Lore talk:Bear

Combine the Articles?

I was thinking we should combine all the bear articles for two main reasons:

1) They are just different kinds of bears, but they are all bears

2) As it is, most of the time pages link to the disambiguation page because there are several kinds of bears that could be/are being referenced ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 04:12, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

I definitely support this and doing the same for Wolves, Foxes, Rats and others like it.--Ashendant (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2014 (GMT)

Does anybody have any ideas on how this could be done? Like we just copy the format of the Lore:Kwama page?--Ashendant (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (GMT)

While I personally do not overly like the look of Lore:Kwama I think it will be best to just do that and alter it later. I have a sandbox for this page here and you are welcome to help out :) ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 02:42, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

I don't like the format Kwama page too, but in this case I rather maintain conformity of format throughout all Lore:Creature pages.

Lore:Spriggan might be a better example?--Ashendant (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

Ok i've begun compiling knowledge on bears in the Sandbox, so far I've only done varieties information.--Ashendant (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

Finished the materials. I have no idea how to mention that bears carry gold coins, gems and rings without going into speculation that it was from people they devoured.--Ashendant (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

It is lore, you don't talk about the things it drops in games. You can talk about how pelts are used for armor and stuff, but not about the drops. Jeancey (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2014 (GMT)

Yeah Okay. I did so for the diseases that they carry trough. I understand that that counts as lore.

On that note I think i'm finished with the text of the article. I don't know any fact that is missing, now it needs editing formatting and images.--Ashendant (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

Ok i'm finished, moving the sandbox to this page.--Ashendant (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

Is it appropriate to link game articles to lore pages? I don't know how to deal with Kyne and the Guardians details...

Could also anybody else review the article?--Ashendant (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

Should I post pictures of Bear Pelts and Claws in each of the games? Like its done in the Kwama and Spriggan pages?--Ashendant (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

No. They probably shouldn't be on those pages at all either. Jeancey (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

I think posting pics of materials was done in a lot more pages than just those two...--Ashendant (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

They should be removed. The materials each have their own pages with images, and there are links to those entries in the articles already, therefore there is no reason to have the images in the gallery, especially when it makes the gallery longer than it already is. In fact, there really should only be one image per game, or multiple images if there are different forms (such as betty and bull netch). Multiple images of a single form from a single game isn't all that useful. Jeancey (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

I think they should remain as these models tend to change subtly with every new game they appear, and in some cases drasticly. Both Spriggans and Scribs are a good example of that and offers a nice contrast that is good for further showing how the creature looked troughout all the games.--Ashendant (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

That doesn't disagree with what I said. One image per form per game. So scrib from ESO and scrib from Morrowind is fine, but three images of a scrib from ESO isn't okay. Make sense? Jeancey (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

Ha ok! The "Or" in the middle of your previous reply throw me off.--Ashendant (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2014 (GMT)

Werebears

Should the existence of Werebears be referenced in this article?--Ashendant (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

They are different, so no. Jeancey (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

I was thinking of something short like "There are some lycanthropes that transform in half-men, half-bears." Or something like that. The problem will really come with the Lore:Wolf page i'm making, if someone decides to mention it there.--Ashendant (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Forest Guardian

Why must it be "said" to be guarded? I'm pretty sure in the games is it indeed guarded by that creature,--Ashendant (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Yes, but in lore terms, it is said to be guarded. There are only a handful of people, if that, who have seen the guardian, from and in-game perspective. The legend surrounding the Boots, however, tells that the Guardian exists, therefor it is treated as a legend rather than a 100% fact. Jeancey (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Isn't that a bit problematic when a legend contradicts something that the game clearly displays as part of the lore? Lore:From Frog to Man (man do I love this book) is a great example of book that's good on grummite biology but is very wrong grummite behaviour which can be easily observed in game.

Anyway. I don't think rumour/legend should replace a fact that is clearly shown in game.--Ashendant (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

But the point is, only your character, and MAYBE one or two other people in the game world have ever seen the guardian, and thus would know it is a bear. The legend simply mentions a guardian, not what that guardian is. From an in-game perspective (which is from what lore is written), the actual form of the guardian wouldn't be known for sure. This is similar (though not identical) to the reasoning of not putting game mechanics in lore. Jeancey (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

I'm not understanding your answer... :S Are you saying that Lore section of the wiki should be written as if it was written from a lore character perspective?--Ashendant (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Yes. Per the Lore Guidelines: " 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." Not from the player character perspective, but from someone else in the world. Jeancey (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Okay, I understand that. But still the "said" doesn't make sense to me. Lore:Crusader's Relics has no problem with stating that the forest guardian was indeed there. --Ashendant (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

(←) You can state the guardian is there, but "to be guarded" really doesn't sound right. That makes it sound as if the boots must always be guarded by the guardian, which isn't true. "Said to be", on the other hand, means that there is a chance they aren't. Until we know where they were since the beginning of their creation, I think "Said to be" is a better phrase to denote that we don't know where they are right now. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 16:05, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

Ah okay. Now I understand. Thanks!--Ashendant (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (GMT)

More Info

I've asked for help on Tes Lore and I've got these two bits.

"How about the Good Beast taking the form of a bear: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Bloodmoon:The_Ritual_of_Beasts or the giant werebear (werebears!) riding a bear in the Hunting Grounds in one of the novels?"

However I'm completly blocked on how to integrate this with the rest of the article... So I'm asking if anybody could do it for me.--Ashendant (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (GMT)