UESPWiki talk:Lore Places Project

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Lore Idea[edit]

Hi! I am an avid reader of the UESP and have been for a few years now. I noticed that you guys are fixing up the Lore: Places and I wanted to submit an idea to you that I think would really clear up a lot of confusion.

In our timelines here on the site, the in-game actions of the player on each game maintains that for each quest/story line, SOMEONE in that time fulfilled each role. For example, if you made a character right now, and went and played through ONLY the Mage's Guild questline, then it wouldn't make sense for you to read about how the Champion of Cyrodiil slew Mannimarco. Therefore, the timeline reads:

3E 433 — Death of Mannimarco
Mannimarco, "The King of Worms", falls in a duel against the Mages Guild's newest archmage in the Jerall Mountains, with the help of the previous archmage, Hannibal Traven.

However, with Skyrim's popularity, I have found that a large number of new users are editing Lore Places (e.g. Lore:Labyrinthian) and stating that the "Dragonborn" accomplished goals from non Dragonborn-related questlines (In following with my example, The |Dragonborn of the College was sent to the Labyrinthian to search for the Staff of Magnus.)

I feel that, as the premier source of categorized lore information online, we should not disseminate the idea that, continuity-wise, one hero did every action in every game. On the other hand, I love that every character you make is "accounted for" in the history of the world as the player advances into the future of it. Official books which reference the player's deeds tend to follow this pattern as well, such as in Lore:Thirsk,_a_History_--_Revised (where the Chieftain of Thirsk is not named as the Nerevarine) and Lore:The_Oblivion_Crisis (in which the Champion of Cyrodiil is not defined as "the Arena Champion who took down the Blackwood Company.") In keeping with the roleplaying element of the game, I would ask that you consider amending these to be part of your Project. JosefEngarr


Yes, hi fellow Scrollers. I'm just wondering if you can put up a link or something to the sites which have been marked with the LPP project template so we can easily get to the sites and fix the "problems".



UserpageTalkEmail 13:06, 5 February 2013 (GMT)

Well, there is Category:Lore Places Pages Needing Cleanup . --Alfwyn (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (GMT)
Thanks, if you have a few seconds to spare please put it in the project page. :P I'm still a little fuzzy about changing sites. ^_^
UserpageTalkEmail 20:16, 5 February 2013 (GMT)

References in Lore:Black Marsh[edit]

I was reading through Lore:Black Marsh for some background information for my fan fic, and I noticed that the references at the end of the page are a mess. There is no {{OOG}} section, and most of the in-game references do not make use of the {{Cite book}} template. I would be happy to work on this aspect of that page, under the auspices of the Lore Places Project, if it is deemed necessary. I understand that the page is likely to have a complete rewrite at some time, so the references will likely be reviewed then. In the meantime, I'd be happy to have a go at it in a Sandbox though. Darictalk 05:16, 11 February 2013 (GMT)

Do eet. Do eet nao! :) In all seriousness, go for it. Jeancey (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2013 (GMT)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jeancey. I'm just wondering if I have bitten off more than I can chew now. I see that the Lore page is transcluded into the game-specific pages, and that the game-specific books are referenced using the {{NAMESPACE}} magic word. So if this page is viewed from the Morrowind namespace, for instance, the book referenced would be the Morrowind copy of the in-game book, not the Lore copy. This confuses the issue somewhat, as using {{NAMESPACE}} like this seems to do strange things to {{Sandbox Space}}. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Darictalk 06:10, 11 February 2013 (GMT)
Honestly... Just link to the lore version of the book no matter what. It should be the same as the individual pages, and it works even if the specific book doesn't appear in that namespace. Jeancey (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2013 (GMT)

Project Sandbox Links[edit]

Just a thought, it would be really handy if members of a project would place a link to their current sandbox(es) that are relevant to the project, on the project page. I have just skimmed through the user pages of all the members listed for this project, trying to find a sandbox that contains Lore Places Project content, so that I can get some ideas. I couldn't find any current LPP sandboxes in use under any existing members. Is this something that could be considered for all projects, not just LPP? Darictalk 06:36, 11 February 2013 (GMT)

Place Summary Template[edit]

So the template is basically really important in this whole thing. I'm going to have at go at it in my sandbox. A question, though: when discussing the template, should it be discussed here, as part of the project, or on its own talk page? --Enodoc (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

Either one, to be honest. Just curious, how exactly are you planning on improving it? :P Just curious. Jeancey (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
Mainly through experimentation. :P Now I have a place to discuss it though (I'm going for here) my question is going to be (to anyone involved): how exactly does it need to be improved?      :D     What I'm thinking, please, is a list of what we actually want it to have in it. Is the current idea, aside from the fact that it doesn't work for the reasons mentioned on the project page, what we want to continue with? --Enodoc (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
An update - the template in my sandbox now has (hopefully) full functionality regarding two of the mentioned points:
  1. The region parameter is now optional (and so are all the others), and not having data in them simply removes the row from display.
  2. If the province parameter is defined to be Skyrim, references to Region are changed to Hold.
There will be issues with categorization if continent is not defined, but there shouldn't really be a reason for continent to be undefined, as it was always a required parameter anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
There is now an error message as before if continent is undefined. The remainder of the parameters are optional. I've changed the definitions of type and name such that they can now be called as parameters by the template. Note that type is mutually exclusive with district; if type is defined, any entry to district is ignored. Also, if type is defined, then you will need to enter a name as well. I've also edited the template's categorization rules (see below). Does anyone want to play with it and see if it does what is needed before I change the main template? Also, if anyone notices any bugs in it at all, please mention them here and I'll try to address them. Thanks! --Enodoc (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (GMT)
Sorry to butt in here on a project I'm not a part of, but there several instances in Lore:Places where "continent" is better left undefined; most notably the various realms of Aetherius and Oblivion. Also, our treatment of bodies of water could be better. Lake Ilinalta, for example; it would be much more accurate if the places summary called it what it is instead of a "region". Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:47, 8 April 2013 (GMT)
That's a good point you have there on non-Nirn realms. I'll have a look into that and see what I can do. The Bodies of Water issue should be fixable now however with the new type and name parameters. --Enodoc (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (GMT)
If you can overlook the etymological inconsistency, which is required for categorization purposes, you can now define continent to be "Mundus", "Aetherius" or "Oblivion" for a place outside of Nirn. Then just use the type and name parameters to fill in what you want. --Enodoc (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2013 (GMT)
Well, I'm sold. Do you have an ETA for your update? Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:45, 11 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm not waiting for anything particularly, I just thought I'd leave it a couple of days to see whether anyone else had any comments. That time has passed, and everything seems to work properly, so I'm going to do it now!
As I mentioned before, if anyone notices any bugs in it at all, please list them here and I'll try to address them. --Enodoc (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (GMT)

() Love the template, but I've run into some rare hiccups that make it less than ideal for a very small amount of pages. The Weir Gate, for example, is found on the Battlespire, which is itself in a no-man-lands between Mundus and Oblivion. So I'm not sure how to categorize that. Xylo River is sandwiched between the traditional borders of Elswyr and Valenwood, as the text on its page is sandwiched between the two images. I kind of like it as it is, and the summary would mar it. Yneslea is an island not associated with either Tamriel or Akavir. Unless we want to just put down "Nirn" (will that work?), there's no entry that really fits in the continent parameter. I'm fine with a few outliers, but if you want the summary on every place page, I thought I should them out. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:19, 11 April 2013 (GMT)

Unaffiliated islands should use the continent=Islands param I believe. Jeancey (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2013 (GMT)
Currently, unaffiliated islands are done with continent=None, type=Island, which has the added benefit/drawback (depending on your view) of taking anything with type=Island and sticking it in Category:Lore-Places-Islands, whether it has a continent or not. It's obviously up for discussion whether we actually want that to happen or not.
The Battlespire is a pain, but for this I was thinking about it as a pocket realm of Oblivion, like the Soul Cairn. Alternatively, you can do continent=None and come up with a type for it; this would result in it only being in Lore-Places, but is probably the most accurate. --Enodoc (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2013 (GMT)


I was just looking at Category:Lore-Places-Tamriel and Category:Lore-Places-Tamriel-Skyrim, and in my opinion, they're a mess. Every single entry in the category is listed under its own subsection. Is that supposed to happen? To me, it negates the entire point of categories for the sake of organisation, which is, after all, what they are for. Granted, they are ordered by Provice (C:L-P-T) or Hold (C:L-P-T-S), which makes some sort of sense, but if that results in a format like this, it would be better without it. I also have no idea how that happened, as usually a category's sections are letters only (cf. Category:Lore-Places). My opinion is that this format is entirely unnecessary in C:L-P-T, as if you want something sorted by province you have the sub-category to go into. In C:L-P-T-S, it is more reasonable, since there are no region subcategories, but if it can't be done in such a way that the sections are the region names only, I don't think this one should have this format either. --Enodoc (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

Yeah the categorization is a mess. It really should just be by province, nothing else. And in separate subcats, rather than sorted in Tamriel. Jeancey (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2013 (GMT)
I had a look at the code, and it seems to be caused by this in the category page:
I don't understand it, but removing it makes the category look normal in preview      :)     Then all that's left is the ordering, which is caused by the template rather than the cat page, so that's easily sortable. --Enodoc (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2013 (GMT)

() How do we want to categorize places that are not in Tamriel or Akavir? Currently they're all just lying around in C:Lore-Places. Do we want a C:Lore-Places-Oblivion and C:Lore-Places-Aetherius for some of these? Also, what about places like Atmora, Cathnoquey, Esroniet, Pyandonea and Yneslea? Are they best left alone in C:Lore-Places? --Enodoc (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

I would say Oceania :P. Rather, just lump them all together. Lore-Places-Akavir, Lore-Places-Tamriel, Lore-Places-Islands. Jeancey (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
OK, cool. That would work for those that are islands. Would you leave those that are continents in Lore-Places alone? Meaning the articles for Aldmeris, Atmora, Yokuda, Pyandonea, and the parent articles on Tamriel and Akavir?
Alternatively, we could add Lore-Places-Mundus, in which we could put all continents, islands, Nirn itself, and the moons. --Enodoc (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
I would say we could just leave the continents in the Lore-Places. We don't need to be THAT specific. If we ever get planets other than Nirn, maybe we could, but I think that we could leave them for now. Btw, I would think that Lore-Places-Aetherius would be the equivalent of the continent categories, but for Planes of Oblivion/Sovngarde/Soul Cairn, etc. Jeancey (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Do you mean you would put Oblivion within Aetherius? Is that right? When it comes to things at this level I get confused, but I thought Mundus, Oblivion and Aetherius were three separate realms of existence, and Oblivion was between Mundus and Aetherius. I was thinking Lore-Places-Aetherius for Sovngarde and the Mantellan Crux, and Lore-Places-Oblivion for the Planes of Oblivion and the pocket realms like the Soul Cairn. --Enodoc (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
From what I can tell, The upper most level is Mundus and Aetherius. Mundus includes Nirn, while Aetherius includes Oblivion and the rest. Sovngarde is a plane of oblivion, as is the Soul Cairn, but that doesn't rule out that there are other places that aren't planes of oblivion but are in Aetherius. The space inbetween planes is in aetherius, for instance. Jeancey (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Hmmm, it seems we have a disagreement over semantics  :P My theory is based on Aurbis, the "Wheel", and The Monomyth, which seem to refer to them as independent of each other. I think though this may be a discussion for another time, and another place... --Enodoc (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
Agreed. It is very likely inconsistent within lore. Jeancey (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2013 (GMT)
In discussion with Jeancey on IRC, we have agreed to adding two new categories, Lore-Places-Islands and Lore-Places-Oblivion. Anything else, such as realms of Aetherius, the continent articles, and moon and planet articles, we decided to leave solely in Lore-Places. If there are no objections or other comments, I will move towards this in a couple of days. --Enodoc (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2013 (GMT)

Template Implementation Issues[edit]

I combed through C-Z of Lore:Places, adding summaries. I was working from the multi-topic pages; a lore category search would be necessary to be reasonably certain each existing place page has been addressed. I tried to keep track of pages which bear scrutiny for a variety of reasons; they are listed below. Some are pages I skipped entirely because I don't think they have any merit whatsoever as lore place pages. Other are pages where one of the parameters is questionable (the type parameter, typically) or where another parameter could potentially be filled in. Some equivalent places (mountains, mountain ranges, etc.) are treated slightly different in the summaries due to differing amounts of information available. I hope my reservations for each page will be evident upon inspection.

Lore:Cryngaine FieldLore:Direnni TowerLore:Dren PlantationLore:DuneLore:Dunmeth PassLore:Eton NirLore:FoyadaLore:Foyada MamaeaLore:The FountainheadLore:Fort SphinxmothLore:Great DivideLore:Hsaarik HeadLore:The Halls of ColossusLore:Jerall MountainsLore:Velothi Mountains

edit- sorry, I stopped that list early:

Lore:Moonmoth Legion FortLore:OrsiniumLore:Ogres Tooth MountainsLore:Port TelvannisLore:ResdaynLore:SkyrimLore:Siuol YelirLore:Thir RiverLore:Telvanni Isles

Also, see this conversation. As outlined there, I have serious reservations about this project's image standards, and I urge you all to revisit it for the betterment of the lore section. I would like the project to acknowledge that the policy discouraging images (i.e., maps) which don't label a topic place should not be construed as a ban on such images even when there's nothing better available, as this has detrimental effects on reader comprehension and satisfaction. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 06:44, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

I've been doing the same from the category (slowly), so I should be able to pick up any that aren't on the multi-topic pages. I've also been skipping some, which I'll make a list of when I've finished. Of course, someone else may have filled them in since, but I'll list them anyway. I'll also make a list of those that I don't think are necessary at all (I think we agree there on Cryngaine Field). Thanks for your help on this, and I agree that we perhaps need to look a bit more into how we are handling images; for example, I've been leaving maps out of the image parameter and keeping them on the right of the page for if/when a screenshot of the place becomes available for the summary to put on the left. --Enodoc (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm fairly confident at this point that the Telvanni Isles are solely from TR3 and can be deleted. Could we separate this list into ones that are too small, and ones that have other issues? Some could be combined (Moonmoth Legion Fort into Balmora, The Fountainhead into New Sheoth, or Resdayn into Morrowind for instance) but other really need to stay a separate page given how significant they are in lore (Hsaarik Head, Dune and Direnni Tower come to mind). The others.... I am unsure. Jeancey (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

() So I've reached the end of the category, and here's my lists: (Minor Edits - not sure if your reasons are the same as mine for some of these, or if you were just unsure about the parameters for them; those that I list at the end are the ones for which I tried to work out your reasons, but may not have understood. Sorry about that.)

--Enodoc (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2013 (GMT)

I don't really have a problem with the Cape of the Blue Divide; it's just an unusual name for the waters around Summerset. Even if it's called the "Blue Divide" in ESO dialogue or something, I think the formal name is preferable.
College of Winterhold seems okay to me; at this time, the main article is a faction page, but we also have a summary for it on Lore:Places C. It's an equitable balance, in my opinion.
I advocate deleting foyada and merging its info into the Foyada Mamaea lore page.
I feel the same way Enodoc does about Crypt of Hearts. I'm not saying it shouldn't have a page, but when reading about it, I'm just like "wha?"
The Hold lore page can probably just be deleted; like you said, it doesn't really serve a purpose, and it's not a "place". It may have had a point before Skyrim, but now, I think it's fairly self-evident what a hold is to the community, and any confusion can be solved on the individual hold pages.
The Ghostfence was a pretty huge landmark (literally) in Morrowind, and it's mentioned in several texts; I think a page for it is appropriate.
Port Telvannis should be deleted. Unless we're prepared to include all the locations listed on the 10th Anniversary map, which I think is a bad idea. In general, creating any page based solely on OOG information should not happen, even if it is official concept art.
Thir River: 10th Anniversary map, mentioned nowhere else, we should just get rid of it, also.
Resdayn should redirect to Lore:Morrowind.
Weir Gate should probably just redirect to Battlespire, and any relevant info added there.
Unless noted below, I don't object to the deletion of any of the pages Enodoc listed as being unneeded. I agree with his proposals, but just to be clear, it's not a matter of having the same information as the gamespace; I don't really see that as relevant. Rather, I think the historical significance of those places is dubious, so I don't care if they're removed. ESO or other future games could change this, of course.
Colovian Estates should redirect to Colovia, though this could change if we got more specific information on it.
Imperial Palace should redirect to the WGT.
Fountainhead should redirect to New Sheoth.
"Imperial Reserve" could just redirect to the Great Forest; I think they're essentially the same thing.
Telvanni Isles should be deleted for the same reason as Port Telvanni and the Thir River.
A lot of the locations I listed were included because they are Elsweyr locales (like Dune), and I wasn't sure whether we wanted to include "Anequina" and "Pelletine" as regions when no other topographical region is known. The rest were just concerns about consistency and fishing for objections to type names; Enodoc covered all that, I think. In regards to Lore:Skyrim, my main concern was just aesthetics, I think, but it looks good with the summary. Viewing the page from my phone, the images and summary contort the introductory paragraph to where it is practically unreadable, but this is an issue on a lot of pages. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:24, 17 April 2013 (GMT)
For some of these, I would advocate against straight deletion. For instance, quite a few pages link to them (41 for Lore:Hold), or are still valid lore places, we just don't have enough info. Telvanni Isles should definitely be deleted, as this point I am fairly certain it was created solely by the TR3 team. Port Telvannis is fairly important in lore, though we do not have much info about it. Perhaps simply a redirect to a blurb on the lore places T page? The Roads, perhaps a catchall Roads of Cyrodiil article? Other than that, deletion is fine for those, personally. For the Elsweyr locals, with ESO we will likely get more information about the regions of those. Jeancey (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2013 (GMT)
I think historical significance is a good call, and should be a guideline for any entry in Lore Places. What do you think, Jeancey? On that, and taking into account the suggestions for redirects above, that leaves the following as historically insignificant:
Lore:Buckmoth Legion FortLore:Cryngaine FieldLore:Dren PlantationLore:Fort SphinxmothLore:Moonmoth Legion FortLore:Mortrag Glacier
which I think is reasonable. Jeancey, do you have specific objections to each of these being deleted, based on the hypothetical guideline of historical insignificance?
Roads are quite changeable, and I don't really think they are very significant either. Although perhaps we should wait for ESO and see if they exist there. If not, then they aren't significant. If so, then they've probably been around for long enough to be considered significant. Also, we'd need to copy the text out if we made a catch-all Roads page, as it's currently transcluded by the OB articles.
Is there historical significance to Foyada Mamaea? Sure, it's the 'big one', but if not, I would have thought a general Foyada article, maybe in the Lore:Appendices, was more useful.
If we want to keep the info and links of Lore:Hold, then I think we need a better place for it; it's still not really a "place". Aside from also throwing it in the Appendices, the best thing I can think of is to move its contents to a section of Lore:Skyrim called #Holds and set Hold as a redirect to Skyrim#Holds.
I think Anequina and Pelletine are reasonable regions for Elsweyr until we can refine that further geographically. On a parallel note, I see we've been given a name for the second of the Summerset Isles (Auridon). Is the big one just called "Summerset Isle"? If so, that's another province which has some subdivisions for future use.
My opinion is that there is misinterpretation over Cape of the Blue Divide. There's a reference in PGE1-Hammerfell, which I expect this stems from, which says near the Cape of the Blue Divide, the waters of the dread Aldmeri Dominion, but I think that's ambiguous. Stros M'Kai is near the Cape of the Blue Divide, the Blue Divide is the waters of the Dominion. The cape marks their starting point, rather than referring to them directly. We have the "War of the Blue Divide", the saying "By the Blue Divide", and the section of PGE1-Hammerfell called "North of the Blue Divide" which don't mention 'cape'. The cape itself is likely the sticky-outy bit of mainland Hammerfell just east of Stros M'Kai.
Looking at the Imperial Reserve on the Cyrodiil map, it doesn't have any defined borders, so we can't say for certain how much is in the Great Forest and how much is in the Colovian Highlands, so I think a redirect to Colovia is the safest option for that one.
Enodoc (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm going to respond somewhat randomly. Holds to skyrim I think will work. The larger isle is just called Summerset Isle (I added the Auridon if anyone has questions about that one). I think that the ones to be deleted could really just be redirected to new sections on their main location pages, and the redirect kept, rather than deleted. Anequina and Pelletine are regions for now for elsweyr, we will have to wait until ESO comes out to get any others/refine that anymore. Same with regions in Valenwood and Blackmarsh. They exist in ESO, but we will have to wait for info to be released to add the names. I can double check if some of the regions already exist in lore for Valenwood, Elsweyr and Blackmarsh, and see if they are attributed anywhere to the specific locations. The only Valenwood region we have an official source for is Grahtwood, but we have nothing tying it to any specific region of Valenwood. That is all that I have comments on at the moment :P Jeancey (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2013 (GMT)
It is better to err on the side of caution, which often calls for a redirect instead of deletion. Lore:Cryngaine Field can share the same redirect as Lore:Battle of Cryngaine Field. But as for the others on that list, Enodoc, I don't have a problem with any of them being marked for deletion. The authors might care, but out of all of the significant contributors to those pages, the only one who's still active is Legoless, who wrote Mortrag Glacier. You might want to check to see how he feels about that one. As for the Blue Divide/Cape of the Blue Divide, I'm ultimately apathetic.
The Foyada Mamaea (sp) is, I think, the biggest foyada. Or was; it's quite possible things have changed, but I still think it has been a significant feature of Vvardenfell (as Legoless may potentially argue that Mortrag Glacier has been a significant feature of Solstheim). But to supplement it's inherent historical interest, I think we may want to keep the Mamaea page as a de facto "foyada page", redirecting the foyada page and its information there. In regards to Lore:Hold, I think it calls for a disambiguation page giving a basic definition and links to the various holds. This would solve the categorical dilemmas without creating any appendices (something I frown upon unless it's necessary and covers a subject that is, in any sense of the word, huge). Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 00:41, 18 April 2013 (GMT)
Didn't we have a Dictionary or Glossary at some point? I can't seem to find it. That would be a perfect place to discuss terms like "Foyada" and "Hold" without giving them their own pages. Last I saw it was before my leave of absence. Did it get deleted for some reason during that time? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2013 (GMT)
Are there actually enough things to put on such a page? Jeancey (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2013 (GMT)
I had a look in Wayback Archive, and there was, but there isn't anymore: UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Lore:Dictionary A.
Redirecting rather than outright deletion is fine, I was being lax with my terminology. Redirecting Hold to Skyrim, where the holds are all listed anyway, and copying across the first paragraph as well, would probably serve the same purpose as disambiguation. I see what you mean about Foyada Mamaea and Mortrag Glacier being significant features, and of historical interest, even if they don't exist in the world anymore, so I'd be happy to leave their pages alone. --Enodoc (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2013 (GMT)

() Would it be safe yet to go ahead and do the suggested moving and redirecting to the mentioned pages that (I think) we are agreed on?

Remaining are Lore:Imperial Reserve, which will be redirected, but we haven't decided on the destination (Lore:Colovia is my preference as it has least ambiguity); Lore:Port Telvannis, with which we are undecided between deletion and redirection to Lore:Places P or Lore:Places T, based on the fact it is not mentioned outside the Anniversary Map, but is the only large city on the map that would otherwise not have an article; and the Cyrodiil roads, for which I think we should wait and see if they are in ESO, then decide what to do with them. --Enodoc (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

All of that has my approval, for what it's worth. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:28, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
Can I check please the implementation of this: am I right in thinking that I will need to:
  1. Copy out any text that is transcluded into another article (like MW:Buckmoth Legion Fort, for example)
  2. Copy across the contents to a new section (or at least a {{Linkable Entry}}) in the destination article (any preferences between new sections or linkable entries?)
  3. Set up the redirect
  4. Add it to Category:Redirects to Broader Subjects (would we keep or remove the existing categories?)
Anything I've missed? Thanks, Enodoc (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
Looks good. The categories for the redirects should be Lore-Places, Lore-All Terms and Redirects to Broader Subjects. Jeancey (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (GMT)
Cool, thanks. I think I'll take linkable entries vs. new sections on a case-by-case basis. Someone can always change it later if they don't like the one I chose. --Enodoc (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

() I my opinion we should not be deleting these pages. If a place exists, but is not featured in a game, it should be mentioned in Lore space. To not even have redirects to broader subjects is suggesting that they do not even exist. A place does not need to have historical significance to be in lore, it only means that these places will have shorter less informative entries. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:04, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

To my knowledge, the only pages that are or will be put up for deletion pursuant to this project are pages for places which were created using OOG content; the places for which there is an in-game basis but which do not have significant historical value are being redirected. Historical significance is the basis for having anything in the lore; otherwise we'd be including every location marker in every game. Also, I think consolidation is often better for reader comprehension. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 22:21, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
@Silencer: Sure, redirects to broader subjects is the general outcome for these listed pages. The only ones we were suggesting outright deleting are those which have no in-game source material, namely Telvanni Isles (a name we decided was solely created by the TR3 group) and Thir River, which is only named by an OOG map. Redirecting Thir River to Places T works for me, though, if that's what you'd rather. As ME said, we will not be deleting any of the other information, just moving it to an article on a place with more historical significance. --Enodoc (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
Everything I see says that map is official, meaning that any entries sourced from it are admissible. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:40, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
Maybe that's true, but could you share where you're reading this? As I mentioned above, we've been treating the map as Bethesda concept art, but I'm not aware of anything saying it's officially approved TES material. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 22:48, 4 May 2013 (GMT)
I completely missed that, I kept seeing "official map", but missing the vital "concept" in there. Sorry for the trouble. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:56, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

() OK so I've made all the changes listed above, plus I decided to merge Foyada into Vvardenfell based on the discussion below, and Imperial Reserve into Colovian Highlands, since 90% of the Imperial Reserve label on the map is within the Colovian Highlands region. I've also removed most of these places' entries from the multi-topic pages, since there is no source for the transclusion anymore. Exceptions to that are Buckmoth and Moonmoth Forts and Resdayn, which I pulled out and kept as I though their entries there could still be worthwhile. I also rewrote the Port Telvannis entry on Places P and redirected that article to there. All that remains now from my original list is Lore:Crypt of Hearts, so if anyone knows enough about that place to give it a summary, thad's be great. Aside from that, I believe this section is done. --Enodoc (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

Template Implementation Issues: Edit Break 1[edit]

I'd like to contest the merging of Lore:Imperial Reserve that's occurred. The reserve is not solely a part of the Colovian Highlands; rather, it extends into both the Great Forest and the Gold Coast. It needs a separate region page. I'll be restoring it if no one objects. Even if it doesn't deserve its own page (although I don't see the issue here), it needs a distinct entry on Lore:Places I or something. Merging it with a single related region makes no sense. —Legoless (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2013 (GMT)

I don't have a particular opinion on whether it regains its own page or not (if ME and Jeancey are about, they will of course make themselves known), but I'll just put here the reasons that the merge occured: we thought the reserve had little historical significance, since it is only mentioned briefly in OB dialogue and on the OB map; 90% of the text on the map lies within the Colovian Highlands, and we do not know how much further west or east it extends – notably, we don't know whether it extends all the way to the coast or not; it's not a geographical region of Cyrodiil in the same sense as the others, as it has no distinguishable borders. Would you be changing the text at all? --Enodoc (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (GMT)
I don't have a problem with it. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 17:48, 27 June 2013 (GMT)
I hope you don't mind Legoless, but I replaced the original text with the paragraph that was moved out of Colovian Highlands, as I think it is more accurate, based on how little we actually know about the area. --Enodoc (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

Foyada Pages[edit]

I read through the above secion, looking for the bits about the foyada pages, and there doesn't seem to be much consensus about what to do about these dull pages. Everybody does seem to agree that they need to be folded together, though.

My own two septims: It makes more sense to fold them all into a page about the foyadas of Vvardenfell and give each known foyada a section, than to put information on other foyadas on the Foyada Mamaea page. General information about what a foyada is can go in the main section.

Is there anything more about this that I'm not getting? LordXenophon (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Does there really need to be a lore page for them at all? The gamespace page has more information, and, even though the lore page is small, we cannot include game specific information in it, even if it is needed to fill out the page. If game specific info is needed to fill the page beyond a stub, then that indicates that there shouldn't be a lore page at all. Make sense? Jeancey (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
I'm not in favor of place pages for types of places. I believe a few others feel this way, too. There was a little more conversation about foyadas here. Our treatment of foyadas should be standardized in an intelligible way in the lore section, but at this point, there are several, not necessarily exclusive ways to do that. One idea is having the Mamaea page serve as a general foyada page, which would not require any more pages and would allow us to get rid of Lore:Foyada. There's also the possibility of recreating a dictionary as an appendix, in which case Lore:Foyada could redirect there. We also have the option of proliferating our foyada pages, giving each one a lore page, which I don't really care to do at the moment. We can also wait until ESO comes out, and see how it treats the Vvardenfell region and the significance of the foyadas. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 23:09, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
I expect that in ESO, the foyadas will all still be there, but most of the contents of the foyadas will change, not that this is likely to make much of a difference from a lorical point of view. LordXenophon (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
The history of the Foyada's might change. Besides, it might not even BE in ESO, since apparently Vvardenfell is not part of the playable area at launch. Jeancey (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict × 2) While I agree that Foyada may be the most logical place to put the info, the problem with that, as ME has said, is that Foyada is not a place by itself. Foyada Mamaea, however, is, and would fit within the standard style of Lore Places. The only way we could advocate recreating the Dictionary, which I believe was deleted because it was deemed superfluous, would be if we had enough stuff to put in it to warrant its recreation.
Here's another suggestion, however: could we move the info from Foyada and Foyada Mamaea into a section within Lore:Vvardenfell or Lore:Red Mountain, and set those two pages as a redirect to that section? That way, we lose the conflicting pages, but keep the info, as we are doing with Resdayn and Colovian Estates (the pages as they are themselves are quite short anyway).
Regarding ESO, I don't think Vvardenfell is supposed to be in at launch, so I don't know how long after we'd have to wait, or even if it will be put in at all. --Enodoc (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2013 (GMT)
Folding it in to Red Mountain sounds logical, since they are basically a feature of Red Mountain's eruptions. LordXenophon (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
Features which extend across the face of Vvardenfell, so it seems like Lore:Vvardenfell would be more appropriate. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 00:29, 30 April 2013 (GMT)
Since there have been no other comments following ME's suggestion, I am going to assume Lore:Vvardenfell is an acceptable choice. If anyone feels strongly, we could always move it to Lore:Red Mountain or somewhere else at another time. --Enodoc (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim's Notable Places[edit]

Why is it that every other province in Tamriel has a "Notable Places" section on the respective Lore Places page, except for Skyrim? I have been gathering information for my fan fiction tale using a standard URL combination composed of Lore: <province name> #Notable_Places which works perfectly for every other province except Skyrim. Any chance that the Lore:Skyrim page could be edited to meet the same standards as the rest of the provinces, as part of the LPP? Daric 00:25, 29 May 2013 (GMT)

I'll try to whip something up. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:04, 29 May 2013 (GMT)


How exactly is this project going to be wrapped up? We've got the summaries in place; do we need to move through each place page and make sure they're all up to code? What exactly do I have to do to start tearing down these LPP banners? Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:02, 2 June 2013 (GMT)

I believe that they are similar to any other place banners. They have variables for writtenby and checkedby, so I would say that if an article has been completely written and then checked, the template will... disappear! All on its own. (see my Saarthal Article) Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
I guess we need to check through the articles and make sure they are all: independent of direct game information; appropriately tensed; using images (for those that can); as those are the remaining points on the project page after the summaries. What constitutes 'checking' (re. the checkedby parameter) in this case? --Enodoc (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
Writing it out means a full and thorough article written. So quite a few of the smaller place articles shouldn't be marked as written simply because we have listed all there is to know, mainly because quite a few of them will get info in ESO. Just ignore those for now. The others (those that have appeared in games) they should probably be sandboxed and thoroughly researched by someone. The checked by parameter just means that someone went through and made sure everything was correct, sourced, etc, and that nothing was missing from the article. Jeancey (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2013 (GMT)