Lore talk:Skyrim

VampiresEdit

shouldnt there be something about the vampires who live in skyrim? — Unsigned comment by Rohan2116 (talk • contribs) at 00:16 on 28 July 2011 (GMT)

Yes, probably. The article is quite lacking. --Legoless 23:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't know enough about them yet to put any real information on it, all that we have is general knowledge, vague information and guess work from earlier games. 2.219.179.246 11:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)KNJB98

The information available isn't that negligible, although I'm sure we'll have more to work with come Skyrim. --Legoless 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if vampire information is essential to this page, unless there is a bestiary section added or something. The vampires page uses info from the book immortal blood, for skyrim vampires. it says "The Volkihar vampires of eastern Skyrim live under haunted, frozen lakes and only leave their dens to feed... the Vampires of skyrim are very similar to the Oblivion Vampires, the only differences being the appearance of the vampire and they are only weakened by the sun and not burned by it, other differences are the powers though a few of the oblivion Vampire powers remain." This doesn't seem to match up with actual gameplay so... Hope 04:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Revamp?Edit

Is anyone doing any significant work on this page? I'm about to stick it in a sandbox and tinker with it until Nov. 11, but I won't if someone has already started. Minor Edits 21:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely sure, I haven't noticed anyone working on this page in a sandbox. I watch the wiki enough to be aware of most recent events, so if someone is working on this page in a sandbox, they haven't been working on it in a while (or I've somehow missed their edits). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rifton/RiftenEdit

Just a minor spelling error, I can't change it due to the page lock. — Unsigned comment by 2.218.99.239 (talk) on 1 December 2011

If you look at the Riften page, Rifton is also a name for the town. — Unsigned comment by 80.202.83.251 (talk) on 29 April 2012

Third Era as currentEdit

In the section on Geography, it is stated that Whiterun and Hrothgar are under the control of a witch, the source coming from late in the third era. The witches' coven no longer controls the area in the fourth era, and so this section is a bit confusing. 24.14.51.237 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of things in the lore still need updating. Minor Edits 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Throat of the WorldEdit

I'm a bit confused about "...and Kyne is said to have created man.[8]" since Reference '8' doesn't lead to any information regarding the creation of men.

It leads to Varieties of Faith, which says "Kyne (Kiss At the End): Nordic Goddess of the Storm. Widow of Shor and favored god of warriors. She is often called the Mother of Men."

'Mother of Men' does not really specify anything about the creation of men though. — Unsigned comment by 91.113.82.49 (talk) at 15:48 on 11 December 2011

No matter what the creation of men is, the Varieties of Faith reference doesn't say anything about the throat of the world or necessarily that Kyne created man. On another note; the annotated annuad says the the worlds of creation were given birth to by Nir. The wandering ehlnofey of those worlds became the men of Nirn. In the monomyth, it states "The magical beings of Mythic Aurbis... these are spirits made from bits of the immortal polarity... created the races of the mortal Aurbis in their own image... The magical beings, then, having died, became the et'Ada. The et'Ada are the things perceived and revered by the mortals as gods, spirits, or geniuses of Aurbis" Not very specific but still helps Hope 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Children of the Sky, the Nords believe they were formed when "the sky exhaled onto the land"- in other words, wind. According to PGE1, the wind is the personification of Kynareth. Ergo, Kynareth created the Nords. Varieties of Faith is often cited to support the proposition that Kyne is just the Nordic name for Kynareth. It's true that VOF never actually says that, but does say that Kynareth is the Goddess of the Air, the strongest of the Sky spirits (keep in mind, Nords call themselves Children of the Sky), and that she is associated with rain. Kyne, meanwhile, is the "Nordic Goddess of the Storm" (i.e., wind and rain), and is called the Mother of Men. Most importantly, Kynareth is not a part of the Nordic pantheon of gods, while Kyne is. PGE1 likely calls the wind the personification of Kynareth, not Kyne, because it was written by Imperials (and pretty bigoted ones at that), who would not use the Nordic term for an deity they perceived to be their own. I think the logical conclusion from all this is that the people of Tamriel do not generally consider the two to be separate entities, and that Nords, true to their nature, just have a slightly more violent conception of Kynareth, which they call Kyne. Therefore, the Nords believe they were created by Kyne on the Throat of the World, and the original statement was accurate. Minor Edits 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In Skyrim, once one has initiated the quest Kyne's Sacred Trials, Froki Whetted-Blade can be asked "Tell me about Kyne". He will respond, "Those sycophants at the temple would call her Kynareth. Just a pale shadow shadow the truth, like all Temple Divines". So I'm gonna change back the note. Minor Edits 02:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dragons?Edit

Acording to in-game history from TESV, dragons ruled Skyrim in the early ages, with humans as slaves. But this can't possibly have been before the coming of Ysgramor? So, what kind of humans were they? And what of the falmer? I thaught they where the majority in Skyrim before Ysgramor. Is it possible that they where early needic settlers? People from Atmora that came before Ysgramor and, because of that, cannot be called nords?Jyggorath 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In game their are three nord warriors that fight Alduin, Reman Cyrodil's Akaviri DragonGuard fought dragons, all after Ysgramor's migration. The dragons did not rule Skyrim exclusively. They came from Akivir.--Br3admax 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think Dragons really came from Akavir, (i mean they don't originate there). They most likely used to inhabit all Nirn, but settled to the areas with most mountains. 91.113.84.175, 4:53am (GMT+1), 14 December 2011

So, you're saying that the dragons partially ruled Skyrim sometime during the first era, before the Akaviri invasion, but after the coming of the nords as a group? If that's the case, then that time period is well within the boundries of recorded history in Tamriel. Perhaps the use of the elder scroll to send Alduin through time was what caused the dragon break, and that's why there's no reference of this in earlier elder scrolls games? Because no one was able to remember? Jyggorath 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course they 'remember', they all just think it's just legends and myths...until Alduin's return. 91.113.84.175, 4:52am (GMT+1), 14 December 2011

Dragons were considered a reality in Tamriel until well into the Second Era. The last reference I can find to one is 2E 369, and Paathurnax, and I believe a dragon seen in Daggerfall, both remained in Tamriel, apparently awake, for millennia. The point is, the dragons' control over Skyrim likely died with or soon after Alduin's disappearance, though the exact date is a little murky. Minor Edits 09:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting things, but it seems that the Nords ruled Skyrim some time during the Mythic Era (to put it rather broadly). This is why the Nords see Ysgramor's colonisation as a "return". Evidence for this exists in many of the Nordic ruins in the province, most of which were from the time of the dragons, pre-dating Ysgramor. A more specific example would be the Skyforge: while I admit that it may not necessarily be Noric in origin, it was found abandoned by the first Companions in the very centre of modern Skyrim, far from Saarthal, Windhelm, etc. The legend of Kyne creating mankind atop the Throat of the World is further proof that humans are not natives of Atmora. --Legoless 11:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That all looks right to me. What really bothers me is that it's not clear at all when Elves entered the picture. Some circumstantial things suggest that elves were there before any significant human presence, and some things suggest vice versa. Anyways, my best guess is that nedes, Atmorans, and various races of elves must have begun migrating to Skyrim around the Middle to Late Middle Merethic Era, and it was around the same time that the dragon cult existed. Minor Edits 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Winterhold should be WindhelmEdit

"Skyrim is a wealthy and thus powerful province.[3] Their culture is somewhat influenced by their neighbors, such as Morrowind. The city of Winterhold, rival of Solitude, is near the border, and many refugees and escaped slaves have fled there, bringing Morrowind's culture and ideas to Skyrim's eastern lands and stimulating their economy.[3] However, Hrothgar and Whiterun, once places with powerful economies, have been crippled by natural disasters and attacks from frost trolls and bandits.[3] The area is now under the control of Jsashe, the leader of the local witches coven, and a self-proclaimed priestess of Lorkhan.[3] Four out of the five tallest mountains in Tamriel are found in Skyrim, as is the hardy Ironwood Nut, which grows on Ironwood trees deep in Skyrim's forests.[1][7]"

This section of lore is incorrect, the city that most closely borders morrow wind is Windhelm not Winterhold. Just a minor correction that I can't make because the page is locked. -Panda4life, 10:43, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

After looking at information about Winterhold in this book, I would have to say that information is accurate. ES^T•E•C 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

language?Edit

this skyrim always use English? --KLL Joe 07:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In The Elder Scrolls the appropriate name for the language is "Tamrielic". But yes, it basically is English. ES^T•E•C 07:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I can't find and reference for a language called "Nordic" which is currently listed on the page. It likely comes from this frighteningly unsourced article. (Where the hell did they pull "Proto-Aldmeris" out of?) I say we remove the "language" part from the summary altogether, and perhaps the "currency" section as well (seeing as the entire economy has a gold standard). I might bring this up on the Community Portal, as the summaries in general don't sit well with me. --Legoless 13:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. Currency for sure is useless, and as for native languages, I think they should be noted in-article ONLY if it can be cited from an in-game book or other valid source, rather than in the summary boxes. ES^T•E•C 22:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Real life references?Edit

I found out that Siberia and Skyrim has lots in common. Including coastline and major rivers. Also the area between Solitude and Morthal is swampy in Siberia, and area around Markarath is mountainous in Siberia. Heres map of Siberia with Skyrim's cities in it.

It may be possible, seeing how similar to the customs of that area with the Nords. But, I am not so sure about the map being worth mentioning on the article if that's what you mean with it. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be worth of mentioning, but maybe without that big picture. Could be linked in references section, but i should fix those typos first.
Fixed it!.-- 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CapitalEdit

What's the capital of Skyrim? I remember someplace being mentioned as such. If it exists, could it be somehow added to the article? -- kertaw48 13:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It was Winterhold before it was destroyed, and during the events of Skyrim it's Solitude. That's not to say it isn't changed again depending on who wins the Civil War, but that's impossible to determine. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 14:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that actually explains a lot. It's strange seeing most of the articles on regions being in different eras in time. -- kertaw48 14:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any specific mention of Winterhold ever being Skyrim's capital (it says in the Winterhold city article that the ruler of Winterhold was also High King of Skyrim way back in the early First Era, but that doesn't necessarily mean Winterhold was the capital at that time), so I removed it from the "infobox" in the article for now. We know for sure that Solitude was the capital of the Imperial province of Skyrim by 4E 201 (and I think it may have been capital was far back at least as Queen Potema, not sure), and Windhelm was the capital of the First Empire of the Nords, but not much about the intervening years. Croaker (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2012 (GMT)

Kraldar mentions that Winterhold was an "early capital" of Skyrim twice in his dialogue. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that this was some time before The Great Collapse. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 12:07, 16 December 2012 (GMT)

(←) I don't think Winterhold was the capital as recently as 4E 122. "Early" and "once the capital" implies (to me) much further into history than 80 years ago. --Enodoc (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (GMT)

WhiterunEdit

Its position in the center of Skyrim makes it a central trading hub, where much of Skyrim's wealth accumulates. To me this sounds like speculation. I can’t find anything referring to Whiterun as wealthy or a trading hub. All I can find is it being crippled from fights and severe weather in the Third Era and in the Fourth Era it was center stage of the civil war which would have crippled it further.

To be honest, editing the lore section is a bit daunting. It seems like it has a much stricter atmosphere to it, but I’m unable to find anywhere which states what counts as speculation and what we can and cannot add? I am certain I have seen a page on lore policy but I can’t seem to find it right now. Searching is not helping me either; perhaps I’m just having an off day. *cries in the corner* If someone could point me in the right direction I would much appreciate it! — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty much just given up on this page. But I agree that this seems like speculation. Without a source, it should go. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the Loading Screens for Skyrim says: "Whiterun's central location in Skyrim has made it a trading hub of the entire province." So it doesn't seem all that speculative. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the inference at the latter half of the statement is reliable? That being a trading hub means that it's a place where much of Skyrim's wealth accumulates? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I added it as a reference but I'm unsure of what a province actually is. Is Whiterun the central trading hub of Skyrim or just Whiterun Hold? And that still doesn't necessarily imply its where much of Skyrim's wealth accumulates. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

DwemerEdit

There is very little about the dwemer here even though they had a huge outpost (Blackreach) there. They should be given a section. User:bw117 16:56, 31 August 2012 (CST)

There is no article for them in the Skyrim namespace because no Dwemer make an appearance in the game. --Xyzzy^Talk 02:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is lorespace, so the Dwemer definitely should be mentioned. —Legoless 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

RevampEdit

It could be better, but I think this is at least better that the previous version, which was essentially still a pre-release article.

I decided to lead with "Geography" since a geographical area is the subject. Other pages may do otherwise (I haven't checked), but I think this is the most logical arrangement given the subject and the information available in this case.

I managed to throw in some images on the left side without making it look too ugly (I think), but the content of, length of, and spacing between the paragraphs has been intentionally and carefully edited and arranged so that images should mesh well at 120px or 300px. The intermediate sizes remain untested. The point being, be careful when editing, as it can easily be thrown out of whack and look bad. It might not matter, of course, as the paragraphs still look funky on my phone.

I obviously left the heavy lifting regarding the history of Skyrim to the Nord page, incorporating it by reference. I don't know where exactly to draw the line to determine what history was worth mentioning here explicitly, but there's no reason for us to repeat all that stuff, so I gave it my best shot and stuck to the broad strokes about demographic changes and rulers.

The book list is, I think, pretty comprehensive, but I might've missed a few (keep in mind the topic is Skyrim, not Nords, which does sometimes beg a different treatment).

The list of known High Kings is pretty complete; I've been compiling it for a while and adding a king whenever I saw one in the lore, but there could still be a few missing. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:46, 22 December 2012 (GMT)

Divided SkyrimEdit

TESO book Jorunn the Skald-King claimed, that Skyrim was in 6th century of 2nd era divided on Western Skyrim (seat in Solitude) and Eastern Skyrim (presumably Windhelm, hold of Rift with Riften and Eastmarch). Should someone insert this in history section? Or it is non-canonical? --213.155.255.148 18:31, 16 February 2013 (GMT)

It is Canonical, we just need more information about it. It will probably wait until it is closer to the release of ESO. Jeancey (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2013 (GMT)

Well, it seems to me, that ESO would take place after the unification of Skyrim by Jorunn (Jorunn was crowned High King). Or he just held that title and the two hostile (he as prince of Eastern Kingdom must go to Solitude in disguise in his youth) kingdoms still exists like holds in TES V? Well, never mind. --213.155.255.148 18:39, 16 February 2013 (GMT)

It quite possibly will be unified during ESO, but I'm sure that people will still talk about how it was unified, and how it existed before. Jeancey (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (GMT)

List of High Kings/QueensEdit

Thought we should discuss a recurring issue regarding the High King list, which is whether certain people are truly High Kings or Queens.

Here's my personal operating assumption: references to Kings and Queens in Skyrim are referring to the High King, or High Queen. This makes sense because all other rulers are merely jarls, anyways. It's only natural they would drop the "High" in short-hand, because there's no need to distinguish. So Potema, Mantiarco, Malbjaarn, and Jorunn were all High Kings/Queens, even though the term "High" is not explicitly used in any source material. It is an assumption, yes, but all sources should be read in harmony with each other, and this has the benefit of taking all sources as accurate.

I also have a tangential hypothesis, which is that until the Third Empire, most if not all High Kings ruled from Windhelm. Then the power base was shifted to the Blue Palace in Solitude. This would help support the notion that King in Skyrim = High King for a wide variety of circumstantial reasons. Queen Potema, for instance. It would make a lot of sense for her to be the High Queen given her residence in Solitude and her amply-demonstrated power and influence.

Anyways, we're operating with a lack of information here, but we need to decide how to address this issue in a uniform manner until if and when more information is available. Here's the choices I see:

1) We continue to assume Kings and Queens in Skyrim are jarls until some source uses the term "High" (a little narrow-minded, imho).

2) Make the small (but relatively more logical) assumption that "Kings" and "Queens" in Skyrim are referring to High Kings or Queens, or

3) Address the ambiguity in a note.

Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:26, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

The slight issue we have with Malbjaarn is that at this point skyrim is split into two, with a king/queen in both eastern and western skyrim. We know that she is queen in eastern skyrim. Also, Ayrenn mentions drinking with Queen Malbjaarn of WINDHELM, not Queen Malbjaarn of Skyrim, which seems to indicate that she is NOT high queen of skyrim, but rather rules just in windhelm. Joruun is specifically mentioned to be crowned High King however. Jeancey (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

So, I assume that's +1 for note? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:46, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

I'd say it's a mix of 1 and 3 for the following reasons. Reading the source material, it's safe to say the list of monarchs in Skyrim in the 1st and most of the 2nd eras were the undisputed High Kings. The 3rd Era is where it gets muddy because these monarchs are often titled "King <whoever> of <city>".

Following Jeancey's point of "Queen Malbjaarn of Windhelm". It should be noted that in A History of Daggerfall, Borgas (a High King) is noted as simply "Borgas of Winterhold". However this is not to say I believe that all instances of King = High King.

While it's recorded that the seat of power certainly shifted to the city of Solitude, I'm not entirely convinced the monarchs of the 3rd era (and probably Malbjaarn) were High Kings and Queens - rather it looks more like they ruled more akin to Jarls of city states. Look at how they are described:

• "King Mantiarco of the Nordic Kingdom of Solitude" (The Wolf Queen, Book II) - Not the "Nordic Kingdom of Skyrim".
• Amodetha was noted as Queen when her husband Mantiarco was King.
• Potema likely ruled more than just Solitude, as suggested in The Wolf Queen books, but the given the politics at the time and that the term "The kingdom of Solitude" is used so often that is seems highly unlikely it pertains to the entire province of Skyrim.
• Pelagius' rule doesn't seem to reach past Solitude, as noted: "As king of Solitude, Pelagius' eccentricities..."
• This one is the kicker - Pocket Guide Skyrim 3rd ed notes: King Thian's [of Solitude] alliance by marriage with Macalla, the Queen of Dawnstar. Here we have two monarchs of two different cities co-existing. Are they equals? Are they both Jarls? Is Thian High King? We can only guess.
• It seems many Imperials view the Jarls as pseudo-Kings and sometime call them such. This is enforced by an Imperial captain who has dialogue along the lines of "...The kings of Skyrim... oh, I mean the Jarls... need to understand etc...", when discussing the civil war.

In closing, I believe it's too much of a jump to assume every instance of "King" = "High King". Like Jeancey mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a clear High ruler in times of strife in Skyrim. East and West have their own kings. City states, etc. When a ruler comes along (like the Skald) to unite the province, they are usually recognized as High King. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than a blanket statement. --Jimeee (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2013 (GMT)

Even though this is a very late addition to Jimeee's thoughts on it, I still think it is worth posting:

Skyrim and Nords are loosely based on the ancient Norse culture of Scandinavia. Before and even sometime after the unifications of the three traditional Scandinavian nations, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the titles of king and jarl were seen as equal. In the petty kingdoms before the unifications the title of the ruler could be either jarl or king based on local tradition, though the latter was the more predominant.

After the unifications the rulers of the new unified kingdoms let their vassals keep their old titles as kings or jarls over their traditional land, and even sometimes appointed new local kings (and new jarls) were the old ones had been killed during the unification wars. Later on, it became customary not to appoint vassals as local kings, only keeping the jarl title for this.

In this way the interchangeableness of the jarl and king titles in ancient Skyrim, ending up with only jarl as the vassal title later, is only a mirror of the real world Norse kingdoms. —MortenOSlash (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2015 (GMT)

(←) By the way, if you want to list all the "high kings" of Skyrim. At the time of ESO, the Jarl of Solitude is called Svargrim. As Solitude is the capital of Western Skyrim, Svargrim is the "high king" of Western Skyrim. --Lady freyja (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2015 (GMT)

Great point. We already have Svartr listed as High King of the west, but Svargrim may have came after him. If I can't find anything conflicting I'll update the page. --Jimeee (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2015 (GMT)

GuildsEdit

Is it worth putting about how the thieves guild lives in riften or the fact there are are abandoned dark brotherhood sanctuaries scattered around skyrim (eg the one in dawnstar and falkreath). just asking before i put it on. --PortableGecko81 (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2020 (GMT)

Ugly on mobile now!Edit

I don't have time to explain all details. Nordrym (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

UOL useEdit

Yo hey edit fam, UOL debate-in-the-ring time! How do you feel about the monarch lore from AFFA's Skyrim Through the Ages being used on this page? Personally, I agree with Dcking, it's edifying stuff to have listed here. -TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Uol's job is more or less to fill in holes that official lore doesn’t give us given that it doesn’t conflict. No other known or unknown High King of Skyrim conflicts with this date of reign for Ivar so it’s a gap filled and should remain. Dcking20 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I welcome adding them, they don't get their own pages so listing them here should be enough. It's a great way to worldbuild a gap that is otherwise unlikely to be explored. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Entry tables like this are representative of canon figures. If one were listed here, he'd be worthy of a lorepage for his office alone (as Lore talk:Krosis indicates). We don't make pages for purely UOL figures, nor do we include them on Lore:People, the aforementioned exception of Ami-El notwithstanding. Placing him here gives off the wrong impression. Mindtrait0r (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good to include. Compare Lore:Daggerfall (kingdom) § Known Rulers and Lore:Cyrodilic Emperors. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not diehard against inclusion but I think the precedent of including UOL figures in rulership tables is dangerous. There's other UOL rulers whose inclusion brings with them some outlandish ideas, such as Vellos, the cannibal Liar-King of Alinorwith two mouths, an unnamed Merethic Era King of Cyrod killed by the 500 Companions, a King of Hjaalmarch who was killed by his own pet sharks, and the titanic King of Atmora. Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure about the others but I know the Giant King of Atmora has seen some use in various lore articles. In general I think nobility is some of the more important lore in the setting so if we can find a place for them, even if they only come from an UOL source it’s ideal. Also to note, the Cannibal King Vellos based on the source you linked comes from a non Mk section of the second pocket guide and isn’t to be treated even as UOL. Dcking20 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

UOL shouldn't be used to add new things, but rather to explain in-game content. If any of it is tied to information we're given in-game, we can use that, but I don't think the whole document should be used as a source for previously unknown monarchs. Echoing MindTraitor's sentiment, I think entirely new rulers should be avoided. —MolagBallet (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) I agree with MolagBallet. Per our existing guidelines, anyone who is fully from a UOL document shouldn't be used in lore at all. If the in-game sources say "prior to X was an unknown ruler" and the UOL says "Prior to X was Y", then that's fine. But if it's a fully new ruler not mentioned in any way by existing in-game content, it shouldn't be used. People have recently been treating UOL identically to OL, just with a little tag, and that's really not how it works. Jeancey (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The standard for UOL inclusion is consensus: "All guidelines are subject to revision pursuant to a community consensus." This isn't adding completely new lore (ala something like tossing in all the UOL about PGE2 Cathnoquey onto Lore:Cathnoquey, or adding all the setting information about Masser from C0DA), it's filling in our understanding of the High Kings of Skyrim during this time period, which is a pretty mundane addition. And I disagree about its use in a simple list to be any more severe than using it in the body text of a lore article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Rock is exactly right. This is not a Lore:People entry, it is not an article introducing entirely-unofficial content. It is expanding upon our understanding of the High Kings of Skyrim in a period where we don't have any other conflicting information. Including UOL info in a simple list on a relevant page has precedent and is in no way a misuse of our inclusion policies. The table format does not assert canonicity any more than prose would; it's clearly marked as UOL. The purpose of this discussion is to form a consensus on whether and how to include the info from this specific source on this specific page, not to get into yet another debate about the site's UOL guidelines, such as they are.

As I see it, the question is this: we've cited Goodall plenty of times before, should we cite him again here? This text came out four days ago, some 22 years since he left Bethesda. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm not fully objecting to the concept, but I am leaning more towards excluding it. Legoless's reframing of this gets to the core of my own issue with it, I don't like the idea of citing a new writing from a former employee 22 years after they left the company, especially in areas that are more separated from what they were working on for the series. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 12:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary cut offs for how long a lore inclined dev has been employed by the company along with arbitrary cut offs for how adjacent the content in question is to the content they worked on when they were employed to determine if a dev work is valid? I can’t get behind one ounce of that and our precedent for UOL usage flies pretty hard in the face of that logic.

Also let’s just pretend we are working with that logic, I disagree strongly with the point made that he’s delving in things that he isn’t versed in. Corpse Preparation for starters is a book that shows Doug was toying with lore building ideas for more or less every province and culture. I don’t find any of his new works to be outside of his area of expertise and in fact they all appear to set quite a high standard for unofficial dev workings with the clear intent and high writing quality they possess. This information, and any lore appropriate relevant information that Doug writes should be able to find its place on an appropriate article. Dcking20 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning of allowing the UOL is so that the dev can help explain themselves where the game was unclear, since they know their own thoughts and state of mind, and can speak to that. New content from that person years and years later that doesn't speak to the stuff they originally created definitely violates the spirit of the UOL system. They shouldn't forever be allowed to expand lore simply because at one point they were involved. The problem with such UOL lore is that people are treating it as gospel because it's on the wiki. I would bet there are multiple instances of UOL being used to create doubt on OL content simply because the UOL was on the page first. People seem to HATE deleting anything from lore, but we increase the likelihood of that happening by including content from devs far far removed from when and what they worked on. Not everything these devs say are forever relevant, and I don't think we should confer that sort of status on them. Jeancey (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with such UOL lore is that people are treating it as gospel because it's on the wiki. I don't see the value of bowing to a lowest common denominator. I trust folks to make the distinction.

Maybe a potential solution for those against would be employing spoiler tags for certain UOL cases? --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of tags hiding content on a page personally. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) They shouldn't forever be allowed to expand lore simply because at one point they were involved. I’m not gonna lie, this is an extremely disappointing stance imo. Do we have evidence that Doug put in effort to make some cool mods for tes 3 with the agenda of ‘expanding lore'? To say he doesn’t deserve to do X when we have no idea if he even had X in mind when he made some unofficial mods seems like a disservice to him.

Also what is the standard for 'expanding lore' in this instance? Is that referring to the text being documented on the wiki and being cited in lore articles? Because the wiki in itself is not lore official or otherwise, it’s documentation of the lore which comes from the games and depending on some peoples point of view, out of game dev workings like these in questions by Doug. Surely we aren’t saying Doug shouldn’t be allowed to write content for a tes 3 mod he decided to make merely because he hasn’t been employed by bgs for a long time?

Again I can’t find a positive way to take that message, but I strongly disagree with it. I think lore inclined devs who have tremendous insight and context for the setting and behind the scenes info that we will never be fully privy to makes their contributions to help expand aspects of the setting that the games don’t invaluable. I also agree with Legoless that I don’t see a need to spoiler tag citations that come from unofficial channels. Dcking20 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, he can do whatever he wants. My point was, we shouldn't be using stuff he creates 20 years after he worked there involving stuff he never worked on previously. At this point he's just a fan. You can like his stuff, and headcanon whatever you want, but we shouldn't be using it in the lore namespace, because it doesn't fit with the purpose of UOL, which is to help clarify confusing things that aren't explained fully within the game. At this point, I know you are smart enough to understand what I am saying, even if you don't agree with it, since my position hasn't changed in ANY of our many discussions on this topic, so at this point I can only assume you are being purposefully disingenuous in the hopes of swaying other editors who don't know my position. Jeancey (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinking I’m being disingenuous for the purpose of swaying others to my side is your prerogative. (Arguably an inappropriate conclusion for an administrator of the website to jump to but I personally couldn’t care less.) I can however state on my end that isn’t the case, I just genuinely found the stance unfavorable no matter what angle you looked at it from.

Also, claiming that a former developer, the moment they are no longer employed or involved in any official capacity at that point become a fan is a stance I think you will find the majority of the community disagree with. Kurt Kuhlmann didn’t magically lose his one of a kind context, insight, and behind the scenes knowledge of the setting that any 'fan' could never possess when he recently parted ways with the setting. Same goes for Leamon Tuttle, Michael Kirkbride, Lawrence Schick etc.

If the argument against Doug here is it’s been too long since he’s been employed then you’ve now made an arbitrary barrier on how recent a dev needs to be employed or contracted in an official capacity for their non official comment to get cited on the wiki which sounds messy but if we are going to go that route we will have to define an actual time limit in order to make it not arbitrary.

If the argument is the content Doug is writing isn’t adjacent enough to the type of content he wrote when he was employed by the company then you’ve made yet another arbitrary barrier that will need to be more hardcoded to carry any weight, and as I pointed out earlier in the discussion, Doug engaged in works when he was employed that dealt with a wide scope of the setting. Dcking20 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

" we shouldn't be using stuff he creates 20 years after he worked there " Does this mean we can wipe out like 90% of MK UOL in lorespace? Because that's what it sounds like. This is such an arbitary thing you're pulling from nowhere, which goes against A LOT of UOL already in lorespace.CoolBlast3 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to hardcode any sort of time or subject limit on UOL works. Use of any such source needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. —⁠Legoless (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The currently guidelines are all about whether the content is expanding on in-game content that was confusing or unclear. Adding new information is not clarifying confusing or unclear information from the games. So by the current guidelines, yes, we should wipe out much of UOL being used, because people been using it incorrectly, and then a bunch of people who do not understand the guidelines rush to the talk page and go "SEEMS GREAT", which significantly lowers the bar, every time, until the bar doesn't exist anymore. If the developer is clarifying something that was confusing originally, then that's fine, whenever they do it. But at the moment, most of UOL usage in lorespace seems to be added under the "well, consensus overrides everything" aspect, rather than the actual guidelines that were agreed upon, which seems like an awful system. At this point, I really can't identify ANY limits to UOL that you guys would support. Hey, I once played an elder scrolls game, and I think this information fits. UOL!!!!! Jeancey (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the above three users, they've all made extremely valid points. Besides, Doug stated that some of the texts he released lately were written a couple years ago and some were even recreations of books he wrote during his time at Bethesda which he deleted when he left and rewrote them based off his recollection of what he penned back then, so a time limit argument is quite redundant. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The argument is never for a specific timelimit, it's to highlight how time can change things, and something created 20 years after the fact doesn't necessarily reflect the thinking at the time of the game. If it's based on something FROM the time of the game, then that's not how this was presented. If it's wholly new and not actually helping clarify content from the game, then it doesn't really matter WHEN it was written, it still doesn't follow the existing guidelines on what UOL to use. Jeancey (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that's exactly what it does. We know from the games that Skyrim had High Kings during the reign of the Third Empire, but it is unclear exactly what kings they had during many of those years. The text clarifies for us who was ruling at a time period between the games, expanding upon information we already had. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

My issue with it is that while yes, we know Skyrim had High Kings in that time, if these names don't pop up in any official sources, the kings themselves are entirely new. I mostly disagree with the proposal, but I think Rock is on the right track with proposing a solution for how the information should be presented. Again, I'm not ride-or-die in my position on this, but that's what I was talking about re: new information.

MK once wrote a list of names for the 500 Companions in his free time, but we don't cite that on Lore:Companions because it gives static names to figures that could be renamed in future games. "Clarification" is more like when Clorsatari and Verkynvayl refer to Molag Bal as their "Father" in ESO, then seven years later, Lead Writer Bill Slavicsek says in a company-sponsored Twitter QnA that "parent" is synonymous with "creator" or "master" to the Daedra.

Adding the names of previously unknown kings feels less like "clarifying" and more like "expanding". Which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing if we have something to stand it against, but it's not "clarifying" existing information.

Taking into account Legoless' first comment in this thread, the only Emperor on Lore:Cyrodilic Emperors whose existence is solely backed by UOL is Ami-El. On Lore:Daggerfall (kingdom), the two rulers with UOL citations, Lysandus and Arslan II, are backed by The Daggerfall Chronicles, with UOL serving as an additional citation. I don't feel like the new kings in this instance line up with that example: all of these would be backed solely by UOL.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to linking Skyrim In the New Era in a See Also section, as the text provides some fascinating information from that time period, but may not reflect precisely what the current team has on deck for the subject. —MolagBallet (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a See Also link is a great solution. Whether we cite it or not, I don't have any objection to hosting and linking to the text. —⁠Legoless (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the disconnect here largely comes down to how someone views to what degree an UOL source extends our understanding of information from the games. I tend to agree with Rim's view that we can go as broad as >games establish that High Kings of Skyrim exist >games don’t list High King for this specific date >uol text lists High King in date with gap. I think this falls just fine under a pretty commonly executed usage of the UOL citation on the wiki.

I think where we tend to find those complete gaps in relevancy/expanding on information on the games is in OOG texts that aren’t really adjacent to the setting as we know it at all like C0DA which takes place in an alternate/future timeline, or KINMUNE which is similarly off basis timeline wise, and unlike the example that was brought up here that imo didn’t apply, is actually a good example of a Dev in Mk taking a character he had basically no association whatsoever with in Ayrenn and writing a piece for her that totally diverged from her character in any realistic way to make sense of with what we have on her in official content. We’ve set what I believe is already a good precedent in keeping things like this largely off of lore articles but I don’t think Doug’s take on Skyrim High Kings here fits that 'no go' model in any way. It feels solid, thought out, and unlikely to ever be conflicted with and given it ever does get conflicted by an official source, we can adjust accordingly. Dcking20 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) Hey friends, this discussion has gone on for some time now with no clear consensus and has reached its point of circling arguments, I think it's time we put this specific use up for a vote per the UOL talk page standard. Should we okay this use of UOL, yes or no? I vote yes. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I do appreciate the desire to find a definitive conclusion to this. However, our normal processes would be to avoid voting. See UESPWiki:Consensus, or the more in-depth Wikipedia version for our general process. The general recommendation when there is a disagreement and the people involved cannot convince each other that they are right is to find a compromise that (ideally everyone) can support.

As far as compromises go, I support the one proposed by MolagBallet and supported by Legoless. Removing from the article body but including it as a See Also seems a reasonable solution to me. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I too support the See Also inclusion for a compromise. Such a thing isn't unprecedented: see Temple Zero Society which directs to the heavily-related Second Pocket Guide. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t really seen an argument yet for why this content is needing to not be mentioned in any body of an article. Also Legoless at the top of this discussion motioned in favor of keeping the information and agreed with the See Also whether the information remained or not and made no indication he amended his stance. So I would wait to see if he’s changed his mind before casting his opinion for him. At this time, I wouldn’t agree with removing it from the body of the article because I haven’t really seen anything that holds up to consistency on why it should go. I am fine with the See Also as an addition. Dcking20 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's fine? Placing it in "See Also" feels odd because there's no indication there of this source being a UOL text (though that can be easily rectified with an accompanying UOL ref placed next to it I suppose). And I'm still not compelled by these arguments to remove it from the main page text.

I meant "standard" as in, when an agreement doesn't seem to be coalescing after much discussion, putting it to a vote seems to be the logical next step. Maybe I'm bad and wrong and need to be put in bad and wrong jail though, which is fine lol. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As an editor in favor of a contribution that has significant opposition to its inclusion, the consensus policies and guidelines particularly encourage trying to find a compromise, as if there is no clear consensus the standard procedure is to remove it. Voting leaves us in an all-or-nothing position, which is usually not a good way to go. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

AKB got to it first: I was about to say you are neither "bad" nor "wrong" in addition to all that. As for how to denote UOL, I think we could simply add a small link to UOL after the bullet link as such: UOL. That feels eloquent enough without drafting a new template to do essentially the same thing. -MolagBallet (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As it stands, every argument I've seen against it mainly only applies if we were making individual pages for the topics, but we're only proposing to put two small entries in the table and nothing more. I see more support with minor opposition, and even most of the opposition seems to be leaning to something more in the middle, rather than removing everything remotely relating to the text. The change is so minor and mundane that there's very little way of compromising what to do.

If it comes down to two choices, it should be that supporting the inclusion would mean keeping the entries in the table, and opposing the inclusion would mean removing the entries from the table and just putting the book in the see also section as is. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) I will second that, you are not "bad" or "wrong" Rock :) --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To address Dcking, the argument for why this content is needing to not be mentioned is that it is not clarifying, but rather expanding, as stated by myself, Jeancey, and MolagBallet. This source is adding entirely new lore that is unsubstantiated within any canon material. Adding it would be akin to, say, citing Towards a Dragon'd Sea: Cathnoquey on Cathnoquey in the main body. While technically it is 'clarifying' what happened on Cathnoquey since Uriel V's invasion, that's not what is meant when we say UOL should clarify. Clarification is taking what we know in canon and connecting some dots, explaining some unclear rules/terms. Expansion is filling in completely empty areas of lore with new stuff, which is what we need to avoid in citing UOL. My emphasis in all this is on that Cathnoquey example, I think it illustrates exactly why I object to this inclusion. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You're interpreting it entirely wrong. By your own definition of "Clarification is taking what we know in canon and connecting some dots, explaining some unclear terms" this meets exactly that. We know Skyrim has High Kings during this period, and this text clears up who said kings were and connects the dots for us, all while fitting the setting. If it didn't fit the setting it would be something more like "Mr. Bonzu Pippinpaddleopsicopolis the Third was the God-Emperor of Skyrim in 3E 427", which is nothing like the proposed addition. "Expansion is filling in completely empty areas of lore with new stuff" would be documenting that Jubal-lun-Sul was the Amaranth in the Fifth Era, information from C0DA which doesn't have the same basis and is a very different case to this. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There were four people who were entirely ok with the information remaining, four people who were clearly against it, and Coolblast made a comment on one aspect of the discussion. Other than that this is turning into mostly filler of the same 8 people in a circular argument. I genuinely think precedent of UOL usage all across the wiki smiles favorably on the usage in this instance and disagree that this is a wholesale invention rather than an expansion on the setting as we know it. I believe it should remain of course, but beyond that ima bow out. Dcking20 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Responding to Rim of the Sky: How do we know that? Per the 3rd Pocket Guide's segment on Skyrim: "For brief periods, one ruler has managed to unite all of Skyrim, but the Nord character is one essentially of conflict, and the confederacies never last." and "Under the Imperial Simulacrum of Jagar Tharn, cold animosities between the kingdoms of Skyrim and their neighbors in High Rock and Hammerfell were fanned into the fire of war." These canon statements make no mention of a High Kingship in Skyrim during this time and allude to a lack of one by expressing the brevity of such offices and referring to Skyrim as plural "kingdoms" rather than one. Thian is called King of Solitude, not of Skyrim, nor is he called High King. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As for how to denote UOL, I think we could simply add a small link to UOL after the bullet link as such: UOL. That feels eloquent enough without drafting a new template to do essentially the same thing. Hey sure, that sounds good to me yo. I still feel bad and wrong for not having the specific guidelines memorized by heart, stop telling me I am not bad and wrong!

The lack of information on High Kings during Skyrim at this time is filled in by this UOL text. Again this isn't a setting altering detail, this is a mundane bullet point filled at most. Una secedes her authority to the High King in Ivarstead per the text. This is not in contradiction to any details presented in PGE3. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents: this situation is similar to Marc Laidlaw's "Epistle 3", essentially what he envisioned Half-Life 2: Episode 3 would be had Valve actually gone ahead and developed it. Laidlaw, who was the lead writer and loremaster for the Half-Life series, wrote this a few years after he had left Valve. The general consensus (both from Valve and the series' fans) is that it's not canon as it was not officially put out by Valve (Laidlaw even calls what he wrote "fanfiction" and claimed he regretted doing it a couple years later stating it caused problems for the people at Valve). Someone at Valve even acknowledged it saying this was not what Valve had in mind for Episode 3 (I'm paraphrasing here) and was simply a collection of ideas Laidlaw had during the development of HL2 and its episodes.

Point being, if an ex developer comes out and writes/releases new information after their tenure with their respective IP, then it shouldn't be treated as canon, or even unofficial lore. It's simply fanfiction from someone who used to work on the series. As is our policy with C0DA (afaik). I agree with Jeancy, and think UOL should only be tentatively used to fill in the gaps of already established lore, not completely new stuff created ~two decades after the fact. --Rezalon (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Since a new editor has thrown their two cents in, I will retract my bow out to address their opinion. So I don’t think the canon/non canon thing be given a moments thought. This text isn’t canon and an UOL citation implies as much. Lore articles are not an arbiter of canon but rather prose written around various citations both official and unofficial and ideally that prose links directly to those sources. Again, as mentioned earlier in the discussion texts like C0DA are not apt comparisons to one like this Skyrim text or various other projects Goodall has written as of recent as C0DA deals with an alternate timeline that isn’t meant to be grounded in the rules of the setting whereas Doug's recent works deal with additions for the game he worked on during his tenure in Tes 3 and concepts that attempt to stay grounded in that tes 3 framework.

The claim that the workings of a former developer fall under fanfiction merely because they are a former developer conflicts greatly with the precedent throughout the wiki on how UOL citations are treated. To say these texts 'shouldn’t be treated as unofficial lore' implies there is a hardcoded standard for UOL beyond being an expansion of our understanding of the setting by a current or former developer which is not the case. Now of course the argument that has sprung from that is how broad are we willing to go with the definition of a text 'expanding our understanding'. As myself and a few others have argued, this clearly fits that standard. Some others have argued it crosses the threshold.

It’s simply inaccurate to say that these various texts butt heads with the standard of expanding our understanding of the setting imo. As mentioned earlier in this discussion, when Doug was employed he wrote books that covered a wide scope of information all throughout the setting. Some of these books even serve as literal continuations of book series he wrote for Tes 3. Rim even mentioned something about several of these concepts serving as ideas that Doug very much intended to implement at the time of Tes 3, but did not for one reason or the other. If those comments are publicly available, they would be good to add to his posts page to help add context.

UOL is not leaving this website and isn’t leaving lore articles. The consensus would never go to that extreme. So this needs to focus solely on why this particular mention of this Nordic High King needs to stay or go. I still haven’t seen an argument that is consistent with other usages all throughout the website on why it’s an issue. Does it just not pass the vibe check to some? Idk, but I stand by the statement at the very least that Doug's new projects are no more fan fiction and unusable than nearly every other unofficial citation on this website. Dcking20 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(←) The lack of information on High Kings during Skyrim at this time is filled in by this UOL text. Again this isn't a setting altering detail, this is a mundane bullet point filled at most. Una secedes her authority to the High King in Ivarstead per the text. This is not in contradiction to any details presented in PGE3.

The point was never that the PGE directly contradicts the UOL, but rather that the PGE provides a general attitude toward High Kings that they are particularly rare and fleeting during Uriel VII's reign. Therefore, this UOL does indeed pose a sizable disruption to the established status quo. This argument that it is satisfying the "clarify" clause by filling in the gaps of what High Kings ruled in Skyrim is flawed reasoning. As I keep hearkening back to, this same argument could be applied to Cathnoquey. It is technically "clarifying" what happened on Cathnoquey since Uriel's invasion to cite the PGE2's info on it, but this isn't what is meant by the term. Clarifying is saying which language a term comes from, or what it means, or giving a name to an existing concept such as Malahk-Orcs or Parraptons. It is 100% expanding to take an area with no lore and add it in. Even if it is technically clarifying what happened between two known periods, it is still adding to what was never there. As pointed out by PGE3, High Kings were rare during this time, making it notable and out-of-the-ordinary for such hijinks regarding monarchy to have occurred. Especially when the outcome is that Ivarstead of all places is listed as the (de facto?) capital of Skyrim on this table. Mindtrait0r (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no harm in hosting this UOL content on this page, it's filling in a blank dot unobtrusively. The PGE3 high kings being rare "lore" isn't so specifically stated in that fashion your saying it was. By 405 of of the Four Era, Skyrim had a High King per Skyrim's loading screens. It's not crazy for them to have had a High King a couple years before this. There's also the lore from Walking the World, Vol XI that mentions Pelagius having been a High King before his ascension to the throne. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right on the PGE side. Good source to disprove what I was saying. Right now my only concern with all this is that there isn't any precedent for names specific to UOL sources being listed anywhere in the lorespace (other than Ami-El, an exception since he's from Bethesda's internal timeline). I worry for the implications of including them, but I admit that the format of a Rulers chart is specific enough that it wouldn't really be necessary anywhere else. So in light of Rock's evidence I'm gonna slide into neutrality on this. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm back to being firmly opposed after seeing Ivar's mention on Lore:Thu'um. Mindtrait0r (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Care to expand on that logic? Lol I don’t see why it’s a deal breaker to list him under a passage of thu'um users vs listing him here under known provincial leaders. I also don’t see why his listing on that page would impact your opinion on his listing on this page in any way. Dcking20 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Basically, I was willing to go neutral here because of the provided argument that it was within the confines of UOL to fill in the gaps on the Rulers table. But the inclusion on Lore:Thu'um does not have this backing as it adding to a list of characters who just know the thu'um. When I saw that, I opposed it, and it made me come back here to review the conversation. Because of that review, I realized I still agreed with much of what I said earlier and thus I went back to that stance. Basically, seeing it there reminded me of this debate, which made me re-read all the arguments more carefully and caused me to go back to strong opposition. Additionally, seeing Ivar listed over there made me consider that, regardless of what this discussion says, Ivar being on this rulers list would cause people to think there's a precedent to move him to other pages too, whether or not that was what was intended by his original inclusion specific to the rulers chart. Hope that clears it up. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)