Lore talk:Farengar Secret-Fire

Excessive Writing

… All of the content was put there to tell a coherent story. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The point of a lore page is not to tell a story, it's to contain accurate & concise information CoolBlast3 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You are correct guidelines do not explicitly and unambiguously say that pages are supposed to tell stories, but this is inconsistent between what is said and what is done. Look at any other lore page - The books of Elder Scrolls tell a story, the people tell stories, people giving quests create stories. It’s at the heart of the Elder Scrolls franchise and why people play it. But this is a subjective argument, so I will highlight cases that are not as much so.

Case in point: Content over Style. “If, however, the content of an article is limited by the style, the content should be given priority. If there is an article or a section of the site that compromises content in favor of style, it should be marked for cleanup so that a better balance of content and style can be achieved.” [sic] explains that in cases where lore is minimal, reasonable inferences are to be made because “the content should be given priority.” “the content should be given priority” is another way of saying, “Tell the story.”

Redundancy also covers this. Two quotes: One, “Other pages that discuss that topic should not try to repeat the details, but should instead provide a link to the page with the details. Only information that is directly relevant to a given page should be included on the page.” Everything in the initial Farengar edit was relevant. Two, “Only information of interest to almost all readers should be included: 90% of the readers should not have to wade through uninteresting information just so that 10% of readers can find the information.” Having the lore page be comprehensive allows readers to get what they want to on the page, and is a good argument for comprehensiveness. The links on the page are useful, but unnecessary to stay on (Dwell time) if the events are comprehensively explained.

So, no, personally I disagree, lore pages are supposed to tell stories. I’ve cited the guidelines. I believe that is a reasonable and fair consensus. Why should lore pages not be stories? You are amazing because you are able to communicate your worldview and beliefs clearly. So please do. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You're using the wrong guide. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Lore CoolBlast3 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Both guides apply generally. The Style Guide was used in the reference page I based my writing on while creating the page: Lore:Balgruuf the Greater. Removing that content created inconsistencies, rather than destroying inconsistency. This page even directly supports my argument, quote “Perspective: Game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen of Tamriel following the latest chronological events of the officially approved TES media. The articles are still expected to be encyclopedia-style, but designed as if they were (extraordinarily well-researched and polished) reference materials for a citizen of Tamriel.” Both guides apply.

Plus: “There's room for variation: The specific layout of independent sections within single-topic lore articles is not important, so long as they are in general conformity with articles of similar subjects. Variation is considered because new things happen and only so many users are active to patrol. Variation is encouraged, but not to the extent consistency is sacrificed.

These are two reasons to keep the page as the original revision, versus the one to cut the story content, seen as quote “Use as Needed: It almost goes without saying that various sections need only be included as needed.” And even then it might be said to not be needed to apply, because of quote “Typically, topics for which there is little to say should redirect to entries on the multi-topic pages for their respective Lore sections.” in the case of Farengar, it is not content where there is little to say, the first hours of the game are main content and Farengar is relevant in the later middle plot too.

Both guides support the keeping of lore stories in lore pages. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the removed text is not really appropriate on a page about Farengar. It would be one thing to have a sentence or two mentioning this and linking to more relevant articles, but as it was it was too much. This sort of situation is what our redundancy guideline is for. Instead of reiterating information that can be presented more properly elsewhere, it's best to just just have some context and move on with more directly relevant information. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

So to confirm, this means that Content Over Style and Perspective are superseded by Redundancy? This also does not fix consistency issues if all pages are held to the standard of only containing accurate and concise information without other else. Why should the story content be removed on Farengar and not Balgruuf? 333dragonb0rned (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't some wider statement on every policy and guideline, it is an explanation in the context of a single page. The majority of the removed content in question was not relevant to Farengar. Reposting it here for easier context:

Through this Delphine obtained this valuable item necessary to understand the prophecy of The Last Dragonborn, and soon after, Whiterun was attacked by Murmulnir, an ancient survivor of the last Dragon War. Because of this the Last Dragonborn was discovered, and the events foretold in the Prophecy of the Last Dragonborn began, as Alduin’s escape from the Time Wound had began to undo centuries of peace with the escape of the Last Dragonborn from execution.

and then had the prophesied Dragonborn set off on many adventures. The Last Dragonborn would eventually return to Whiterun and Dragonsreach would be prepared to summon and contain a former ally of Alduin, Odahviing, and he would attempt to collect Dragon Scale samples from him for alchemical purposes.

Farengar was a very minor to completely unrelated role in all of this, and this is pretty evident by the fact that it is solely talking about other people and not Farengar. In comparison, on the Balgruuf article every sentence clearly ties back to the subject of the article very directly. The very simple fact is that Balgruuf is a much more central character to the story of Skyrim than Farengar, so his article will have more to say. Although there is certainly more that can still be added to Farengar's article, it shouldn't be content that doesn't involve Farengar.

I hope this explanation helped you understand this a bit more. If you have more questions, or would like help with some specific edits, feel free to ask me directly (I think Coolblast would appreciate this conversation moving to a different page at this stage!). ---AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Heard. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that arguably Farengar shouldn't even have a lore page, since he only appeared in one game and did not do anything too notable. Also this should probably all be moved to Lore talk:Farengar_Secret-Fire lol--ErfXploded (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

True. I didn’t enjoy the dead redlinks I saw on other pages, and I thought it’d be simple. All of what you’re saying is true, the main thing that happened loreworthy is Odahviing’s capture… why that was removed, I don’t understand, a lot of the page centered around the lore for that. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Odahviings capture could be mentioned, but to my knowledge the only part of it thats relevant to Farengar was that he took great ineterest in the idea of studying a live dragon and tried to take a sample from Odahviin.Tarponpet (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I would argue Farengar Secret-Fire deserves a lore page. He not only interacts with Odahviing, but also plays a crucial role in the main storyline by assigning the Last Dragonborn the Bleak Falls Barrow quest, which is part of Skyrim's Main Quest. He also interacts with Delphine, another relevant character. He also is involved in The Whispering Door, a Daedric Quest, which is significant given that the associated Daedric artifact has its own lore page. I also hope that one day this site's notability rules for the Lore:People articles can be expanded upon. --KevinM^(talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Late interjection or “P.S.” Errr… yeah. I wish there was and I suspect all would greatly benefit from defined and empiricized notability on people lore pages. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about whether Farenger deserves a lore page, some people agree that he should have one, and discussion for deleting or moving this page should be in a separate discussion. This is a discussion about whether the original writing of the page should be restored, as most of it was excessive and unnecessary details about the character, a lot of which wasn't even related to Farengar himself, but rather describing the player's journey. The page was edited to trim it down and prevent it from bloating with unneeded info. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand that but I was just responding to ErfXploded's comment which can be found above. --KevinM^(talk) 22:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No yea totally I understand, just wanted to clarify this in general since it seems to be derailing the topic at hand The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(←) I’m good with cutting writing to simplify what’s relevant to Farengar. My original revision with all of the content I was good with having some content removed - But not all of it, there has to be a balance. As long as what’s on the page explains who he is, what he does, what he causes, and why any of that is important I’m good with it. Obviously all of the original writing expanded on the world outside of Farengar that he’s so interested in (Dragons), and that’s removed in good faith now. The necessity of explaining the player’s journey isn’t my place to say if it should be normalized on all pages - In the cases of many battles and wars, explaining the world there makes sense, and it doesn’t connect to the player journey directly. Race lore somewhat does, and connects the player journey and other games. I think the question is mainly “How much does this one individual matter to the future?” And in the case of someone like, say, Neloth or the Psijic Order who clearly have power the MC like the Dragonborn or more power than the MC of the time (NC Not Counting exploits/bugs) I’d say player story + world-building is relevant to them. For example Sybille Stentor maybe should explain her relationship with vampires and how that came to be, but not explain what any that has to do with Serana and Coldharbour. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Farengar is a minor character with minor power who has a decent (Giving him the least importance contrast other characters) to noteworthy role (Giving him the most importance contrast to other characters) in the story of the Dragonborn, so on referral from this his exposition can be determined. It’s not my place to say what the unanimous consensus should be though - It’s highly subjective which characters have most to least importance to any individual player of Skyrim. But there are truths, like “All Skyrim players hate the Thalmor” and “Bethesda made the Thalmor to be hated” and “The Thalmor want to wage war on Empire-controlled or Ulfric-controlled Skyrim.” So I don’t know. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As a Skyrim player I do not hate the Thalmor. Weird to consider that (or anything else) a global truth- there's no such thing.CoolBlast3 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

(re CoolBlast3) Bethesda through dialogue of both leaders in the Empire and Stormcloaks make it clear by author intention the Thalmor are the overarching enemy in Skyrim. Thus highlighting my saying It’s highly subjective which characters have most to least importance to any individual player. Of course there is no global truth, but there is cultural consensus, and I have already said I am of no real importance but voice to say what kind of notability on people lore pages to this site. Our cultural consensus agrees to the value of lore - scour this site - and author intent - See archives on Ted P.’s posts. The question of “How do we set about defining into stone how much of the story to tell” will hopefully be determined sometime. No one knows strictly how to apply “the content should be given priority” to every page, and that is what makes AKB’s explanation very valuable; “The very simple fact is that Balgruuf is a much more central character to the story of Skyrim than Farengar, so his article will have more to say.” [sic]. 333dragonb0rned (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)