Lore talk:Lyranth

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

"paleonymic"[edit]

The Loremaster Archive featuring Lyranth has been brought to my attention just now, and with it, her "paleonymic". First of all, this seems to me to be Legoless misspelling "protonymic" in the question he posted for the LA in question, but second, and most important, isn't the establishment of her protonymic just the inserting of "home-brew" lore into a wiki page? If there is an actual source that supports this, I'd be happy to take this all back, but as is, this seems like Legoless is trying to sneak his own ideas into the page (I applaud the effort, Lego, but I caught you). In my opinion, seeing as neither "paleonymic" nor "Wehkehpneht-kamdo" are corroborated by the answer, or supported by any other source (that I'm aware of as of the posting of this message), the sentence should be omitted from the page. Bryn (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A protonymic is a Daedra's secret true name; per Battlespire, you can banish them with it if you know it. However, it changes once used. "Paleonymic" isn't a misspelling, it's a separate thing (with paleo meaning ancient, i.e. an old protonymic). Not sure why you think the word is a typo when it has clear meaning behind its construction.
Current consensus is indeed to exclude Loremaster's Archive questions (but not answers) from lore pages, but you should note that this was added to the page before that policy change; I am not trying to "sneak" my ideas into lore pages and resent the accusation. The paleonymic may not have been referenced in the answer, but the loremaster does directly refer to the summoning spell and also seems to have picked up on the fact that it was a new -nymic word, coining "tribunymic" in response. —Legoless (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it's fair to call it a policy "change"; as far as I know, there was no policy in place at all beforehand. All that I could find that predates the actual consensus of not including questions at all were these two discussions, which primarily focused on the inclusion of character names in lore. It was however suggested by me in that second discussion (and never countered) that no fan-created content should appear in lorespace, and that was implicitly directed at the questions in general, being that they are all fan-created content. --Enodoc (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There was indeed a larger discussion after the names discussion where the consensus was to only accept the LM answers as canon, because people were adding all sorts of inconsistent headcanon/home-brew lore into their questions and it was being totally ignored in the answer. I've actually been very aware of this particular note since Lego added it, but I haven't really said anything because Lyranth clearly reacts to the paleonymic in her answer, which gives it weight - a stark contrast to pretty much all of the other attempts at adding in headcanon which were ignored or not referenced. --Jimeee (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It was a policy change in that it was different from what we were doing previously, i.e. incorporating those texts into lore articles, as we do with all officially published web sources. The change was prohibiting the use of material contained in the questions, which was a stark deviation from previous precedent (e.g. our treatment of The Nameless Mage, another fan-written text). People may have been opposed to the inclusion of that material at the time (see discussion) but there was no such agreement in place; the fact that no one engaged with (or "countered") Enodoc's abovementioned exclusion suggestion is evidence of this.
Like Jimeee says, Lyranth clearly reacts to the summoning spell in this instance. The total exclusion of questions removes the context in which the answers are given, which is why I remain strongly opposed to the current policy on this. Cherrypicking lore sources based on authorship is a bad precedent. That said, this page isn't the place to revisit that matter. —Legoless (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)