Lore talk:Vivec City

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


I updated this page because I thought it was sorely lacking in information. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the markup codes is a bit lacking, so if someone could please breeze through and touch it up with some links and what-not, it'd be much appreciated. - Simple 05:10, 30 July 2007 (EDT)


As Vivec no longer exists, I think the article should speak about it in past, I mean, "Vivec was" and not "Vivec is". 10:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, Lore articles are written in a time-ambiguous form, since they're referenced from a lot of different parts of the site. Since Vivec existed in Morrowind (and presumably before that), the present tense is more appropriate. Robin Hoodtalk 23:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This is tricky. The last paragraph does make use of past participles while the rest uses present, putting it at odds with the rest of the article. Logically, lore pages should change as new lore is introduced, as a time-ambiguous format can be a little jarring and, if the reader isn't paying enough attention, potentially misleading. This would require a lot of tedious editing, however, of a vast number of lore pages to bring everything up to speed.
Personally, I feel that not enough real-world time has passed since its in-game destruction to justify changing it. I don't have any statistics about this, but I get the impression there are still a lot of players who are still playing and enjoying Morrowind, as well as some who are still just discovering it, and I think that for all of their sakes' it should just be left alone. Peterpeterohsofeeter 07:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I changed it to past tense but if you don't like it feel free to change it back. Gideon Dragontongue 16:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, let's leave the lore article in the past tense and ensure that the Morrowind article is in the present. Gideon Dragontongue 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Vivec city - founded before, during or after the preserve era 2E 896–3E 414?[edit]

I hope this is not seen as too much forum like, as my intent is to try to provoke possible additions to the article.

After reading myself up on lore I started wondering when Vivec city was founded. I can not seem to find any reference to it before the time of the events of TES3: Morrowind at all. As far as I can find, it is not mentioned in TES: Arena, the only other game taking place in Morrowind as yet, with events taking place 3E 399.

However, such an important devine-royal residence city for Vivec seems natural to have been founded quite early on, so that would indicate early Second Era at latest, quite possibly several hundred yeas before the Second Era entirely. Further the city would surely be mentioned if it was founded during the temple preserve era, if its founding just did not qualify as a part of the temple maintaining the preserve maybe as part of establishing the temple control, or maybe reckoned as off Vvardenfell by being situated in the water, and as such not seen as a breach of the preserve, of course. Established after the end of the preserve in 3E 414 would quite surly be impossible for a now weakened god-king, having only 17 years to build to the size it had during the events of TES3: Morrowind.

I am now only speculating, of course, and as such having nothing unusable for UESP, but is speculation and original research the only thing we have, leaving us with nothing for now? —MortenOSlash (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (GMT)

Vivec vs Vivec City[edit]

I've proposed to move this article to Lore:Vivec City. This is based both on consistency with modern lore and for the sake of avoiding confusion.

In Morrowind, the city was exclusively referred to as 'Vivec'. Beginning with The Infernal City and carrying right through to Skyrim (and possibly ESO?), the term 'Vivec City' has rose to prominence. With such a readily verifiable new alternate name, I think we should follow Bethesda's role and switch over to using this name in lorespace. It looks nicer and it avoids confusion. If this move is opposed, I would still like to suggest the acceptance of the usage of 'Vivec City' on other lore articles. Redirects are there for a reason, and "the city of Vivec" sounds so stilted. Obviously this move would rub against the grain for the cities of Almalexia and Sotha Sil, but those names are totally obscure compared to Vivec. —Legoless (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2014 (GMT)

I've seen enough usage of Vivec City to give this a decent percentage of my support, and the only transcribed ESO book that mentions explicitly the city uses Vivec City (Online:Watchtower Ledger). I would also give tentative support to moving Vivec (god) to Vivec and placing the About template at the top. This change may grate on some older lore editors but I don't see the usage of Vivec City as being so vastly outnumbered by just plain Vivec that this wouldn't make any sense. This is a very acceptable alternative used quite a lot even in Morrowind, that I would support this even if Vivec was the major usage when referring to the city. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:39, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
Honestly, I don't think we should. The only game so far to feature vivec, used JUST Vivec (there were a couple of instances of Vivec City, but they were rare). The rise in the usage of Vivec City, I think, is entirely due to The Infernal City, and they took it from there. I don't think that "The city of vivec" is necessarily bad, or good. I think that in 90% of cases, simply Vivec will suffice and you can easily tell from the context whether it is the city or the god. The Imperial City is the only other location with City in the name, as far as I know, so I think that we should keep using the current method. I don't see Vivec City being used vastly more than Vivec, enough to warrant a change in the name of the page. ESO Books have 2 instances of Vivec City, 3 instances of Vivec, and 1 instance of Vivec Garrison. I don't think we should even consider changing it until we know how it is referred to in the dialogue and quests.
TL;DR: Vivec is used vastly more than Vivec City, so I don't think we should change it. Jeancey (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
Correct, Vivec is used vastly more often, but it's all Morrowind-era usage. The Infernal City is accepted lore, so I don't see the fact that the popularity of the name might stem from the book as being any kind of obstacle. —Legoless (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) I just checked, and skyrim had 6 instances of Vivec and 6 instances of Vivec City. Oblivion has 5 uses of Vivec, and 1 use of Vivec City. There isn't really any clear picture that Vivec City has taken over usage from Vivec. Jeancey (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
The first line of the article was changed from Vivec to Vivec City in October 2011 with no contention. I think it's reasonable to say that the official name is Vivec City, but it is most commonly referred to in the abbreviated version. This would also mean the full title of the page should be Vivec City, so I support the move. Basically, it's easy to say that any use of Vivec is a shortening of Vivec City, but the reverse argument doesn't work. There are enough uses of it the lore that I think the change should be made. -- Hargrimm(T) 01:09, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) On Morrowind and Guide to Vivec (Guides to Balmora and Vvardenfall), other Morrowind books, Morrowind dialogue, specifically when asking about Morrowind Lore. It appears more that Vivec City is the official name of the place and Vivec is just shorthand, much like London or Belfast, or Dublin are or were followed by City as the official name of the place. The context of the dialogue would be used to make it clear that it was the city and not the person that was the subject. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:12, 22 February 2014 (GMT)

() I'm personally opposed to the move for the reasons that Jeancey gave. Also, I would have never known the "official" names involved the word 'City' after their common name unless Silencer said something, if that says anything about this situation. •WoahBro►talk 01:19, 22 February 2014 (GMT)

I think that's a good point made about full names and titles. Lore:Third Empire is a good example of this. "The Empire" is far, far more commonly used throughout all the games. However, this gives rise to confusion when you consider the two Empires before it, as well as the Nordic and Ayleid Empires, etc. Full titles are often preferable, especially in encyclopaedic style writing. —Legoless (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
So I just looked it up, and there are 82 uses of "Vivec City" in Morrowind dialogue alone. Including many in cases where there is no potential for confusion, when the person is clearly already talking about a city ("I don't have any more orders for you, %PCName. Try asking the Guild Stewards at Vivec City, Sadrith Mora, or Ald'ruhn."; "I've thought it over, and I want you to interview three informants in Vivec City concerning the Nerevarine and the Sixth House."; "Vivec City is the great city in the lagoon east of Ebonheart.") So starting in its first and most prominent appearance, it's clear that the actual, official name is fully Vivec City, and it is known as such. There's just no reason for us to use the clunky title "Vivec (city)" when it's clear that Vivec City is proper and in widespread use. -- Hargrimm(T) 01:33, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
Ultimately, we've been given two options for the city name, and one of them is clearly more suitable for our purposes. "Vivec City" is both more appropriate for the encyclopedia format (being the formal name) and better for reader comprehension (being the more descriptive name). Yes, readers can typically deduce what we're referring to based on context, but we don't want them deducting when they should be reading. It's a small but unnecessary distraction. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:45, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
Using the example of London, it is still Wikipedia:London and not "London City". Sure, one can always append "City" to a city name (or add "River" to a river name), but that is generic and doesn't automatically make it the formally right name - we probably don't want to do that to most of the pages. However it might be the right thing to do in this case. There is already a Morrowind:Vivec City redirect, so {{Lore Link}}s to it would turn out all right, but we would still need to link to "Vivec (god)" (could be a redirect) unless we use cumbersome #if's or change it for Morrowind too. --Alfwyn (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
If the debate was between 'Vivec' and 'Vivec City', I would probably be a little more conflicted. But it actually is between 'Vivec (city)' and 'Vivec City'. I feel it's pretty clear that one is both more aesthetically pleasing and encyclopedically appropriate. -- Hargrimm(T) 18:10, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
It is between Vivec and Vivec City though. In any of the text, you will see either Vivec or Vivec City. Only when you edit or on the page itself will you ever see Vivec (city). Disambiguation is a key part of being a wiki, so I don't think there is any issue with having disambiguation in a title of a page. Jeancey (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (GMT)
He's referring to the page name. There is an issue (not a big, but an issue nonetheless) with having disambiguation in a title of a page when it's unnecessary.
Anyways, I don't think London is the real-life best comparison for Vivec City. I would compare it to NYC, a city which is more often than not referred to as simply "New York" in conversation and even in many writings, though this would be clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedia format. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 19:27, 22 February 2014 (GMT)

() This discussion has died, so unless anyone wants to take a formal vote about it, I'm going to go ahead and move Vivec (god) to Vivec and Vivec (city) to Vivec City in the next day or so, for the simple reason that I can provide a dozen citations for the use of 'Vivec City' as the full title, making disambiguation titles an unnecessary eyesore. I will make the same change for MW namespace to preserve Lore Links, and post a bot request to update links. -- Hargrimm(T) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (GMT)

I was meaning to bump this myself. Having let the discussion rest, I say go for it. —Legoless (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2014 (GMT)
I want to add my support for this move. --Dorsal Axe (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2014 (GMT)
Don't move Vivec (god) to Vivec just yet. This discussion was solely about the city of Vivec, we really didn't discuss moving Vivec (god) to Vivec. I would leave Vivec as a disambiguation page. Jeancey (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (GMT)
Why? With the city page moved, there's no more duplication of the page titles, and there would be an About header on Vivec pointing the city. Certainly the overwhelmingly vast majority of references to Vivec are to the person rather than the city, so I don't see much of an issue with user confusion or anything. -- Hargrimm(T) 18:04, 15 March 2014 (GMT)
I don't mean to be difficult, but while I have no problem with moving the pages in the lore namespace, I don't think the Morrowind pages should be moved, as game data should determine page names in gamespaces. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:41, 15 March 2014 (GMT)
Oh, didn't see the MW move intent. But yes, I don't think it should be changed for Morrowind. If we keep the "Lore:Vivec (god)" redirect and create a "Morrowind:Vivec City" redirect, we can use Lorelinks. Then again MW currently doesn't follow game data slavishly. It's "Vivec, St. Olms" in the game data, but Morrowind:Vivec St. Olms . --Alfwyn (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2014 (GMT)

() So is this happening? It's been a couple months since this decision seems to have been settled. I'm personally looking forward to the name change myself, as I think this name is more respectful to a grand city like Vivec with such a tragic past. -Zhukant (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (GMT)

This article has been moved. I don't think any of the other proposed changes were agreed upon. —Legoless (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2014 (GMT)
I'm confused how adding City is more respectful.... wouldn't that be like saying "people don't know it is a city, so we need to point it out?" Wouldn't that be LESS respectful? Also, tragic future :P Jeancey (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2014 (GMT)