Thanks for your additions and changes to pages like [[Lore:Dictionary A]], [[Lore:Dictionary B]] and so on but please can you provide some sources for your information? At the moment you've just replaced one set of unsourced statements with another set, and I have to say that I'm tempted to revert your changes because the others had been there for several years with no complaints. Thanks. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:28, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
As a wiki site, this is an encyclopedia. But Elder Scrolls lore is neither encyclopedic nor entirely objective, so you can either take my explicit and confidence assurance that I am correct, or we can hash it out, in which case a better format would be needed. I am paw-prints-in-the-mud on the official forums, and all of my changes would be supported by pretty much the entire Imperial Library Storyboard that posts regularly. I would appreciate a dedicated forum PM or email if you want to discuss specific cases, just bear in mind that I'm right. — Unsigned comment by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
In the meant time, see the discussion over my changes to Tamriel: Nede.
- If you're posting on the site then the correct place for any discussion is also on the site rather than the forums. Quite simply, if you're going to erase pre-existing content and replace it with your own without giving any references or sources, it's going to be changed back. The discussion to which you referred me - and I remember it well - is best summed up by Kementari's point, "Feel free to add constructively to the page. Opposing viewpoints, delivered politely, enhance our understanding". The changes you made don't help achieve a consensus and so are not particularly helpful. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:26, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
- With all respect, unfortunately your "explicit and confidence[sic] assurance[sic]" is not enough; forum PMs and emails are also not useful ways to exchange information about the wiki. All that rpeh is asking is that when you change an article you provide links to the book(s) that provide that information. It's not so that rpeh himself can check the information; it's so that all future readers of the article can see where the information came from and, if they're interested, easily find the relevant in-game books and read the full books themselves. Therefore, the information needs to be part of the UESP article (or part of the UESP talk page) -- in a place where every visitor to the site can find it. If you're not familiar with the correct <ref> tags, then simply put the source in parentheses at the end of the sentence: "Nords are from Atmora (The Annotated Anuad)"
- The effort to include references in the lore articles is part of a general effort to improve those articles. Recently, most new lore articles and most major updates to the lore articles have included references. Although the references are still missing from many articles, that's simply because editors haven't had a chance to update those articles. If you are interested in updating our articles, your contributions will be far more useful if you can include links to the appropriate books. Otherwise, it is very likely that when another editor comes along to properly format the article (and add references to all of the article's information), your information will get deleted, if that editor cannot readily figure out where the information came from. --NepheleTalk 11:33, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
How many sources do you want? Three? Five? Thirteen? The fan articles and forum posts that are necessary to make the references anything but useless, needle-in-the-haystack links? This is a video game universe, and academic standards are not realistic for any part of the lore which is anything more than an explicitly stated fact. Lore on the site will be incomplete and false unless you accept this, just as it will appear unreliable if I edit things with no citations.
Much better to start discussions on the talk pages and hash out the truth case-by-base. If you like I will add links in the meantime, but they will only be lipservice without the *discussion* that makes such complex topics comprehensible. — Unsigned comment by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
- One would be a good start. So far all we have is your instruction "just bear in mind that I'm right."
- You obviously come from a different internet background, so let's try to start again here. UESP's aim is to describe the ES world. That begins with the games - for which I think it's fair to say that UESP is the preeminent source on the web - and moves into the world of Lore, for which TIL is regarded as the best at the moment. For me, though, TIL has one big, almost fatal problem: it doesn't give sources for most of its material. The material on TIL may well be from valid sources and may well be canonical, but without references it's impossible to tell fact from (fan-)fiction.
- "What is Truth?" is an impossible question to answer even when you're dealing with the real world. Just look at Wikipedia and the flame wars that can start over innocuous topic on that site. With ES lore, it's even worse as most of the facts haven't been witnessed by anybody. So you're right inasmuch as what we have on the site isn't "right", but you're wrong in that you describe what you're adding in its place as being "right". The truth is that nobody knows (even Bethesda, given the inconsistencies!) so what should be on UESP is a description of competing theories to reflect the underlying uncertainties.
- At that point we hit a problem. As a regular watcher of the recent changes page, I often see people putting forward their own theories as to what they think happens in certain circumstances. If we encourage the same in the case of Lore articles, we're asking for trouble. All I'm asking for is some - just some - indication that a theory has an in-game grounding. In other words, you're completely free to put forward your own opinions and theories as long as there is something to which you can point for support.
- You obviously have a lot of interesting theories that you want to present and I, for one, would love to hear them; but it's up to you whether they get treated as serious Lore or as Old Wives' Tales. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 18:10, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
"Near-fatal flaw?" That is insultingly ludicrous. TIL's material IS the source material. If it isn't, it is labeled as fan-made in a dedicated section and often supported far better than anything here, since quantity of links seems to be the yardstick.
Many of my changes stem from a single, conflicting view of history- the origin of the Nedes. Am I to argue the entire, complex point every time I change an offhand reference? I understand that there is a flatearther resistance to this idea, even after verification by developers, but there is a time and a place for the debate, and it is not in Tamriel: DIcitonary A.
The "truth" is not bibliographies, or this conversation wouldn't have occurred. In cases of conflict, truth is found through discussion of the material. So do you want to discuss it and make a reasoned decision, or do you want to give every possible version equal air-time? It makes no difference to me, and the purpose of the wiki format is that old entries can be retrieved and put up next to new ones with the necessary disclaimer.I will cite my changes when appropriate (the dictionary seemed intentionally bare), but they should be judged in the Talk pages, not through reference protocol.
One more thing: if anyone questions the validity of "unofficial, ex-developer fan lore" then there is really no point in having a 'Tamriel' section, and UESP will have to make the choice between Serious Lore and Old Wives' Tales. — Unsigned comment by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
- Just give us ONE reference that supports ANYTHING you have said. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 19:46, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Since you are very carefully avoiding getting into the discussion of specific articles or actual lore where judgement may be involved, the ball is in your court on that one. Which topic? — Unsigned comment by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
- I'm not avoiding anything; I'm saying that all of your edits need sources. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 02:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
You mean just my edits? Because the dictionary entries have no sources. Hooray for special treatment? — Unsigned comment by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
- As Nephele has already pointed out, "Although the references are still missing from many articles, that's simply because editors haven't had a chance to update those articles." As I've pointed out, the content that is already on the site has been there for some time and nobody has disagreed with it until now so the fact that you are changing things on such a large scale is why I'm asking for references. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 02:17, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Please do not make attacks on other editors. Whether or not you disagree with other editors, your comments on Tamriel talk:Pelinal Whitestrake are insulting and should not have been made. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:00, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Unless the edits that provoked the comments were a massive misunderstanding, than the deletions and their justification were insulting as well, and that's both why it happened and why it will probably not happen again.