Lore talk:Main Page/Archive 1

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past Lore talk:Main Page discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Books Question

I notice that the format for the book pages is different for the #-G sections than it is for the H-Z sections. Which formatting do we want to use? I think we should keep them all consistant. Also, neither format has a column for the authors. Should that be added as well? I'm no good with templates and stuff like that, so if somebody could just design something to make this all consistant, I can do the busy-work. --TheRealLurlock 13:53, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Ah, what the heck. According to the dates on the H-Z sections, they haven't been touched in months. I'll just assume that the #-G sections are the way we want to go, and alter the later ones accordingly. Hopefully this won't be a problem for anyone... --TheRealLurlock 20:50, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Appendices

Suggestion for a new section. Just a general selection of appendices. One example would be the Tamrielic calendar (names of months, days of the week, various year numbering systems), can't think of any other existing section where that would go. A discussion of the "Daedric" alphabet could be another one. (Maybe the Dwemer text as well, though that's basically been proven to be just random characters.) Other things could be various royal family trees or lines of succession, discussions of the constellations (other than game-specific stuff about birthsigns), moon phases (and perhaps their connection with the various Khajiit sub-races) and other general stuff that doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. Thoughts? --TheRealLurlock 14:27, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

Massive Support.
The inclusion of the proper Tamrielic calendar would be nice (although an explanation of the discrepancies betwixt game versions would need to be included), a translation page for the Daedric alphabet would also be nice (and I see you already jumped on that), as well as other languages (Dwemer, early Ayleid, Akaviri, etcetera), and I retain numerous lineage charts that could be used in the "family tree" area (actually, if I recall correctly, I already uploaded the Septim family tree here...yep, here it is), however, the tie between the Khajiit and the Lunar Lattice is already explained in-depth in their Tamriel article and I see no reason to reproduce such elsewhere. Another thing "that doesn't seem to fit anywhere else" might include the addition of an article on the currencies of Tamriel (the Septim and that other one...sorry, I remember chancing across the name, but have forgotten such). -- Booyah boy 16:30, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
Added it to the front page, even though it's just two pages so far. You can add your Septim Dynasty to it, I guess, though we should probably decide what's going to be on it, and it what order to put them. If there's more than just one family tree planned, for example, we should make sure they're all together. I organized them in the same way as you'd see an appendix in a book, as in, by letter, and one title-page indicating what is on each appendix. The lettered appedix header will appear at the top of each appendix page. At the moment, other than the title page, you can only tell where the link goes by rolling over it, which is less than ideal, but not knowing how many of these there will be, we don't want to flood the Tamriel main page with lots of links unless they're very small text. This allows them all to be linked from the front page without using lots of space, and the title page will serve as a table of contents for the appendices in general. Any suggestions for improving this organization are welcome. --TheRealLurlock 16:59, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
Oh, while I think about it, I did see that moon-chart on the Khajiit page. However, it does take up a good deal of space there. How would you feel about moving that chart (and accompanying descriptions) to its own page in the Appendices? You could link to it from the Khajiit page, and thus shorten that page considerably. (It is unusually long. I'd also consider moving the Khajiit religion section elsewhere and linking, just to make the page less dauntingly huge.) --TheRealLurlock 17:03, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
I'm not sure why these pages should be listed as "appendices"; having the "appendix A", "appendix B" titles seems somewhat artificial. Especially if you're anticipating alot of these pages. Just a page listing these as other available articles would seem sufficient; then have a bread crumb trail at the top of the pages that leads back to that listing. I'd also suggest making sure that each of these topics has an entry under Dictionary that links to these pages. --Nephele 17:58, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
LURLOCK: "You can add your Septim Dynasty to it, I guess, though we should probably decide what's going to be on it, and it what order to put them."
REPLY: What do you mean by what's going to be on it?
As in, "What other appendices are we going to have?" Like I said, if there's other family trees to add, they should all be organized near eachother.
Well, I have three other "major" lineage charts (resembling the Septim one, in greater part) for the known descendants of the first and second empires of Tamriel, as well as a few "minor" family trees for various families (generally limited to five, ten, or fifteen names at the most). -- Booyah boy 22:54, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
LURLOCK: "How would you feel about moving that chart (and accompanying descriptions) to its own page in the Appendices? You could link to it from the Khajiit page, and thus shorten that page considerably. (It is unusually long. I'd also consider moving the Khajiit religion section elsewhere and linking, just to make the page less dauntingly huge.)"
REPLY: Hmmm, I don't know about that. True, the page is rather long, but then, it was meant to contain all pertinent data concerning the Khajiit. That much aside, the information relates rather too closely to the article contents itself to be removed. As regards the Khajiit religion section, I created such to elaborate on the Tamrielic Pantheons article, that did scant justice to the Khajiit. What's more, once finished, the other race pages will easily rival the Khajiit page for length.
I still think it makes sense in some cases to break the pages apart. A statement saying something like "Khajiits are born in different forms based on the phases of the moons. See this chart for more on the subject." would make the total content of the page much less daunting. You can't say everything there is to say about an entire race of people on a single page. Breaking it up into easily readable chunks with cross-references to relevant subjects can be helpful in these situations.
Perhaps, but it was to avoid that very thing that I threw all pertinent information on a single page; that is, I was always annoyed at being redirect to another page, when I thought I had finally reached the one that held the information I desired. -- Booyah boy 22:54, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
Lastly, I'm in support of Nephele's suggestion of making a single page listing each separate article under the general header of "Appendixes". Said page could list the articles alphabetically, sparing the Tamriel main page further clutter. -- Booyah boy 19:50, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
I'm not attached to the current organization method. Just threw it together quickly based on real book appendices I've seen. It'd be nice to have them all accessible from a single header like the other sections on the Tamriel page, but if we get a lot of these, it might get unwieldy, I'll admit. Feel free to come up with an alternative. --TheRealLurlock 23:52, 22 September 2006 (EDT)
If I can find the time, I'll give it a once-over later. Until then, I'm fine with whatever you come up with. -- Booyah boy 22:54, 23 September 2006 (EDT)

Other continents

Question: Where would an article about Akavir or Yokuda belong? Obviously not on any of the gamespaces, since no game has taken place in those locations. Generally such articles end up in the Tamriel name space, but that's not accurate either, as the other continents are not Tamriel. I'm almost thinking this whole namespaces should be renamed "Nirn", but that would be a pain. Maybe a new Nirn namespace might be in order, but other than these other continent pages, I'm not sure what would go in there. Is it okay to have an article called "Tamriel:Akavir"? (I also notice that nothing really has been written about these places on the site. Even in Tamriel:Geography, there is no mention of other continents. Only in the Lore:Mundus article did I find anything, and it barely said anything, just gave a list. How should this be handled? --TheRealLurlock 14:37, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

My uninformed and impotent two-cents suggests yes, we may need a new namespace, but the Nirn:Tamriel would just #redirect to Tamriel:Tamriel, and if you did have something to say about Akavir, perhaps Akavir:Akavir would be the good starting spot until you fluffed it up to Tamrielian proportions. I'm curious on what you have learned about the other continents. Either that or I'm drunk again. I'm not sure what to do about Aetherius and Mundus though. I'm imagining a great chain, Universe:Universe with links to Universe:Mundus, which links to Mundus:Nirn, which in turn links to Nirn:Tamriel, which finally links to Tamriel:Tamriel. CROIKEY! Soviet escapees probably did't run that far. Anyhoo, that's the half-baked, hair-brained, ill-advised scheme that sprang from the fog of my gin-soaked mind. No, I wouldn't do it either. ⌈Uniblab 15:20, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋

Tamriel:People is missing some mages

Does anyone have any information on the Arch-Mage Magnus, smith of the Staff of Magnus?

How about Arch-Mage Syrabane, creator of the Warlock's Ring?

I have nothing in my ARENA2\BOOKS directory (grumble) ⌈Uniblab 21:31, 2 December 2006 (EST)⌋

Factions

I'm in the midst of generating up faction information for Daggerfall, which also involves some clean-up. To facilitate this I am conforming Daggerfall factions to the following schema as I write their data to facilitate the use of automation macros:

  • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Desc
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Leads
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/LeadBy
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Benefits/_game_name_
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Training/_game_name_/List
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Training/_game_name_/Row
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/RequiredSkills/_game_name_/List
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/RequiredSkills/_game_name_/Row
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Region
    • Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_/Quests/_game_name_/List

Where |_faction_name_ is the name of the faction (excluding any leading articles, such as "the"), and _game_name_ is the name of the game of interest (Daggerfall, Tribunal, et cetera). Example: Tamriel:Factions/Akatosh Chantry/RequiredSkills/Daggerfall/List

That being said, there are a number of factions which are found in multiple games, and I will NOT be taking any unilateral actions on factions like The Mages Guild, which appear in multiple games and would clearly impact the works of many others (and most likely in a negative fashion). While it is hoped the uniform presentation, and utility of the various macros is appreciated and adopted, I'm not going to sit around and cry about any factions which can't be moved to the new naming and data storage schema.

If there are any Heros of Daggerfall out there, I am always grateful for help and could certainly use some in just the sheer data-entry portion. There are over 500 Daggerfall factions and individuals, and while only a few dozen are used by most players, a few dozen is still a lot of work. Some helpful short-cuts:

  • Knightly Orders
    • All Knightly Orders have the same RequiredSkills (I smell another macro)
    • All Knightly Orders have the same Training (again)
    • All Knightly Orders have the same Benefits (yet again)
  • Templar Knightly Orders
    • All Templar Knightly Orders have the same RequiredSkills as Knightly Orders (use the KO macro)
    • All Templar Knightly Orders have the same Training as their command temple (invoke the parent org's macro)
    • All Templar Knightly Orders have the smae Benefits as their commanding temple (again)

Uniblab 05:58, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋

Thanks for taking on this big task! But there are a few things you're doing that I'm not too sure about, and I thought I'd bring them up before you get too far along, so we can figure out what everyone thinks would work best.
I anticipated this, and only planned on doing two or three to see how it "feels", this way there isn't a lot of garbage on the nice, clean server. So far it "feels" good. ⌈Uniblab 14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
  • I'm not sure why you're creating pages named Tamriel:Factions/_faction_name_ instead of just revising the existing Tamriel:_faction_name_ pages. I don't think there should be two pages describing the exact same material. And I'd give my vote to Tamriel:_faction_name_; there's been an overall trend away from using subpages to categorize pages. The category tags are there to allow pages to be sorted by category (and have alot more flexibility for that purpose than subpages). So all that adding "Factions/" to the name accomplishes is that it makes it more than twice as hard to type in links to the page (instead of typing [[Lore:Akatosh Chantry|]], you have to type [[Lore:Factions/Akatosh Chantry|Akatosh Chantry]]). As a result alot of pages that were once created using subpages (all of Oblivion:Quests/_quest_name_ pages, for example) were then subsequently moved and renamed.
  • I ran with the ":Factions/|_faction_name_" schema based on instincts I've developed about logical purity over the course of my 16 year programming career. Given the sheer number of permutations available with just a few characters, I wasn't concerned with name-collisions but I was concerned with keeping things straight in my own tiny, cramped skull. I do see the point regarding the typing issue though, which brings us back to the pathfinding nature of the two or three factions thus far itemized. If this does seem to be a real problem it's easier now to try a change (perhaps collapsing the :Faction/ portion) than it is later, but w/o any real experience with matter my stab in the dark may be no worse than your stab in the dark, hence the micro trial we see now. All the real work is done in the macros anyway ;) ⌈Uniblab 14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
  • Minor point, but using level-one headers (i.e., =Akatosh Chantry=) at the top of page is generally avoided. The page name is already provided automatically by the wiki; adding an additional level one header is generally redundant and just takes up valuable space at the top of the webpage. Similarly, "Description" sections often work better as just the first, introductory paragraph of a page, instead of being given a separate section (see for example, Hammerfell).
  • I dig the level-one headers, and this is easily cured in the {{Faction}} macro, since that's the macro which actually builds the displayed pages. ⌈Uniblab 14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
  • Regarding the descriptions: I don't expect the descriptions to stay as merely single paragraphs very long. The descriptions as they were in Tamriel were mostly taken from Daggerfall's TEXT.RSC file, even though they were active factions in Morrowind, Tribunal, et al. I actually expect uniform interface and display, which decouples the data from the display, to be quite useful across the gamut of TES. ⌈Uniblab 14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
  • Saving the biggest for last... using alot of subpages to organize all of the information. There are a number of reasons to be pretty conservative about using subpages for organizing wiki data (which we can definitely discuss in more detail). But the bottom line is it's really best to only use subpages in cases where the data is going to be used in multiple places. So, for example, with the Oblivion place pages, the Description has been put into a subpage, so it can then be automatically shown anywhere that place is mentioned. It's not clear to me that most of the info you're adding is ever going to be used anywhere except on that one page, in which case I think just putting the info directly on the page will in the long run be easier to maintain. Unless I'm not seeing the big picture of what you're planning to do, which is very possible :) But I thought it would be worth doublechecking what the possibilities are while you're still in the early stages of this project.
  • The subpages is another old habbit from my programming career: decoupling the data from the display. The */List (and the yet unimplimented */Row) pages are data-only because in Daggerfall alone I have need for this kind of macro-based inclusion on several pages that need to be authored. Rather than write the data once on the faction, and then a second time when I need to include the data in an uberlist of all factions, and then a third time when I need the data in a table of just the temples (or KOs, or whatever), and then a fourth time when for a page on maximizing faction membership to "cover the board" of training or services, and then a fifth time when it is necessary to provide information on a walk-through… it is far, far easier to write it once and include it several times, than it is to write it several times. It gets even worse when someone changes just one instance of the data and neglects to update the rest. As the kind of guy who thinks writing .so and .dll files is "fun", it should not be surprising that wiki-modularity also interests me. ⌈14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
  • Ahh! The "Big Picture". I have a habbit for thinking about that on a continual basis (old habbits), but sometimes I may forget to fully explain myself. The experiment is to attempt a uniform interface and display for the various factions found in TES. Currently there is quite a bit of repetition, and duplication. I may be very wrong, but it just may be more efficient to use a singular page for reporting all important bits of information per faction per game, such as skill training or quest offerings, as well as the more mundane aspects like the general description of what this faction is. I am very optimistic that providing a single, unified system for faction management, both maintaining the data as well as simply viewing the data will be tremendously simplified. ⌈Uniblab 14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
  • Maybe it's all for naught. Maybe decoupling the data from the display won't get us anywhere, and maybe the GameX people would start a turf war with the GameY people even though there is plenty of room to go around, and maybe discoveries are so rare that facilitating their inclusion in the documentation via specific */Foo subpages just isn't worth it. If that really is the case (and I hope we proved it's the case by giving the idea some serious consideration) then we are still in a situation of no harm, no foul because with just two or three factions, and one or two individuals documented, we can pack up the toys and go home; nothing is broken and we've all learned something from the endevour. For my own plans, since I still need the data-independence of sub-pages then I'll just change a few macros and move everything into the Daggerfall namespace and no one is ever bothered. It would be as if nothing has ever happened. But if you think there may be something in this do less work, and get more reward paradigm of using the wiki as a database front-end, rather than a pretty-printer, we can still procede cautiously. Perhaps the prototype needs more than two or three to really get a feel for it, or perhaps it just needs some of the other game data to fluff it up before we can truely measure it's performance. In either case we'll be speaking with that Booming Voice of Experience when the decision is reached, because if it wasn't for at least some of that let's give it a shot we wouldn't even have wiki itself. ⌈Uniblab 14:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)⌋
--Nephele 12:47, 5 January 2007 (EST)
It looks like it has been agreed. Regardless of this idea making sense or not, it would just be impractical. The system would be prone to error, and accidents. This is really no big trouble, and things will return to normal RSN. My thanks for the learned opinion and expert advice of all involved. The insight shared by Nephele, Lurlock, and Ratwar via irc was most appreciated. If I have neglected to include anyone, this was not intensional and my most sincere appologies for any such accidental omission. ⌈Uniblab 03:52, 7 January 2007 (EST)⌋

minor reformating of original list performed because of var macro interactions with lists ⌈Uniblab 05:37, 10 January 2007 (EST)⌋

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this project, and I'm trying to avoid just reacting to the fact that it's doing things differently than have been done in the past. But I'm still having a hard time grasping the big picture here and appreciating the benefits of what you're doing.

To me, alot of the information that you're adding to factions and daedric pages is really game-specific information that doesn't belong in the Tamriel namespace. We still need to do more work as a community to decide where to draw the fuzzy line between what belongs in Tamriel and what belongs in individual games. But based on previous discussions I think that specific details such as required skills and benefits by rank is information that really belongs just in the individual gamespaces. Finding that information on the Tamriel page doesn't help me to have an overall better appreciation of the purpose of a given faction, for example. I think it's information that you really only need access to while you are actually playing that game.

Also, it seems that with the structure you're creating, you are imposing a uniformity across the games that doesn't exist. Many of the Daggerfall factions don't exist at all in Oblivion, so creating placeholders for Oblivion information seems strange. Even for factions that do exist, the way the factions function is so different that the purpose of the placeholders is unclear. For the temples, for example, the information that has been filled in for the Oblivion pages isn't really comparable to the Daggerfall information; for other factions, such as the Thieves Guild, it's even less obvious what would go in some of those places. If the games were more similar, I could see that collecting all the game information in one place might have some benefit; maybe there are some readers who would want to compare the benefits in Daggerfall with those in Oblivion. But as it is, it's more like comparing apples and oranges and I'm not sure that it will help anyone.

While I agree completely with the goal of trying to only provide information in a single place, I still don't see the advantage of your way of doing it over the existing ways. I don't think that decoupling the data from the display is inherently a useful approach for the wiki. On the contrary, I think most wiki editors prefer to have the data as closely integrated with the display as possible; it's much easier to edit a page if you can just pull up that page in the editor and all the information is right there. It does potentially require some extra work to maintain uniform layout, but that tends to not be a big problem. Or in cases where it is a concern, it's possible to create a template that ensures the layout is done properly, but where all the data for the page is still right there on the same page. [Revision: decoupling the data from the display is useful for the wiki, but it's best when done so that the data is up front and accessible, and the display is moved to a less accessible layer (as in, templates). When most editors go to modify a page, it's the data that they want to change, and therefore the data that should appear when they click a page's edit button. The details of the display aren't of interest to as many editors, so they can be safely decoupled and moved somewhere other than the main wiki page.]

With the daedric pages, for example, the existing approach was already using just a single master copy of the information. But it was done without creating a separate page (that is never intended to be accessed by readers) just to store that information. Instead, a standard wiki page was used as the main copy of the information, and that standard page was transcluded elsewhere. There are various ways to adapt such transclusions to customize them for various situations. So it's not clear what the benefit is of moving that information to a subpage.

I think it's great that you're interested in experimenting and trying out new ways of doing things, and finding some new solutions to problems. But on the other hand, this is still a wiki: it is built on the premise that the information should be easy to access and edit even for completely new editors. As a result, the software is designed to support certain approaches better than others. And I'm still not sure that what you're doing makes sense from a wiki perspective. I'm always happy to discuss this some more! --Nephele 02:49, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Your comments give me ample reason to pause and think carefully. Your input speaks volumes despite being four (small) paragraphs, so I'll stop for a bit so I can consider this from your point of view since I would need to be coherent in order for us to have any meaningful dialog on this matter.
Uniblab 03:03, 13 January 2007 (EST)⌋
I've fluffed up a pair (Dark Brotherhood and Akatosh Chantry) of factions so I can see some examples of what the finished works might be like. My first questions were is this retarded?, and does this make sense?. From here I can now better look at this from your (Nephele's) perspective and ask myself the same questions you raise. While I have many errands today, I should hopefully be able to address this situation in a manner which you find agreeable before your upcoming travels. ⌈Uniblab 05:48, 13 January 2007 (EST)⌋
With regard to "maybe there are some readers who would want to compare the benefits in Daggerfall with those in Oblivion. But as it is, it's more like comparing apples and oranges and I'm not sure that it will help anyone." Personally i am finding the new format a lot clearer, and a lot better than having to look up the same information for each game. Although i may be in a small minority thats looking for details on the world overall, rather than just one game.

Stars & Moons (heavens)

I've always been interested in the stars and moons that appear in the elder scrolls. Are these consistant throughout? Does Tamriel have regular star formations (including the astrological signs used for attributes) and different names for the same moons? Would there be a place to put these under a new heading? Just something I noticed while reading the Kajjit pages and not seeing any links in all the info about moon phases.

I think the correct place to put them would be the Tamriel heading, we are a bit wrong with the actual title, and in the future, it may change. Anyways, very little is known on the Moons, Planets, and Stars. Some of the Birthsigns (and the constellations that form them) have stayed constant throughout the series, while some new ones have appeared. If you'd like to do further readings on the moons/planets, there's an article on the Imperial Library. Though I caution you to some extent, since most of that information comes from a former developer, not in game sources. Thus Bethesda could easily change it. --Ratwar 09:48, 5 February 2007 (EST)
I was thinking about doing a Lore:Astronomy page with this info, though it is mostly covered on the Lore:Khajiit article. Though some information such as "Jone" and "Jode" being alternate names for "Masser" and "Secunda" is not given there. (It is mentionned briefly on Lore:Ehlnofex Languages.) Might also be worth noting that Masser is actually just a color-altered version of Mars (I know Martian geology all too well from another project), and Secunda is I think one of Jupiter's moons, forget which. --TheRealLurlock Talk 11:57, 5 February 2007 (EST)

artifacts & speculations

so, according to the tamriel lore books throughout the games, have there been any aritfacts that have not yet been presented yet?

because i still have yet to find the spear of bitter mercy and the lord's mail


and whats the deal with the next game??? i've heard a lot of roumors saying that it's gonna be a mmorpg! wont that totally kill it?

Both artifacts are present in Morrowind: here and here respectively. –RpehTCE 08:48, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Are Authors People?

I've just noticed that we have some book authors on the list of People but not all. As a simple example, Lore:People F has both Fav'te and Frincheps but not Agrippa Fundilius, author of The War of the First Council. I don't have too strong an opinion one way or the other, but if we're aiming for a full list I suppose they should all go on. On the other hand, that might be a bit excessive. Any thoughts? –RpehTCE 12:44, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes they're people. Example the author of the Real Barenziah apears in Tribunal 62.251.15.186 20:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT) LCV

About size?

As I read the introduction here "the vast continent" I was reminded of something that always annoys me about tamriel.. Cyrodiil is (in game) roughly 16 sq miles, or about two-thirds the size of Manhattan. This makes the entire continent smaller than New York CITY..

But at the same time, if going by the scale on one of the maps, it's about the size of Europe. But in this case, the bridge from the Imperial Island would be about 30 miles long, and the Imperial City itself would be almost as large as northern Ireland... ..also Morrowind would be larger than any nation in europe and have a coastline over 3000 miles around...

It is understandable, since it's a game, but has anyone considered any way to merge these to completely incompatible scales without having to redraw just about the entire map?

We tend to make our estimatesa around the official maps, since distances had to be vastly altered in the games in order to make sure that the player didn't spend 90% percent of their time just walking around. It would also make it extremely diffuclt for the developers to produce a landscape that large, and the resulting game would require an extremely high-end PC to play it. As it is, while confusing, the official maps' distances are considered to be standard and correct. --HMSVictoryTalk 07:34, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I fully understand the justification for the strange scale in-game, of course. :)
The reason I ask is, partially, that I have been playing around with using the world as a basis for PnP rpging.
I have come to the conclusion that some details would have to be scaled down on such a game map. The size of the rivers obviously, since the smallest ones would be almost 10 miles wide otherwise, but also Lake Rumare and the Imperial island, most smaller lakes, and the Niben bay and Morrowind to a lesser degree.
The problem is that in order to keep the "feel" and the local geographical relationships (such as Vivecs position among the islands), I would have to scale things extremely asymetrically. Vvardenfell as a whole can be left as is, but the entire souther coast, for example, whould have to be scaled down by a factor of 15, at least. Something similar goes for Sadrith Mora and the entire Zafirbel bay, and several other locations, for the same reasons. But then all global geographical relationships (as in the actual shape of the whole island) would get twisted beyond recognition....
And it would probably create problems for the whole of the map...--Ahnaz31 14:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Geographiclly confused.

The Region of the Illiac Bay in Daggerfall is 63,125 square miles across. Vvardenfall on the tamriel map is bigger than the illiac bay region yet in Morrowind it is only 6 square miles across. Cyrodill supposedly about 3 times the size of Vvardenfall and the Illiac bay, is only 16 square miles across! If Cyrodill is 3 times the size of the illiac bay yet 0.1 of the size in game, how does that compute?

It's because Morrowind and Oblivion's graphics are much more detailed than Daggerfall's. If Oblivion was the size of Daggerfall then you would need huge amounts of PC memory to play it. Plus the developers did not want the land in Morrowind and Oblivion to be Generic as it was in Daggerfall so they made a much smaller world with much more detail and fixed NPCs, towns and cities, hoping that TES fans would overlook the fact that it's out of proportion.--Willyhead/t 15:45, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Topal Bay region question

On the map,there is a small island in Topal Bay.I was wondering which province it belongs to,is it in Elsweyr,Black Marsh or Cyrodiil region

Controversy and Subjectivity

The uncertainty factor in ES lore is a very popular part of the series. Sources are biased and subjective, and we just can't be 100% certain on many topics. Nedes vs. Nords, Arcturian Heresy vs. Orthodoxy, what really happened to the Dwemer. But where does this leave UESP? It's an encyclopedia and gets shot in the foot with a laughable trend towards shoddy inaccuracy. Well, people, these may be the big "pick your own story" mysteries, but there are still correct and incorrect answers, and if the lore on this site is ever going to be correct or at least consistent, we have to get with the program. Nedes are not from Atmora. The Arcturian Heresy is true because it's the only way it could have possible happened. We know what happened to the Dwarves and the clues were there since before Morrowind was released. Most of all, this stuff can't be proven with simple links, otherwise it would be almost pointless to study and learn, like a boring history class but fake. SO the question is, if articles are corrected, will people complain and advocate the wrong answer because they don't realize that metaphysics and detailed, complex conclusions cannot be quantitatively proven except through study and understanding of diverse sources where canon and non-canon is irrelevant? — Unsigned comment by 24.31.156.165‎ (talkcontribs)

UESP isn't really an encyclopedia; it's a fan site that uses the wiki format, that's all. You claim some of our pages are incorrect whilst at the same time admitting there can be more than one answer to some problems. Your only suggestion seems to be that people can post whatever they like without giving sources because it fits a personal theory. I'm very interested in improving the Lore section of the site, but I want to do so with links and in-game sources, supported where necessary with information from developer interviews and other real-world information. I don't want to see a mass of made-up information with no basis in fact. –RpehTCE 01:37, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't see that there is any inherent problem here with UESP's approach. If the in-game books provide more than one version of the facts, then our articles should summarize each of those different versions. I don't think it's appropriate for UESP to try to declare that one version is "correct", and I definitely don't think it's appropriate for UESP to try to only summarize the one "correct" version of facts and exclude all other versions. It's not even a question of whether or not UESP is encyclopedic in style: wikipedia applies the same basic principles with its No original research and Neutral point of view policies. For example, the "No original research" policy explicitly states:
Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.
We want to take the claims made by different reliable sources (i.e., different books that have appeared in the games), summarize each of those claims in the article, and provide attribution (link to the original book). We do not want to synthesize the information to reach conclusions that are not provided by the in-game books.
Admitting that the game includes multiple versions of history does not create a "laughable trend towards shoddy inaccuracy." I think it makes the site's articles more useful for readers. Most readers will come across a history article, e.g., the article on Nedes, after reading one of the in-game books that describes the Nedes. If the Nedes article contains completely different information than the book the reader just saw, then the article will be completely confusing. The article will be far more useful if it instead acknowledges the information from that book, but then also provides information from other sources. It's the only way for readers to get a complete view of the Elder Scrolls universe. Advancing one sole theory as correct completely hides the complexity of the Elder Scrolls lore and therefore misrepresents one of the most interesting parts of the game. --NepheleTalk 11:16, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
It is understandable that a fan site wants to serve the fans and their personal views on their series. It is less understandable that the site should be willfully inaccurate and commit sins of omission, ignoring the right of those who write the lore, to interpret and explain it for themselves. It is a question of priorities.
I am fine with presenting multiple theories, but one thing I do not want to see again is the wrong answer being given precedence over the right answer because it has more support from sources that are intentionally fallible. There are right answers, and though UESP need no present them as such, they should not be stonewalled and scrutinized like just another crackpot theory. — Unsigned comment by 24.31.156.165‎ (talkcontribs) on 25 July 2008
I am not aware of cases where articles have been "willfully inaccurate"; nor is it true that the wrong answer has been given precedence over the right answer, at least not intentionally. If the articles have previously only contained one theory it is, as far as I know, because the authors of that article only knew of the one theory.
Wikis are almost inevitably incomplete, in part because each editor is encouraged to contribute the information that he/she knows, even if the editor does not have comprehensive knowledge of every aspect of the topic. A fundamental principle of the wiki is that if many editors all contribute their partial knowledge, then a complete article can be assembled from those pieces. No single editor is required to be an expert on the topic. But asking editors to contribute their partial information is a far cry from asking editors to be willfully inaccurate.
The main reason why your edits have been "stonewalled and scrutinized" is because you have deleted existing content, instead of adding to the existing content. Your edits would actually be the first example that come to my mind of "sins of omission" -- intentionally deleting information from articles, even though the information has some supporting evidence. Your own edit summaries have forced some of this, by declaring that one set of information is "wrong" and another is "right" -- evaluating those edit summaries has forced our patrollers to make an immediate judgment call about which of two versions of the article is better. There is less need to make such a judgment call if no content has been deleted from the article. --NepheleTalk 20:40, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

The only place where I have actually done what you have described is in the Aedra article and the dictionaries. Defending the inclusion of the prior material in the former would indeed be 'willful inaccuracy,' as it was so very, very... bad. The resistance to my changes in the 'Nede' article are a prime example of aforementioned 'stonewalling' and 'willful inaccuracy,' though that may prove to be an exception. Note that I did justice to both theories and rewrote both to be more expansive. But you are talking about edits in the dictionaries, where most entries are six words long and have no sources. So it is rather silly to complain that I don't keep both theories when this bit-size knowledge is designed for brevity, and that I do not source when the dictionary pages have no sources. In your original messages you say you will revert to the earlier entries because they are older and no one has yet complained. And that is ridiculous, willful inaccuracy, though I believe you have qualified that somewhat. If you want to talk specifics instead of theory, I am waiting in the talk pages.

Tamreil->Lore

Well yikes, that's a big change. Was it discussed somewhere where people volunteered to change every single link or something. 'Tamriel' was a more graceful equivalent, but that's just me not liking the word lore in the first place.Temple-Zero 09:31, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes. It was. here. And no, people don't need to change the links because our bots will do it. –RpehTCE 09:50, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

The Case for Kirkbride

(This discussion has been moved to UESPWiki talk:Lore#Sources for Lore Articles; reasons are provided there) --NepheleTalk 15:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Probably Incorrect information

On the opening paragraph on the main page, it states the Nirn is referred to as Mundus, but from the information I have gathered, the planet known as Nirn is one of many planets in the mortal realm known as the Mundus. If someone could please post a disagreement or response including an in game referrance, it is greatly appreciated. --M'aiq the Liar 22:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

But for the 'many planets' part, I agree with you. I am tempted to say "Nirn is the planet, Mundus is the plane," but if you notice, 'planet' is 'plane(t).' There's not much difference in ES. I would suggest that Nirn is the common (but not scientific)name for the distinct, continuous landmass that is the earth beneath their feet, and Mundus is the term for the planet plus its immediate surroundings that are not the void of Oblivion- its sentience, divinity and specific, unique reality. Temple-Zero 23:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Prev: None Up: Lore talk:Main Page Next: Archive 2