Lore talk:Soul Cairn

Revision

My most recent edit on this page was undone by "The Silencer". It said that the info. was unofficial and didnt belong on a lore page. But this link shows some of the information about it http://theparanoidgamer.com/new-skyrim-dawnguard-information/ in my opinion I dont know if this is trustable. I beleve this may be leaked information from the first beta users or bethesda and maybe possibly E3 attenders. However if this doesnt belong here how can it be on the regular game page? Are they not restricted by unofficial information? What is the other users opinions? Cole1 03:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, sorry if the removal seemed rude to you, I'm sure it was done in good faith, much like your adding it here. It's just that the Dawnguard page itself is still speculative at best. Spreading that speculation onto other pages might not be the best idea. We'll get the most accurate information about it when it's released or at least when we get something official from BethSoft. In the meantime, why don't you collect the info on your computer and see what articles need to be changed? That way you can more easily correct them should any of the newly released info contradict the final product. -- kertaw48 09:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unreleased, not unofficial. If you notice the notice at the top off the regular page, it reads this article is based on unreleased content. Lore space is reserved for confirmed unrefutable facts, and until dawnguard is released, not announced, then things can change, so it cannot be stated as fact. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 12:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the answer might be it seems that I am not agreed with here so I wont argue anymore. But it is most undoutebly the Soul Cairn or some deep part of Aetherius. And I dont beleive anything done was rude, I wrote this out of the purpose of information. But we will know in the next few weeks; hopefully.Cole1 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding sourced info to the Skyrim page. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 15:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(←) It is now confirmed as appearing in the DLC. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 18:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So why has it been removed?Cole1 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Following the policy we had for Skyrim, information from Dawnguard remains off lore articles until release. Especially game-specific information which would have been removed/reworded anyway. --Legoless 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Even just saying it appears? The Silencer has spoken^Talk 18:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that written somewhere, it is a fact. They will not delete the whole questline.--Cole1 18:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you even seen the video?--Cole1 18:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to The Silencer: yes. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning it in the notes section if we decide to change this policy, but adding unreleased information to the main text simply degrades the article's long-term quality. Cole, I have seen "the video" - the legitimacy of the information isn't the only issue with including it. Take the new information to Skyrim:Soul Cairn, not lorespace. I'm unaware of a written policy on adding unreleased information to lorespace, but it may be worth adding one; currently, it's simply common practice. —Legoless 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it was established that Lore was reserved for facts, but a policy page may need written, because info on the Online game and the second DLC will drip through over the next year. Other Lore places and NPCs have either a Note or a See Also link to the gamespace article. (and just to say I didn't revert you Legoless, it was an ec that didn't appear for me.) The Silencer has spoken^Talk 18:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean, like these guidelines? I'd suggest taking any changes of what should or shouldn't be on lore pages to that discussion page, since its technically a policy change. --kiz ^talk_email 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) I've added the missing Notes/See Also sections, with links to a new Dawnguard article at Skyrim:Soul Cairn. Is this a fair compromise? Silencer (edit: and Kiz), I'll bring up the issue on the Community Portal for discussion. —Legoless 19:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion. —Legoless 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Just Black Soul Gems?

The article says that the Soul Cairn only has black souls. However, there are at least 2 groups of horses that are soul-trapped in the Soul Cairn. Arvak and Morven Stroud's horses. — Unsigned comment by 71.161.225.26 (talk) at 21:53 on 16 September 2014 (GMT)

Actually it said that only souls captured by a black soul gem are sent there, which is an important distinction since a white soul can be captured in one. However, I don't remember ever hearing that in-game, and there are enough cows and horses in there to maybe think otherwise. I've changed it. —Legoless (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2014 (GMT)

Article is incorrect

Valerica didn't flee to the Soul Cairn in the Merethic Era but during the late second era.Matt Grandstaff :"The intention was that Serana went to sleep in the late second era, between the Reman and Septim empires. Her initial dialogue is just her surprise that there’s an Empire in Cyrodiil, as there hadn't been when she went to sleep."--94.134.103.70 09:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Developer comments are generally taken, by Bethesda's own instructions on the matter, as weaker canon over what actually appears in the games. That said, I still removed that line for now due to it being speculative. A better option is surely available, though. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 12:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)