvona Vadryon}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Pilgrim|Pilgrim]] || ||3 ||52 ||84 ||0 ||30 ||The Abbey of St. Delyn the Wise ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Rathal Barus|Rathal Barus]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||9 ||88 ||106 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Glassworker's Hall ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Rilos Delms}}
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||3 ||57 ||84 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Potter's Hall ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Satheri Rothandus}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||2 ||57 ||21 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Glassworker's Hall ||
|-
!{{Linkable Entry|Tarani Dralno}}
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Rogue|Rogue]] || ||4 ||54 ||84 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Plaza ||
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Tervur Braven|Tervur Braven]]''
||M ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Trader Service|Trader Service]] || ||9 ||94 ||106 ||0 ||30 ||Tervur Braven: Trader ||[[Morrowind:Merchants|Merchant]]
|-
!''[[Morrowind:Vivyne Andrano|Vivyne Andrano]]''
||F ||[[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] ||[[Morrowind:Commoner|Commoner]] || ||2 ||46 ||82 ||0 ||30 ||St. Delyn Waistworks ||
|}

User talk:192.26.10.192

2008-08-16T01:26:50Z

Benould: changing warning, instead of DUMG

== Warning ==

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not add nonsense and obscenities to UESPWiki, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 21:26, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
|}

User:Dagoth Ur, Mad God

2008-08-16T01:22:10Z

Benould: Undo revision 351491 by 121.219.146.184 (Talk)Don't edit user page, even though I know that's you, Dagoth

<div class="usermessage">You have [[Bloodmoon:Hircine|new messages]] ([[Bloodmoon:Svenja Snow-Song|last change]]).</div>

<div style="background-color:#808080; border-width:1px; border-style:solid; border-color:#D3D3D3; margin:0px;">
<div style="background-color:#D3D3D3; color:#808080; font-size: 150%; margin:10px; border: none; text-align:center;">
{{FC|red|'''Dagoth Ur'''}}
</div>
''"Come Nerevar. Friend or traitor, come. Come and look upon the Heart, and Akulakhan. And bring Wraithguard... I have need of it. Come to the Heart Chamber. I wait for you there, where we last met, countless ages ago. Come to me, through fire and war. I welcome you. Welcome, Moon-and-Star. I have prepared a place for you. Come. Bring Wraithguard to the Heart Chamber. Together let us free the cursed false gods. Welcome, Nerevar. Together we shall speak for the Law and the Land, and shall drive the mongrel dogs of the Empire from Morrowind. Is this how you honor the Sixth House, and the tribe unmourned? Come to me openly, and not by stealth."''

<div style="background-color:#D3D3D3; margin:20px;">
{| width="100%" style="background: transparent; "
| valign="top" style="border: 1px solid #808080"|

Here I am. Dagoth Ur, Mad God.

<center>{{DaedricFont|Dagoth Ur, Mad God}}</center>

==My Userboxes==

{{User Loremaster}}
{{User Music|Stoner Rock|SOiL}}
{{Hermaeus Mora}}
{{User Morrowind}}
{{User Tribunal}}
{{User Bloodmoon}}
{{User NoShiveringIsles}}
{{User XBox}}
{{User Male}}
{{User Non-Bear}}
{{User Australian}}
{{User Music|Stoner Rock|Clutch}}
{{User Writer}}
{{User Music|Doom Metal|High on Fire}}
{{User Dagoth}}
{{User Hlaalu}}
{{User Believer}}
{{User NoKOTN}}
{{User Right Handed}}
{{User DarkBros4}}
{{Userbox|#8B0000|#FF0000|[[Image:Mehrunes Dagon.jpg|75x50px]]|This User should've stayed with Mehrunes Dagon.}}
{{Userbox|#FF0000|#FF0000|[[Image:Everything In Its Place.jpg|75x50px]]|This User likes to a dagoth stuff.}}
{{User Atheist}}

{{NewLine}}

==The Various Me's==

{{NPC Summary
|id=Mehrunes Dagon
|race=Daedra
|gender=Male
|level=10000000000000
|class=Immortal
|health=612468889657
|magicka=65615
|essential=Yes
|faction=Evil Lords of Oblivion, Immortals
|image=MWCreature-AscendedSleeper.jpg
|imgdesc=The Daedra of Wiki
}}

{{NPC Summary
|id=Real Life
|race=Bloody Shattered C
|gender=Male
|level=11
|class=Wiki Editor
|health=10000
|magicka=65615
|essential=Yes
|faction=Rev W Awdry's Chosen*, VFD, UESPWiki (Rookie), Youtube (Youtuber), Wikiscrolls, Wikipedia (Wikipedian), Uncyclopedia, Oblivion Mod Wiki, OblivioWiki
}}

*Although disassociated from Rev W Awdry's Chosen, I am still in the faction.

{{NewLine}}

==My Characters==

===Morroewind===

{{NPC Summary
|id=Valen_Lebber
|titlename=Lebber Valen
|race=Dunmer
|racecat=None
|gender=Male
|level=21
|class=Lebber
|health=146
|magicka=175
|essential=Yes
|alarm=0
|fight=30
|namesp=Morrowind
|image=Lebber Valen.JPG
|imgdesc=Lebber Valen
}}

{{NewLine}}

{{NPC Summary
|id=Huffer_1800
|titlename=This Guy
|race=Argonian
|racecat=None
|gender=Male
|level=1
|class=Assassin
|health=35
|magicka=50
|essential=Yes
|alarm=0
|fight=1
|faction=
|namesp=Morrowind
}}

{{NewLine}}

{{Creature Summary
|titlename=Lebber Valen
|id=werewolf_valen / werewolf_valen_2
|species=Werewolf
|soul=1500
|type=Beasts
|level=50 / 200
|health=800 / 380000
|magicka=0
|attack=
*120-440 pts melee
|abilities=
*{{MW EffectLink|Night Eye}} 100%
*{{MW EffectLink|Detect Animal}} 100 ft
|drops=
|fight=30
|alarm=0
|namesp=Morrowind
|essential=No
|image=BM-creature-werewolf.jpg
|imgdesc=Lebber Valen as a werewolf.
}}

{{NewLine}}

{{NewLine}}

===Oblivion===

<big>{{DaedricFont|Under Construction. ---Dagoth}}</big>

== Subpages ==

[[/Sign]]: My signature template.

==Daedra Seducer Pronunciaton==

''Shaogo-ath''

''Coocibel''

''auriel''

So, I AM a fanfic n00b. [[User:Dagoth Ur, Mad God|Dagoth Ur, Mad God]] 07:40, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

User talk:71.173.112.5

2008-08-16T01:04:38Z

Benould: Warning - creating nonsense page

== Warning - creating nonsense page ==

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not add nonsense to UESPWiki, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 21:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
|}

Lore:Barenziah

2008-08-16T00:51:07Z

Benould: tweaks, removed some of the Tiber affair details, a bit more

<noinclude>{{Lore People Trail}}
</noinclude>[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Barenziah|Barenziah]] is Queen of {{Lore Link|Wayrest}} and Queen Mother of {{Lore Link|Morrowind}}. She was born in Morrowind in 2E 893 and is one of the legendary figures, featuring in several games. Barenziah is the wife of [[Lore:Symmachus|Symmachus]] and {{Lore Link|Eadwyre}}. With Symmachus, she is the mother of {{Lore Link|Helseth|King Hlaalu Helseth}} (in [[Lore:Third_Era#3E 376|3E 376]]), who is the current king of Morrowind, and [[Lore:Morgiah|Morgiah]] (in [[Lore:Third_Era#3E 384|3E 384]]). She had a third child (with Nightingale, a.k.a., [[Lore:Jagar Tharn|Jagar Tharn]]), but the current whereabouts of this child are unknown. Barenziah also had a short love affair with [[Lore:Tiber Septim|Tiber Septim]], and became pregnant. The emperor had the child aborted because he did not want to endanger his legitimate children's right to succession.

During the chaos of the [[Lore:Arnesian War|Arnesian War]] in [[Lore:Third_Era#3E 396|3E 396]], Symmachus was slain, and Queen Barenziah, rightly fearing for her life, fled across the Empire to the High Rock kingdom of Wayrest. The Queen abdicated her throne of Morrowind, leaving it to her uncle Athyn [[Lore:Llethan|Llethan]], a [[Lore:House Hlaalu|House Hlaalu]] noble. She then married the elderly [[Lore:Eadwyre|Eadwyre]], became Queen of Wayrest and played a role in bringing an end to the [[Lore:Imperial Simulacrum|Imperial Simulacrum]] by Tharn. She ones again returned to Mournhold at the dusk of the [[Lore:Third Era|Third Era]], this time as Queen Mother, removed from the political spotlight.

<includeonly>
For more information, see the [[Lore:Barenziah|Lore article on Barenziah]].</includeonly><noinclude>

<gallery>
Image:Df.Img.QueenBarenziah.gif|As seen in [[Daggerfall:Barenziah|Daggerfall]]
Image:TR-npc-Barenziah.jpg|As seen in [[Tribunal:Barenziah|Tribunal]]
</gallery>

==See Also==
* For game-specific information, see the [[Daggerfall:Barenziah|Daggerfall]] and [[Tribunal:Barenziah|Tribunal]] articles.
* Several biographies of Barenziah have been written:
** ''The Real Barenziah'' (''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:The Real Barenziah|Morrowind/Oblivion Version]]'' or ''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:The Real Barenziah (Daggerfall)|Daggerfall Version]]''). The Morrowind version is slightly censored compared to the Daggerfall version, but the Morrowind version is longer.
** ''Biography of Queen Barenziah'' (''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Biography of Queen Barenziah|Morrowind/Oblivion version]]'' or ''[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Biography of Queen Barenziah (Daggerfall)|Daggerfall Version]]'') is an even more thoroughly censored biography

</noinclude>

User talk:Zorath

2008-08-16T00:30:13Z

Benould: Welcome Zorath

== Welcome Zorath ==

Hello Zorath! Welcome to the wiki. I hope you enjoy using the site and find the information on it useful. If you decide you want to help improve any of our pages, we're always welcoming to new editors so feel free. You might want to look at our [[UESPWiki:Getting Started|Getting Started]] page for some tips on how to begin, then play in our [[UESPWiki:Sandbox|Sandbox]] for a while to practice. If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our [[UESPWiki:Mentors|mentors]]. Enjoy! --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:68.160.107.153

2008-08-16T00:27:56Z

Benould: Warning - obscenities

== Warning - obscenities ==

{| style="border: 1px solid #AA9999; background-color: #FFCCCC; width: 80%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: .2em;"
| width="69" | [[Image:Stop_hand.png]]
| Please do not add nonsense and obscenities to UESPWiki, as it is considered to be '''[[UESPWiki:Vandalism|vandalism]]'''. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be '''[[UESPWiki:Blocking Policy|blocked]]''' from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. —[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
|}

Oblivion:Birthsigns

2008-08-16T00:26:34Z

Benould: revert vandalism

{{Oblivion Trail}} [[Category:Oblivion-Characters|Birthsigns]]
{{TOCright}}
In [[Lore:Tamriel (continent)|Tamriel]], a '''birthsign''' is the constellation under which a person is born. Each bestows upon those born under it unique magical powers, either passive or active, and may be perceived as either a "blessing" or a "curse". The thirteen birthsigns of Tamriel are:

==General Tips==
The birthsigns can be categorized into three general groups: those that give [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attribute]] bonuses, those that provide lesser and/or greater powers, and those that affect your [[Oblivion:Magicka|Magicka]]:
* [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attribute]] bonuses: [[#Lady|Lady]], [[#Steed|Steed]], [[#Thief|Thief]], and [[#Warrior|Warrior]].
* [[Oblivion:Magicka|Magicka]] effects: [[#Apprentice|Apprentice]], [[#Atronach|Atronach]], and [[#Mage|Mage]]
* Greater/lesser powers: [[#Lord|Lord]], [[#Lover|Lover]], [[#Ritual|Ritual]], [[#Serpent|Serpent]], [[#Shadow|Shadow]], and [[#Tower|Tower]]

All [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attributes]] are capped at 100. The birthsigns ''Warrior'', ''Thief'', ''Lady'', and ''Steed'' won't allow you to go above this cap.

A character's chosen birthsign cannot be changed in-game (without the use of the [[Oblivion:Console|console]]), but [[Oblivion:Doomstones|Doomstones]] can provide additional powers -- sometimes, even permanent ones -- that are similar to, and in some cases better than, those of the birthsigns, such as the Shadow (become invisible for 60 seconds) vs the Jone Stone (become invisible for 120 seconds).

==Apprentice==
[[Image:OBbsign Apprentice.jpg|thumb|left|The Apprentice]]
'''The Apprentice''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Magicka|Magicka]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Apprentice Birthsign}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A3E</code>), which has two permanent effects:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Magicka|Fortify Magicka]] 100 points on Self
* [[Oblivion:Weakness to Magic|Weakness to Magic]] 100% on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' The Apprentice ability confers a 100-point bonus to your Magicka attribute, but gives you a 100% Weakness to Magic. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Apprentice have increased Magicka, but also have a weakness to it. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Apprentice shall serve you at the forge of destiny."

;Tips
* [[Oblivion:Conjuration|Conjuration]] is very valuable in providing cover, especially by taking blows from magic for you. An ''Apprentice'' caster is going to be fragile against all forms of magical attack, so learn to love your pets.

* Remember that a High Elf already has a weakness to fire, frost, and shock magic. Altmer weaknesses + 100% Weakness to Magic = quick death against a spell caster, however, if you can find a way around these weaknesses, say, a resist magic, or absorb magic spell, this can be a very good combination.

* A Breton's natural Resistance to Magic can effectively halve the Apprentice's disadvantage and add 100 Magicka to their already substantial Magicka reserves.

* One distinct advantage of this birthsign is that it gives you access to the Weakness to Magic effect for [[Oblivion:Spell Making|spell making]] and [[Oblivion:Enchanting|enchanting]]. Custom Weakness to Magic spells can be used to devastating effect, especially if you cast them one after the other. The only buyable Weakness to Magic spell in the game requires Journeyman level in Destruction, one of the more difficult magic skills to raise.

* There are a number of items with [[Oblivion:Resist_Magic|Resist Magic]], [[Oblivion:Reflect_Spell|Reflect Spell]] and [[Oblivion:Spell_Absorption|Spell Absorption]] which you can find to help protect you. An apprentice will find three of the Daedric [[Oblivion:artifacts|artifacts]] particularly useful: [[Oblivion:Ring_of_Namira|The Ring of Namira]], [[Oblivion:Saviour%27s_Hide|Saviour's Hide]], and [[Oblivion:Spell_Breaker|Spell Breaker]].

* When you get access to the [[Oblivion:Arcane University|Arcane University]], customize all self-target spells with a marginal ailment (i.e., ''[[Oblivion:Drain Fatigue|Drain Fatigue]] 1pt''). This will render the spell "harmful", thus causing it to be magnified 100% by your Weakness to Magic. This is a wonderful way to turn your glass cannon "Weakness" into a unique and fun advantage, effectively doubling the power of healing, protection, and fortify spells on yourself.
** ''This exploit does '''not''' work if you have installed the [[Oblivion:Patch|version 1.1.511 patch]].''
** Any active ''[[Oblivion:Spell Absorption|Spell Absorption]]'' effects can ruin these custom spells.
{{NewLine}}

==Atronach==
[[Image:OBbsign Atronach.jpg|thumb|right|The Atronach]]
'''The Atronach''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Magicka|Magicka]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Atronach Birthsign}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A3D</code>), which has three permanent effects:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Magicka|Fortify Magicka]] 150 points on Self
* [[Oblivion:Spell Absorption|Spell Absorption]] 50% on Self
* [[Oblivion:Stunted Magicka|Stunted Magicka]] on Self (prevents standard magicka regeneration)
'''In-Game Description:''' With the Atronach ability you don't regain Magicka over time. Instead you have a 50% Spell Absorption to recharge your Magicka. Your base Magicka is also increased by 150 points. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Atronach cannot regenerate Magicka, but have a chance of absorbing any magic cast at them. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Atronach shall aid you with your appointed burden."

;Tips
* This birthsign is an important component for [[Oblivion:Magicka#Maximizing Magicka|maximizing your Magicka]].

* To overcome [[Oblivion:Stunted Magicka#Notes|Stunted Magicka]] and effectively regenerate magicka, you will want to take full advantage of various techniques and tips. See:
** [[Oblivion:Restore Magicka|Restore Magicka]]: potions, [[Oblivion:Welkynd Stone|Welkynd Stone]]s, [[Oblivion:Ayleid Well|Ayleid Well]]s, etc.
** [[Oblivion:Spell Absorption|Spell Absorption]]: get your Spell Absorption to 100% if possible; absorb all possible spells.
** [[Oblivion:Absorb Magicka|Absorb Magicka]]: enchant weapons or (at high Restoration levels), cast spells.

* Even if you never intend for your character to cast magic, you can still benefit from the Atronach's Spell Absorption. As a warrior, for example, you would simply absorb half of the spells cast at you, making combat much easier against spellcasting opponents. If you can increase your Spell Absorption to 100%, you have a character who is immune to magic.

{{NewLine}}

==Lady==
[[Image:OBbsign Lady.jpg|thumb|left|The Lady]]
'''The Lady''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attributes]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Lady's Blessing}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A40</code>), which has two permanent effects:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Attribute|Fortify]] [[Oblivion:Willpower|Willpower]] 10 points on Self
* Fortify [[Oblivion:Endurance|Endurance]] 10 points on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' The Lady's Blessing confers bonuses of 10 points to your Willpower and Endurance attributes 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Lady have increased Willpower and Endurance. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Lady shall fortify you in your quest for glory."

;Tips
*The total [[Oblivion:Health|Health]] points you gain each level is determined by your Endurance at the time you level. Thus, increasing your Endurance as quickly as possible early in your character's life will give you the highest potential Health later on. This early 10-point boost can be a big help later on.
* If you don't want to play the Atronach birth sign but are still planning on a High Elf (Altmer) spell caster, this is another good choice (along with [[#Mage|The Mage]] Birthsign). It boosts your weak Willpower and Endurance to 50 each (if you are a male, but is still useful for the more frail female Altmers).
* Nords, Argonians, Dark Elves, and Wood Elves may also find this birth sign useful.
* Not recommended for Orcs, who start with high Endurance and Willpower.
{{NewLine}}
==Lord==
[[Image:OBbsign Lord.jpg|thumb|right|The Lord]]
'''The Lord''' is a birthsign which provides a lesser power, balanced by one permanent weakness:
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Blood of the North}}'' lesser power (FormID <code>00022A41</code>): [[Oblivion:Restore Health|Restore Health]] 6 points for 15 seconds (90 points total) on Self, multiple times per day at a cost of 50 Magicka
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Trollkin}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A42</code>): [[Oblivion:Weakness to Fire|Weakness to Fire]] 25% on Self, permanent
'''In-Game Description:''' Being born under the Lord gives you the ''Blood of the North'' lesser power to regenerate up to 90 points of Health. However, you also gain the ''Trollkin'' curse, a permanent 25% Weakness to Fire. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Lord can regenerate Health, but are vulnerable to fire. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Lord shall prove a faithful patron as you confront your fate."

;Tips
* ''Blood of the North'' allows the player to cast a [[Oblivion:Restore Health|Restore Health]] effect at magnitude 6 for 15 seconds (90 points of healing) for an incredible 50 Magicka . This is by far the most Magicka-efficient healing spell in the early and middle game, until you achieve a high [[Oblivion:Restoration|Restoration]] skill. The next most efficient healing spell is the one that all characters get at the beginning of the game, Heal Minor Wounds, which is far less effective. A Lord gets an expert level, Magicka -light healing spell right from the start of the game.
**This sign is especially useful for combat based characters, as the spell may be cast multiple times to top up health levels in the middle of a fight, and it would take a long time to gain a high enough Restoration skill to cast an equally effective healing spell.
***This healing ability is also a Lesser Power, so it is unaffected by any armor your character may be wearing.
**Conversely, this sign is not recommended for magic based characters, especially if Restoration is a major skill, because you do not gain experience by using Lesser Powers.

* The 25% weakness to fire can be countered by wearing a piece of armor with a [[Oblivion:Resist Fire|Resist Fire]] enchantment. You could either [[Oblivion:Enchanting|custom-make]] this, or find it in [[Oblivion:Generic Magic Apparel#Resist Fire|random loot]]. [[Oblivion:Dunmer|Dunmer]] characters have a natural resistance to fire, so are particularly suited to this sign. [[Oblivion:Altmer|Altmer]], on the other hand, will probably want to avoid this sign, due to their innate weakness to fire.
{{NewLine}}

==Lover==
[[Image:OBbsign Lover.jpg|thumb|left|The Lover]]
'''The Lover''' is a birthsign which provides a greater power:
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Lover's Kiss}}'' greater power (FormID <code>00022A43</code>): [[Oblivion:Paralyze|Paralyze]] 10 seconds on Touch and [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 120 points on Self, once per day
'''In-Game Description:''' Use the ''Lover's Kiss'' power once a day to Paralyze an opponent for 10 seconds at the cost of 120 points of [[Oblivion:Fatigue|Fatigue]]. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Lover can paralyze others with a kiss. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Lover shall sweeten your journey as you confront your fate."

;Tips
* The [[Oblivion:Serpent Stone|Serpent Birthsign Doomstone]] grants the ''[[Oblivion:Cobra's Dance|Cobra's Dance]]'' greater power, which provides Paralyze for 5 seconds, accompanied by Damage Health 4 points for 20 seconds on target (80 points total). There is no Fatigue penalty associated with Cobra's Dance. Although shorter in duration, some players may prefer to use the Doomstone effect to obtain a paralysis greater power.
* The Lover's Kiss power grants the Paralyze magical effect at spellmaking altars if you are having difficulty finding the spell. Be warned though, any Paralyze spell has a very high Magicka casting cost and you have to be at least an apprentice illusionist in order to cast the weakest (1-2 second duration) custom spells.
* Your character might faint when this spell is cast if your fatigue is already low from jumping or swinging weapons, so you might still be on the floor when your angry victim gets back up and takes a vengeance on you.
* [[Oblivion:Imperial|Imperial]]s can use their [[Oblivion:Star of the West|Star of the West]] greater power to [[Oblivion:Absorb Fatigue|absorb]] 100 points of Fatigue, mostly compensating for the damage caused by casting Lover's Kiss.
{{NewLine}}

==Mage==
[[Image:OBbsign Mage.jpg|thumb|right|The Mage]]
'''The Mage''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Magicka|Magicka]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Mage Birthsign}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A31</code>), which has one permanent effect:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Magicka|Fortify Magicka]] 50 points on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' The Mage ability confers a permanent bonus of 50 points to your [[Oblivion:Magicka|Magicka]]. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Mage have increased Magicka. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Mage shall light your way on the paths of glory."

;Tips
*This birthsign is well suited for mages who want a Magicka bonus without any side effects; the other birthsigns that provide Magicka bonuses ([[#Apprentice|Apprentice]] and [[#Atronach|Atronach]]) both have negative side effects.
{{NewLine}}

==Ritual==
[[Image:OBbsign Ritual.jpg|thumb|left|The Ritual]]
'''The Ritual''' is a birthsign which provides two powers:
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Blessed Word}}'' lesser power (FormID <code>00022A3C</code>): [[Oblivion:Turn Undead|Turn Undead]] up to level 25 (100 points) for 30 seconds on target, multiple times per day at a cost of 40 Magicka.
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Mara's Gift}}'' greater power (Form ID <code>00022A3A</code>): [[Oblivion:Restore Health|Restore Health]] 200 points on Self, once per day
'''In-Game Description:''' Those born under the Ritual use the ''Mara's Gift'' power once a day as a powerful Restore Health spell. The ''Blessed Word'' can turn the undead. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Ritual can heal themselves and turn the undead. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Ritual shall speed you on your star-patterned path."

;Tips
* ''Blessed Word'' allows the player to craft additional Turn Undead spells at spell making altars without the need to have another known Turn Undead spell.
* The restore health for 200 points is an instant effect much like a strong potion of healing (better in fact). This is quite useful in a pinch up to about level 15 (completely healing you in most cases). While its effects are less pronounced in at the highest levels, it maintains its usefulness throughout the game at any level.
{{NewLine}}
==Serpent==
[[Image:OBbsign Serpent.jpg|thumb|right|The Serpent]]
'''The Serpent''' is a birthsign which provides one greater power, ''{{Linkable Entry|Serpent Spell}}'' (FormID <code>00022A63</code>), which can be cast once per day, simultaneously casting all four of the following effects:
* [[Oblivion:Damage Health|Damage Health]] 3 points for 20 seconds (60 points total) on Touch
* [[Oblivion:Cure Poison|Cure Poison]] on Self
* [[Oblivion:Dispel|Dispel]] 90 points on Self
* [[Oblivion:Damage Fatigue|Damage Fatigue]] 100 points on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' Gain the ''Serpent'' spell to cause a slow but potent poison on touch, while simultaneously curing yourself and dispelling magic on yourself. Casting this spell costs 100 points of Fatigue. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Serpent can poison others at a loss of their own Fatigue. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Serpent shall sting the foes who seek your blood."

;Tips
*The [[Oblivion:Serpent Stone|Serpent Birthsign Doomstone]] grants the ''[[Oblivion:Cobra's Dance|Cobra's Dance]]'' greater power, which provides Damage Health 4 points for 20 seconds on target (80 points total), accompanied by [[Oblivion:Paralyze|Paralyze]] for 5 seconds. There is no Fatigue penalty associated with Cobra's Dance. Therefore, the doomstone is generally a more effective way to gain access to this ability.
{{NewLine}}
==Shadow==
[[Image:OBbsign Shadow.jpg|thumb|left|The Shadow]]
'''The Shadow''' is a birthsign which provides one power:
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Moonshadow}}'' greater power (FormID <code>00022A66</code>): [[Oblivion:Invisibility|Invisibility]] 60 seconds on Self, once per day. As with all invisibility effects, the power is immediately dispelled if the player interacts with any item (doors, containers, etc.)
'''In-Game Description:''' Use the ''Moonshadow power'' once a day to become Invisible for 60 seconds. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Shadow can make themselves invisible. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Shadow shall hide you from destiny's cunning hounds."

;Tips
* Once your {{Renown}} is 10 you can visit the [[Oblivion:Magical Stones#Jone Stone|Jone Stone]], and acquire the ability to become invisible for 120 seconds, once per day. This is twice as long as the Moonshadow power granted by The Shadow, making this birthsign of limited value.
* Like other birthsigns with spell-like powers, this birthsign allows the caster to craft lower-leveled Invisibility spells at spell crafting altars.
* Very useful for thieves and assassins, although only being able to cast Moonshadow once per day can be a significant limitation.
* In the [[Lore:Black Marsh|Black Marsh]], [[Oblivion:Argonian|Argonians]] born under the sign of the Shadow are called "Shadowscales;" they are given to the [[Oblivion:Dark Brotherhood|Dark Brotherhood]] at birth and are trained to be assassins. This is part of the back story behind the quest [[Oblivion:The Renegade Shadowscale|The Renegade Shadowscale]], but it does not otherwise affect game play. In particular, the player is not treated differently if the player chooses to play an Argonian with the Shadow birthsign.
{{NewLine}}
==Steed==
[[Image:OBbsign Steed.jpg|thumb|right|The Steed]]
'''The Steed''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attributes]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Steed Birthsign}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A6A</code>), which has one permanent effect:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Attribute|Fortify]] [[Oblivion:Speed|Speed]] 20 points on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' The Steed ability grants a bonus of 20 to your [[Oblivion:Speed|Speed]] attribute. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Steed can move faster. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Steed shall speed your progress on the road to destiny."

;Tips
* While some would not consider this to be a good birthsign, the proof is in the numbers. A Wood Elf (Bosmer) with a class that has Speed as a focus (such as Thief or Rogue) would have a starting Speed of 75 when taking this birth sign. Early in the game, the Speed attribute is very easily increased. By level 6, such a character has the potential of a 100 Speed. This rivals the effects of using horses and simple walking actually becomes tolerable. Since Speed (and the Acrobatics skill) affects how high you can jump, this can give you access to places to snipe your enemy from safety. Fortifying Speed past 100 is even more beneficial for similar reasons. Races with low initial values for Speed, such as Orcs, may also find the 20-point boost to Speed useful in order to overcome the deficiency. Also if you hate the drag down of Heavy Armor, this could be a helpful birthsign for you as well.
{{NewLine}}
==Thief==
[[Image:OBbsign Thief.jpg|thumb|left|The Thief]]
'''The Thief''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attributes]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Thief Birthsign}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A6B</code>), which has three permanent effects:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Attribute|Fortify]] [[Oblivion:Agility|Agility]] 10 points on Self
* Fortify [[Oblivion:Luck|Luck]] 10 points on Self
* Fortify [[Oblivion:Speed|Speed]] 10 points on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' The Thief ability grants a 10-point bonus to your Agility, Speed, and Luck attributes. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Thief have increased Agility, Speed, and Luck. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Thief shall guide your steps on the road to destiny."

;Tips
*Luck is the slowest of all the attributes to raise, since unlike the others, it is not associated with any skills. This 10-point boost means you could potentially have all your stats maximized 10 levels earlier than you otherwise could. And since Luck can only ever be increased by 1 point per level, this combined with a custom class that has Luck as a primary ability saves you 15 levels of luck boosts.
*Because Luck affects all skills, the 10 point boost in luck is handy. It equates to a 4 point boost in all of your skills as far as effects (but not perks) are concerned. If you customize a class to have Luck as a [[Oblivion:Classes|class]] ability and combine that with this birthsign, you start the game with every skill having an effective boost of +6. See the [[Oblivion:Efficient_Leveling|Efficient Leveling +5/+5/+5 vs +5/+5/+1]] information in the character building tips for more on this.
{{NewLine}}
==Tower==
[[Image:OBbsign Tower.jpg|thumb|right|The Tower]]
'''The Tower''' is a birthsign which provides two powers:
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Tower Key}}'' greater power (FormID <code>00022A6C</code>): [[Oblivion:Open|Open]] Average Lock (40 points) on Target, once per day
* ''{{Linkable Entry|Tower Warden}}'' greater power (Form ID <code>000CB623</code>): [[Oblivion:Reflect Damage|Reflect Damage]] 5% for 120 seconds on Self, once per day
'''In-Game Description:''' With the ''Tower Key'' power, once a day open a door or container of Average lock level or less. The ''Tower Warden'' reflects five points of damage for 120 seconds once a day. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Tower can unlock doors magically, and the Tower Warden power reflects damage from attackers. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Tower shall prove a stout refuge in time of need."

;Tips
*The [[Oblivion:Tower Stone|Tower Birthsign Doomstone]] grants the ''[[Oblivion:Warden Key|Warden Key]]'' greater power, which provides Open Hard Lock in 15 feet on Target, once per day, and therefore provides a more powerful open spell. The Tower Stone also provides ''[[Oblivion:The Master's Hand|The Master's Hand]]'' greater power, with [[Oblivion:Fortify Skill|Fortify]] [[Oblivion:Armorer|Armorer]] 20 points for 120 seconds on Self, once per day.
* No [[Oblivion:Doom Stone|Doom Stone]]s provide any Reflect Damage effect. In fact, this birthsign is the ''only'' (Non-Shivering Isles) way for your character to access Reflect Damage at the [[Oblivion:Spell Making|Spellmaking Altar]] to make custom spells. However, you still cannot make custom enchantments with it.
* This is not a great sign for any thief-like character as any amount of skill in security coupled with a high agility will make easy work of any average lock. Also, any good thief will want practice in security to help boost his agility modifiers.
* After playing the lock-picking mini-game long enough, you can pick any lock in the game with one or two lock picks and a security skill of 5, rendering this ability moot. It's possible to quest for an artifact called the [[Oblivion:Skeleton Key|Skeleton Key]] - an unbreakable lock pick - that will allow any character to open any lock with a little patience.

{{NewLine}}
==Warrior==
[[Image:OBbsign Warrior.jpg|thumb|left|The Warrior]]
'''The Warrior''' is a birthsign which affects your [[Oblivion:Attributes|Attributes]], bestowing the ''{{Linkable Entry|Warrior Birthsign}}'' ability (FormID <code>00022A6E</code>), which has two permanent effects:
* [[Oblivion:Fortify Attribute|Fortify]] [[Oblivion:Endurance|Endurance]] 10 points on Self
* Fortify [[Oblivion:Strength|Strength]] 10 points on Self
'''In-Game Description:''' The Warrior ability grants a bonus of 10 points to your Strength and Endurance attributes. 
'''Load Screen Description:''' Those born under the sign of The Warrior have increased Strength and Endurance. 
'''Emperor's Commentary:''' "Today the Warrior shall prove a stalwart companion when fortune fades."

;Tips
*The total [[Oblivion:Health|Health]] points you gain each level is determined by your Endurance at the time you level. Thus, increasing your Endurance as quickly as possible early in your character's life will give you the highest potential Health later on. This early 10-point boost can be a big help later on.

* Male Redguards that are planning on using a stealth-based character will find this sign of particular use because both Strength and Endurance will be difficult to raise. Starting both of these stats at 60 makes a huge difference in the survivability of such classes.

User talk:98.222.56.245

2008-08-16T00:23:46Z

Benould: Advice

== Advice ==

Hello and welcome to UESPWiki! Thanks for your interest in the wiki. If you would like to experiment with how to [[Help:Editing|edit]], you may want to try editing in our [[UESPWiki:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Adding nonsense to UESPWiki articles disrupts those pages and forces other editors to spend time cleaning them up. You may also want to look over our [[UESPWiki:Style_Guide|style guide]] and [[UESPWiki:Getting Started|Getting Started guide]]. Feel free to [[UESPWiki:Contact|ask]] if you have any questions. --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:23, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Sutch

2008-08-16T00:16:51Z

Benould: Welcome Sutch

== Welcome Sutch ==

Hello Sutch! Welcome to the wiki. I hope you enjoy using the site and find the information on it useful. If you decide you want to help improve any of our pages, we're always welcoming to new editors so feel free. You might want to look at our [[UESPWiki:Getting Started|Getting Started]] page for some tips on how to begin, then play in our [[UESPWiki:Sandbox|Sandbox]] for a while to practice. If you need any help or advice, please ask one of our [[UESPWiki:Mentors|mentors]]. Enjoy! --[[User:Benould|Benould]]•[[User_Talk:Benould|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Benould|C]] 20:16, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Morrowind:Tashpi Ashibael

2008-08-15T23:48:45Z

Benould: Undo revision 351441 by 71.123.195.213 (Talk)we don't really mention clothing, unless it is exceptional

{{NPC Summary
|city=[[Morrowind:Maar Gan|Maar Gan]]
|loc=Tashpi Ashibael's Hut
|race=Dunmer
|gender=Female
|class=Healer
|level=5
|health=50
|magicka= 88
|alarm=0
|fight=30
|faction=
|image=MW-NPCs-TashpiAshibael.jpg
|imgdesc=Tashpi Ashibael
}}
'''Tashpi Ashibael''' is a female [[Morrowind:Dunmer|Dunmer]] [[Morrowind:Healer|Healer]] located inside her hut in [[Morrowind:Maar Gan|Maar Gan]].

Does [[Morrowind:Ranis Athrys|Ranis Athrys]] have a bit of a grudge against Tashpi, or is she really a Necromancer? Her neighbors praise Tashpi's skills as a Healer highly...

One way or another, her house will be abandoned after the quest.
{{NewLeft}}
==Related Quests==
===[[Morrowind:Mages Guild|Mages Guild]]===
*{{Quest Link|Kill Necromancer Tashpi Ashibael}}

Morrowind:Ordinator

2008-08-15T23:31:23Z

Benould: tweaks

{{Morrowind NPC Trail}}

{{TOCright}}
[[Image:MW-NPC-Ordinator.jpg|thumb|left|An Ordinator]]

:''For information about the Ordinator class, see [[Morrowind:NPC Classes#Ordinator|NPC Classes]].''

'''Ordinators''' are special [[Morrowind:Guard|guards]] employed by the [[Morrowind:Tribunal Temple|Tribunal Temple]] to guard its premises and the [[Morrowind:Vivec (city)|city of Vivec]]. They are sworn to uphold both Temple law ''and'' [[Lore:Imperial|Imperial]] law. Ordinators wear some of the best [[Morrowind:Indoril Armor|Medium armor]], colored light-gold and blue, and masks hide their faces.

== Background ==
It is regarded a great honor to be chosen to become an Ordinator. Although not all are of [[Morrowind:House Indoril|House Indoril]], they watch over the Indoril settlements on the mainland. Ordinators are devout and staunch supporters of the Tribunal Temple, following the reigning doctrine. As such, they are opposed to the [[Morrowind:Nerevarine Cult|Nerevarine Prophecies]] and the [[Morrowind:Dissident Priests|Dissident Priests]].

There are four distinct orders of Ordinators: The ''Order of the Watch'' are responsible for law enforcement in Temple and Indoril districts; the ''Order of War'' fight hostile Daedra worshipers and the [[Morrowind:Sixth House|Sixth House]]; the ''Order of Inqisition'' try and execute "heretics", often in defiance of Imperial Law; and the ''Order of Doctrine and Ordination'' are militant scholars who study Temple writings.

== Locations ==
[[Image:VivecMoon.jpg|thumb|right|The Ministry of Truth is guarded by Ordinators.]]
Ordinators are found mainly in the City of Vivec, but also in some Tribunal temples (e.g. the [[Morrowind:Ghostgate|Ghostgate]]). Usually there are a few Ordinators on patrol on the exteriors of Vivec cantons, and a few more inside. They also guard the prison in the [[Morrowind:Ministry of Truth|Ministry of Truth]].
{{newLeft}}
== Treating Ordinators ==
Ordinators can be quite annoying guards. They seem to enjoy calling you "scum" if you don't have a high enough [[Morrowind:Disposition|Disposition]] with them, often taunting you that "If you've come for trouble, then you'll get more than you bargained for."

If you attack one ''before'' its' blow lands on you, you'll be placed on ''all'' Ordinators hatelist, meaning that they will always attack you and won't stop until you're dead. The same applies if you are caught wearing either the Indoril Helmet or Cuirass. In combat, Ordinators scale like other guards and are not much harder to kill than a Hlaalu guard for example, but due to their "Die, Scum!" group behavior, it's normally preferable to run than to retaliate. Unless you want their armor...

After you're named [[Morrowind:Nerevarine|Nerevarine]] by the [[Morrowind:Urshilaku|Urshilaku]] Ashlanders, the Ordinators might attack you on sight, if your disposition with them is very low. After you meet with Archcanon [[Morrowind:Tholer Saryoni|Tholer Saryoni]], Ordinators will be more accepting.

===Notes===
All Ordinators have the following equipment: [[Morrowind:Ebony Mace|Ebony Mace]] (12,000 gold), full set of [[Morrowind:Indoril Armor|Indoril Armor]] - (Cuirass: 7,000 + Helm: 3,000 + Boots: 2,000 + Shield: 2,000 + Left & Right Pauldron: 2,400 each + Left & Right Gauntlet: 1,400 each), and Expensive Pants, Indoril Belt and a Torch. All together, their equipment is worth 33,600 gold.

==Important Ordinators==
* [[Morrowind:Tarer Braryn|Tarer Braryn]] at the Office of the Watch in Vivec's Hall of Justice, Temple Canton
* [[Morrowind:Elam Andas|Elam Andas]] at the Office of the Watch in Vivec's Hall of Justice, Temple Canton

==Related Quests==
* {{Quest Link|Control the Ordinators}}
* {{Quest Link|A Rash of Insults}}
* {{Quest Link|Mysterious Killings in Vivec}}
* {{Quest Link|Suryn Athones' Slanders}}
* {{Quest Link|Hortator and Nerevarine}}
* {{Quest Link|Mehra Milo and the Lost Prophecies}}

User talk:Benould

2008-08-15T23:01:16Z

Benould: /* Apology */ like this?

User:Benould/Opel

2008-08-15T22:57:29Z

Benould: example for OLC

<div style="float:left">
{|
|-
|{{User American}}
|-
|{{User Male}}
|-
|{{User Playstation}}
|-
|{{User Oblivion}}
|-
|{{User ShiveringIsles}}
|-
|{{User KotN}}
|}
</div>
Blah blah blah

blah

Lore:Sotha Sil

2008-08-15T22:31:35Z

Benould: added alt name, incomplete tag

<noinclude>{{Lore Gods Trail}}{{incomplete|refs, history}}</noinclude>
[[Image:TR-SothaSil.jpg|right|thumb|Sotha Sil's home in his Clockwork City]]
:"''In the smoky catacombs beneath the city where Sotha Sil forged the future with his arcane clockwork apparatus, something unforeseen happened. An oily bubble seeped from a long trusted gear and popped. Immediately, the wizard's attention was drawn to it and to the chain that tiny action triggered. A pipe shifted half an inch to the left. A tread skipped. A coil rewound itself and began spinning in a counter direction. A piston that had been thrusting left-right, left-right, for millennia suddenly began shifting right-left. Nothing broke, but everything changed.''

:''“It cannot be fixed now,” said the sorcerer quietly." — [[Lore:2920%2C_Evening_Star_%28v12%29|2920, Evening Star]]

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:Sotha Sil|Sotha Sil]], or '''Seht''', wizard-mystic god of the [[Lore:Dunmer|Dunmer]], is the least known of the divine [[Lore:Tribunal Temple|Tribunal]]. He is said to be reshaping the world from his hidden [[Tribunal:The Clockwork City|Clockwork City]]. Once the last survivor of a minor Dunmer House, Sotha Sil became a great wizard in life and later discovered how to use Kagrenac's Tools on the [[{{NAMESPACE}}:Heart of Lorkhan|Heart of Lorkhan]] to steal its divine powers and become a god.<includeonly>

For more information, see [[Lore:Sotha Sil|Sotha Sil]].</includeonly><noinclude>

After Nerevar's death, the councilors of [[Lore:Gods N|Nerevar]] and the Tribunal of [[Lore:Vivec (god)|Vivec]], [[Lore:Almalexia (god)|Almalexia]], and Sotha Sil came to power among the Dunmer. They then went against Nerevar's dying wish by using the profane Tools of [[Lore:Kagrenac|Kagrenac]] on the [[Lore:Heart of Lorkhan|Heart of Lorkhan]] in order to steal its divine essence for themselves. They achieved great heroism with their divinity, but it was also their undoing; because they worked deeds of good against the evil of the Heart they were weakened even before the return of [[Lore:Dagoth Ur|Dagoth Ur]]. Dagoth Ur, who had also stolen power from the Heart, acted in accordance with its evil and grew stronger.

During the end of [[Lore:First Era|First Era]], around 1E 2920, Sotha Sil spent some time on the Isle of [[Lore:Artaeum|Artaeum]], where he taught some of the new mages of the [[Lore:Psijic Order|Psijic Order]].

After a Daedric disaster in the village of [[Lore:Gilverdale|Gilverdale]], Sotha Sil journeyed into [[Lore:Oblivion|Oblivion]] via the Dreaming Cavern and made a pact with eight of the more prominent [[Lore:Daedric Princes|Daedric Princes]]: [[Lore:Azura|Azura]], [[Lore:Boethiah|Boethiah]], [[Lore:Hermaeus Mora|Hermaeus Mora]], [[Lore:Hircine|Hircine]], [[Lore:Malacath|Malacath]], [[Lore:Mehrunes Dagon|Mehrunes Dagon]], [[Lore:Molag Bal|Molag Bal]], and [[Lore:Sheogorath|Sheogorath]]. The exact terms of the pact are unknown to most inhabitants of Tamriel. At the time of the pact, the Princes agreed not to answer any summoning by amateurs until the war between [[Lore:Morrowind|Morrowind]] and [[Lore:Cyrodiil|Cyrodiil]] ended; only the Psijics, along with a few nomadic sorcerers and witches, could counsel with the Daedra.

[[Image:SothaSil.jpg|left|thumb|Sotha Sil at a close up view in [[Tribunal:Tribunal|Tribunal]]]]

Sotha Sil's pact failed to prevent the destruction of [[Lore:Mournhold|Mournhold]]. A Bretony witch managed to summon Mehrunes Dagon and asked for Mournhold to be destroyed. Although Sotha Sil and Almalexia were too late to prevent the devastation, they managed to banish the Prince of Destruction back to [[Lore:Oblivion|Oblivion]].

In 2E 882, when Almalexia and Sotha Sil visited the [[Lore:Red Mountain|Red Mountain]] for their annual divine bath, the reawakened higher members of the Sixth House ambushed them and stole two of the Kagrenac's Tools, Keening and Sunder. Vivec rescued Almalexia and Sotha Sil, but failed to recover the stolen Tools.

[[Image:TR-NPCs-SothaSil.jpg|thumb|right|Sotha Sil in more detail]]
In time, Sotha Sil become almost completely detached from the real world. He gradually lost touch with the affairs of the Dunmer, the rest of the Tribunal, and eventually all of Tamriel. Sotha Sil was killed by his own long friend and fellow Tribune, Almalexia.

The only noticeable effect that Sotha Sil's Clockwork City had on the world was when Almalexia unleashed its mechanical inhabitants on [[Lore:Mournhold|Mournhold]]. This brutal but brief reign of terror was brought to an end by the [[Lore:Nerevarine|Nerevarine]].
</noinclude>

Lore:Seht

2008-08-15T22:25:02Z

Benould: redirect Sotha Sil

#REDIRECT [[Lore:Sotha Sil]][[Category:Redirects from Alternate Names]]

Lore:Ayem

2008-08-15T22:22:53Z

Benould: redirect to Almalexia

#REDIRECT [[Lore:Almalexia (god)]][[Category:Redirects from Alternate Names]]