Lore talk:Shad Astula

Closure

Per this edit, I think it's an easy assumption to make that Shad Astula is no longer an active organization by the time of 4E 201, which is the perspective from which lore articles are written. Its sole purpose is for training leaders of the Ebonheart Pact. This limits it pretty solidly to the Interregnum period. I think in this case a little original research is warranted, especially since it's just a tense difference and there's a note explaining it. —Legoless (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

This is not as simple as it looks. Firstly, the Academy also does scholarly work, as mentioned both here and here. What's even more important, this journal clearly says that the Academy used to train leaders of the Great Houses before the time of the Pact and was only adapted to training leaders of the Pact later. (Those who will grow into great leaders, remarkable scholars, and mighty warriors for the Houses of Morrowind. And, starting this season, for the entire Ebonheart Pact, as well.) Therefore it might as well return to its old purpose when the times of the Pact are over. -Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 12:42, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

Hm, never seen that journal before. The entire article should probably be updated with that. —Legoless (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

Honestly, I think the entire lore section should be in past tense, since whenever a new game comes out there will invariably be information that will take place in the past. Most encyclopedias are in past tense and I think the lore section should as well. Personal opinion, but it holds some relevance here. Jeancey (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

I'm the one who originally added the note when I made the page, and it pretty well reflects what I think the perspective of the Lore space should be. It's written in the present tense as of the furthest-along game chronologically (meaning Skyrim for now). So the present tense is appropriate for things that we can reasonably assume are current, and things that aren't really subject to change, like geographical areas and major cities. For things where the only in-game records we have are from a thousand years ago, I think it would be excessively speculative to unambiguously state that they still are around. Obviously Shad Astula was just invented for ESO, and it's certainly possible that there will be mention of it in the next mainline TES game, but until that happens, I don't think we could assume it's still extant. -- Hargrimm^(T) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (GMT

Isn't that the other way around? That we shouldn't assume that something is closed or destroyed unless there's a a reason to think that?

Anyway, Jeancey has a point that the lore section should be consistent. Changing everything to past tense is not a bad idea. However, can it be done easily with the amount of lore articles we have? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 19:20, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

We generally have very little reason to doubt the continued existence of things such as gods and places. For example, writing an article on Molag Bal or Lake Rumare in the past tense doesn't make much sense. The last time we tried to broadly apply the past tense in lorespace (Vvardenfell place articles after the Red Year), it ended up backfiring in Skyrim when Balmora was inexplicably still around. Personally, I think the fact that Shad Astula was around before the Pact gives it enough historical breadth to be worth writing in the present tense for lack of contrary evidence. —Legoless (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2014 (GMT)

And that was my original point. What's the consensus then? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (GMT)