Oblivion talk:High Elf

Paralysis Immunity

In the article is says Altmer have a natural immunity to paralysis. Is this true? Maybe in general lore, but in oblivion this is not correct. HARVEYtheDAMNED 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just checked in the CS and didn't find anything to support that. I'm removing it from the article. --SerCenKing ^Talk 10:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Screw that! I just realised what you're talking about! Yes in OB Altmer don't have paralysis immunity (see the "Traits" section). However, as you said, in general lore they do. The information is on the article because the first section is transcluded verbatim from Lore:Altmer. Hopefully that answers the question. --SerCenKing ^Talk 10:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does! Thank you! I wasn't sure if the first section was supposed to be specific to Oblivion or not. HARVEYtheDAMNED 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Slight skin bug

Has anyone but me noticed that Altmer are only yellow skinned from the neck up? - Unregistered User

Actually yes I have. They are a greenish-gray color below that. I think it was just a dev wanting to speed things up. I am going to test to see if this happens with the PC--^Corevette₇₈₉ 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that, I was just thinking about the same thing with the dunmer a few minutes ago: their heads are noticeably more blue than their bodies. I was wondering if it was something I'd done in my incessant fiddling about, but I guess not. It's also noticeable with imperials and bretons, but less so due to their paler skin; the resulting neck seam is slightly irritating, though. --Vometia 03:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit more, and think I may have an idea why this sort of thing happens: we know the body and head use different control systems for movement (the skeleton and facegen system respectively) so I reckon it follows that they also use different rendering systems, the implication being that while you get to choose the head's skin tone through the facegen system, the body is just rendered using a "standard" skin tone and is unaffected by whatever you select with facegen: so the further the head's tone gets from that standard, the more obvious the discrepancy. Okay, it's just a theory, but it might explain why it happens. --Vometia 14:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you change a dunmers skin to a white looking color, the rest of his body will have a light blue-green color. Mikeyboy52 17:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How long can Altmer live?

Exactly how long can they live? Carahil seems to be pretty young even though she had lived from the time of Logren Benirus, Velwin Benirus's grandfather. — Unsigned comment by 117.4.244.73 (talk) on 5 May 2011

Well Divayth Fyr is a Dunmer, but he's over 1,000 years old. The Altmer probably live at least that long. Beyond that, I don't think there's any definite information. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Divath Fyr is a Telvanni Mage Lord and they are known to prolong their lives magically. There's no evidence for the average Altmer doing the same thing or for living as long naturally. Legend does have it that Phynaster, an Altmer ancestor-hero, taught the Altmer to lengthen their lifespans by a hundred years by shortening their walking stride. The average lifespan for a normal Dunmer is 120 years - I speculate double or perhaps treble that for an average Altmer. — Unsigned comment by 2.25.252.115 (talk) on 2 September 2011

Sources would be nice for your 120 year statement. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/interviews-alvur-relds "Well, I'm fifty, done my twenty years in the Service, and I'm in the prime of life. I expect another fifty good years, and then I'll be old, and slow, chatting with gaffers around the hearth for another twenty, thirty years. I've known mer still mind-sharp in their late hundreds, and heard of folk 200 and older. My family usually makes it to 120-130, providing we don't get sick or poked in the eye." — Unsigned comment by 2.25.252.151 (talk) on 3 September 2011

One family's example doth not a rule make. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Occam's Razor. In this case you have to make a lot more blind calls to assume it's not a typical example than to assume it is. A particularly short-lived Dunmer, who's only personally acquainted with similarly short-lived Dunmer, who has only heard of normal longer-lived ones but never met them, and who doesn't mention any of this in a conversation specifically about the lifespan of Dunmer? Wouldn't wash for me, especially considering that it's a source from Bethesda themselves and presumably intended to inform the fans. I make no claim for it being absolute truth, such claims are hubris anyway, but all said, the 120 figure appears far more likely to be reliable than not. — Unsigned comment by 2.25.241.51 (talk) on 5 September 2011

Occam's Razor favours the 1,000 year example. You've supplied one source, not in any game, while there are a couple of examples of very aged Dunmer in Morrowind. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) No, that's not true. It's a misapplication of Occam's Razor. You're using it on too broad a front and on too few examples, which is not what Occam's Razor is for. This should be evident by the fact that the two 1000-year old Dunmer aren't average examples of their race, they're both Telvanni Mage-Lords known to use magic to prolong their lifespans. What you're doing is the equivalent of seeing to albino panthers and assuming all panthers have white fur. You are also being bloodyminded in discounting the source I provided. The 120 year source is canon, being from Bethesda. It doesn't matter that it's not in the game, it's an official, legit, canon published source. I suggest you look up 'confirmation bias' on Wikipedia and try to avoid it in future, because it's plain to me that you're just arguing because you don't want to be wrong, not because you have any kind of solid case to make. /argument — Unsigned comment by 2.25.252.246 (talk) at 18:47 on September 6, 2011

Thanks for that link. The article was interesting, and I'll probably look at some more later. But anyway, Occam's Razor aside (yay I know what that is!) neither side really has a lot of proof either way. The question was the life span of Altmer, and the only ages we really have on Mer is the Dunmer. They do branch from the same ancestors, but you can't know how much they've grown apart over the centuries. As for the average life of a Dunmer, there still isn't enough to go on. Personally, I guess I've always thought it at around 150-200 years, but I'm not really sure where I picked that up. Obviously Divayth Fyr and other Telvanni wizards are going to be outliers. As some of the strongest magic users on the planet, they could probably extend their life very far. And for the commoner, his average family age doesn't necessarily represent his entire race. Back to the Razor, I think both sides have too many assumptions involved to be accepted. I think the best answer with our current knowledge is "Longer than humans". --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 02:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish to stress that Bethesda is notorious or having conflicting Lore. You all make very valid points and I wish to give my 2 cents by pointing out a passage from "The Real Barenziah". In this book, there is a passage which states: "Katisha's face briefly wore the envious, wistful look humans got when contemplating the thousand-year lifespan Elves had been granted by the gods. True, few ever actually lived that long as disease and violence took their respective tolls. But they could. And one or two of them actually did." Now, though this is only one source it is just a credible as any other article. And though it says that only few ever live 1,000 years, it doesn't seem to agree with 120-130. This passage also discounts the argument that it was magic that kept Divayth Fyr, since this says that the Gods granted it to them. Anyway, I reckon we'll never know unless someone actually asks this question of Bethesda and it actually gets answered.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 03:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I second Kalis Agea's opinion. Barenziah is not particularly special and she seems to get to over 400 with few problems, granted she's nobility and they generally live longer. Also of note, when Neloth asks for the Robe of Drake's Pride, he comments that the current owner, Senise Thindo, is a mere "child of 200 years." I'm sure Neloth's opinions are skewed by his intensely high age and Senise Thindo is also a Telvanni, but given that and the Real Barenziah source mentioned above, I don't see why one source would overturn all this evidence. To clarify, Divayth Fyr is referred to as a 4000 year old wizard and the oldest living sorceror in Morrowind, possibly all of Tamriel. The statement goes on to say that this discounts divine sorcerers like Vivec and liches (though by my count, 4000 would make him potentially older than Vivec) and possibly some older in the Summerset Isles. Also recall here that when someone's 4053, you could still call him 4000 years old and you'd be mostly correct (the comment is made in frustration at the stupidity of the player for suggesting plundering the dungeon so I assume the speaker (Alfe Fyr I believe) is rounding to save time and effort for more insults). While Kalis is right that the 1000 year lifespans are a gift from the divine, going past that is what's only possible by powerful magic. I don't know what occam's razor guy is talking about when he mentions the two 1000 year olds. I don't see any evidence of any dunmer in particular being 1000 years old... The Telvanni mage lords could range anywhere from 200 to 4000 and still fall within figures given in the game. From evidence in the game, Master Aryon is the youngest and Mistress Dratha is the oldest. Fast Eddie states that he was the rising star of House Telvanni until the "barely living" Gothren and Dratha put a stop to his career. This could indicate Gothren as second oldest, but it might not, since he might consider Neloth and Therana as barely living too. I have a hunch that Aryon's birth and maturation predates the Empire, as he is quoted in his letter to Divayth Fyr as saying that it is obvious the Empire is transient. My hunch comes from the fact that most people wouldn't call something transient if it was all that they had known their whole lives. Anyway, Dratha is certainly much older than she is supposed to be as she is quoted to be "sustained by the necromantic arts." Since this isn't stated about anyone else on the Telvanni council, it could be that she is the only one that is living longer than 1000, or just the most significant case. To conclude, it seems that Dunmer should have lifespans capping out at 1000 but generally a Dunmer of about 500 is still somewhat old, since its hard for us humans IRL to live to 80 what with car accidents, diseases, etc. Altmer are even older than that. The Telvanni are regarded as old so they likely span the range between 500 to 4000, but most likely fall well short of the 4000, since in Aryon's letter, even Neloth and Gothren would have to admit that he is the oldest and wisest by far. Perhaps you are the one that is being "bloodyminded." Lazy Waysef 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from previous paragraph, since it's unclear whether this was the same poster. If it was, please feel free to log in and move it back.) *EDIT Therana is described as sustained by the necromantic arts as well when you try to convince her to give her hortator vote and she rambles on "sustained as she is by the necromantic arts, perhaps she could go on forever"* — Unsigned comment by 71.191.39.44 (talk) at 22:24 on 14 December 2011

what the heck is a goldenrod?

some npc says that — Unsigned comment by 50.99.131.84 (talk) at 23:40 on August 10, 2011

It's an insulting name for an Altmer (and C3PO) because they're tall and yellow. — Unsigned comment by 2.25.252.93 (talk) at 23:04 on August 15, 2011

They probably did get it from Star Wars...only other place I've heard it. But anyway, it's just a derogatory racial comment based on their appearance. --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 02:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

it's a flower + great stealth genital insult for someone of golden color IMO — Unsigned comment by 172.162.125.88 (talk) at 06:58 on 16 April 2012

Accounting for changes made in recent edit

As follows is an accounting for changes made in a recent edit.

• The lorespace-transcluded information has been removed. This is because it is not only not of direct relevance to Oblivion (i.e. the game that this article's namespace is about) but also drawn from a number of sources not part of Oblivion. The information can still be accessed through the FMI template, which remains, and links to a page containing the removed words. This is thus an uncontroversial removal.
• The image of an illustration of a High Elf has been replaced with an Oblivion NPC. The former image was removed because it does not depict a High Elf of Oblivion (again: the namespace this article is in is about that game). The replacement was chosen as it shows a High Elf with its distinguishing features visible: ears and skin colour. A High Elf without any equipped items would be preferable (so as to show the model), but I did not find one.
• The "in-game description" has been moved to the main paragraph. It is no longer described as such, as by being on an Oblivion namespace page, its contents are implied to be part of the game. It is now also described in greater detail: it is now explicitly stated that it is encountered in character creation (referred to as "race menu", taking its cue from the console command which opens said menu. This is thus interpreted as a name for the menu.). I believe this to be uncontroversial.
• The prose describing attributes has been removed and replaced with a table. This resolves an issue in which numbers were given as "+" or "-" values, without reference to the values which they were more than or less than. The table contains all values, and uses merged cells to make it clear that certain values are in common (this is not applied to the skill bonuses, as these are given in game data only as bonuses). This is thus an uncontroversial replacement. To this section has also been added the size and weight of male and female High Elves. This may perhaps belong in a different section, but I believe it belongs in this one as they are also attributes (physical ones).
• A table containing skill bonuses has been added. This is gameplay information pertaining to the High Elf race and thus ought to be on the page. The order is drawn from game data as presented by cslist. It is sortable so that, at a click and glance, the large (10) bonuses can be separated from the small (5). This should thus be uncontroversial.
• The prose in the "gameplay" section has been removed because it consisted almost entirely of prose predicated on the judgements and interpretations of its author. There was some prose that did not. This mostly retold the information contained within the "Traits" section, which I have renamed to "Spells" so as to match its contents. I have removed this prose too. This will aid readers by allowing them to see only content which is actual data from the game. Readers looking for lore information instead can use the FMI link at the start of the page, which readers are likely to read before the "gameplay" section.
• Some prose has been rewritten to maximise clarity. However, there is certain information I lack, and so I have conservatively written said prose. This means that false implications might have unintentionally been made, in these sentences:

"NPCs have these modifiers to disposition for player characters of the High Elf race."

This sentence could falsely imply that these modifiers apply only to player (rather than any) characters of the High Elf race, if NPCs apply them to each other. Otherwise, it truthfully implies this.

"The following dialogue is used when NPCs interact with a player character of the High Elf race."

"This sentence could falsely imply that the dialogue is only used when NPCs interact with player (rather than any) characters of the High Elf race, if NPCs are able to use them with NPC High Elves. Otherwise, it truthfully implies this.

• I have left parts of the page untouched, such as the listing of NPC dialogue.

I do not intend for myself (or — and not that this is relevant to anybody, and I intend no discouragement — anybody else) to make any further edits to this page. I hope to similarly change other pages in the Oblivion namespace, such as Imperial and others. If anybody wants further information on this matter, I would advise asking directly. — Halsbury Blackstone _﴾talk﴿ 19:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have made a further edit. In this edit, I have operated from the version of the page created by my previous edit; I ignored two succeeding edits because no reasoning was provided for them. Regardless of the fact that they were not justified by their editor, I intend to voice opposition to the changes that were made.

The main object of my most recent edit was increasing the header levels of every section not at the highest header level, except for those under the section "NPC Dialogue". The reason for the increased header levels is so that no section can be confused for a subsection of another, and for an overall look of consistency and cohesion. The reason for the exception, the unaltered headings under NPC Dialogue, is that these are as they should be (in my view), as they show that their contents are clearly subsections of "NPC Dialogue".

As for the ignored edits, I will reiterate that no justification for them was provided. In the absence of justification, I oppose them. "Traits" is not what the contents are, and, indeed, create an ambiguity, as it is not (to my knowledge) an in-game term, and could easily be confused for attributes (as attributes are a kind of trait) or a catch-all term for attributes and skill bonuses (as these, too, are a kind of trait). Indeed, it is indisputable fact that the contents of the former "Traits" section, now "Spells", are spells. I also think that the removal of a clarifying sentence was wrong, as it was unobtrusive but provided valuable clarification.

I can go into greater detail on any of these matters if asked. — Halsbury Blackstone _﴾talk﴿ 01:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't comment on the bulk of the edits, but I completely agree that the header levels should be bumped up by one. There's little, if any, reason why a page should have level-three headers as the top rank of header. In fact, I would suggest doing that to each of the NPC races as a separate edit, since it should be non-controversial and won't get caught up in any content-related edits. (Edit: I had a few minutes on my hands, so I just went ahead and did this.) – Robin Hood ^(talk) 16:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I am opposed to the majority of the major changes you made to this article, and do not believe it is a good direction for this or any similar article. Doing a cursory review of similar articles shows that the content you removed has generally been desired and accepted by the community. Yes there was a discussion to move away from using transcluded lore information, but simply removing it and replacing it with nothing is not a good solution. A better example comes from Online:High Elf, where the transcluded information was altered to be more appropriate to the article. The outright removal just leaves the page low on content and likely to be viewed as low quality. Even the decision to remove the drawn depiction goes against the practices of the other pages as to the best of my knowledge it was actually an image specifically created as part of Oblivion companion materials. Likewise, the removal of all gameplay information essentially left the page blank of everything but a few introductory sentences leading to a few bits of data. This also goes against the practices on display on other equivalent pages.

That said, there were positive changes on reviewing it again, such as the table and the inclusion of height/weight information, some of which were reincorporated by Imperialbattlespire who made further edits to pages during the window I was going to reply to this page, delaying that until I was available again now. I apologize for any confusion that delay caused. I am also in favor of your suggestion to add images of the full body model without equipment, which I intend to add shortly along with a compilation of the default faces. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 06:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Kia ora. This is Halsbury Blackstone. User Alpha Kenny Buddy (AKB) may be opposed to the changes I have made, but I am not. I believe they are the correct direction for this page. I shall address each of the contentions put forth in this discussion in turn. I apologise in advance for the length of this post (I did not want to misrepresent any interlocutors, and I did not want to inconvenience anybody by leaving out matter which I would need to post in future anyway).

• It is suggested that in other, similar, articles, matter similar to the matter I removed "has generally been desired and accepted by the community". I wonder about the recency of such desire and acceptance, as I do not believe that this is a sufficient basis for retaining the matter unless it is expressed in a similar context to this. UESP should not be constrained by past convention in order to make improvements — and I do believe the changes I have made to be an improvement. In short, I believe it to be irrelevant whether such matter is desired and accepted, unless it is directly expressed in relation to the edits I have made, as these should be evaluated on their own merits. I do respect that attachment to the removed prose that some people will have formed. I regret that these people will be hurt by its necessary removal. However, their attachment is not grounds for preservation.
• There appears to be an acknowledgement that the formerly transcluded lorespace information should be removed.
  • It is suggested that outright removal (i.e. "replacing it with nothing") is not the correct approach to removal. I disagree: this content is not related to the Oblivion race High Elf. To conflate the Oblivion race High Elf with the corpus of in-game texts from other games (as, indeed, the former transcluded lorespace information drew from) is, in my view, a mistake. This page is about the Oblivion race High Elf, and so the content on it should directly relate to that race.
    • It is suggested that instead of removing the matter, it should be adjusted, as it was on Online:High Elf. That text reads as follows: "The High Elves, or Altmer, arrived in Tamriel thousands of years ago from Old Aldmeris. They see themselves, perhaps justifiably, as the ruling race of Tamriel. They are a highly cultured people, known for their breathtaking architecture and massive libraries of histories and creative works. They tend to be isolationists, largely remaining on Summerset Isle, and only emerge when they perceive a great threat to their homeland. They are powerful mages and warriors, and the de facto leaders of the Aldmeri Dominion." I do not view this as relevant to the ESO race High Elf. This prose does not relate to the ESO race High Elf as players will experience it. First and foremost, players of ESO will experience High Elf as a racial skill line conferring particular bonuses. They will experience it as a golden-skinned model. They will experience it as a tall and pointy-eared character. They will experience it, if they lack Any Race Any Alliance, as a choice of Alliance faction. They will relate their experience of that model with the experience of NPCs of golden-skinned, tall, pointy-eared models. They will not experience the ESO race High Elf as ancient emigrants from Old Aldmeris. To put it simply: this prose is not information about the ESO race High Elf, and it does not inform gameplay of ESO. It belongs in lorespace, not gamespace. It is about the concept of "High Elf" created in the compendium of in-game matter. It is said that this prose is "more appropriate to the article", but it is essentially more namespace-inappropriate lorespace content. As such, I strongly oppose any suggestion to add similar prose to this page.
    • It is suggested that the removal of the formerly transcluded lorespace matter "leaves the page low on content". Regardless of whether this is true, it is not a relevant contention. Pages are not, or at least ought not be, evaluated on the basis of byte count (unless it is a high byte count causing issues). Rather, they should be evaluated on the basis of relevant content. Because the formerly transcluded lorespace matter was not relevant content, when I removed it I did not reduce the amount of relevant content. Indeed, I increased the amount of relevant content by proportion to byte count.
    • It is suggested that the removal of the matter "leaves the page more likely to be viewed as low quality". It is not specified whom it is more likely to be viewed as low quality by, but I do not think it was users, as I have reduced the time that they must spend scrolling through irrelevant matter to get to information about the subject of the page. Because users of the Oblivion namespace page about the High Elf race are likely to wish to know more about the Oblivion race High Elf, they will likely experience this removal as an increase in quality. I do not think it is editors interested in documenting the Oblivion race High Elf either, as this matter has already been documented elsewhere and is not about the Oblivion race High Elf. They will also likely experience this removal as an increase in quality. As such, I do not believe that this likelihood will be a significant issue: the likelihood that some people outside of those two specified categories will view the page as low quality may increase, but those two categories will make up the majority of this page's readership, and will experience an increase in quality.
  • It is argued that the PGE3 image should not be removed because it is part of Oblivion's companion materials. I believe I am interpreting correctly when I summarise this contention as an argument that the PGE3 image belongs on the Oblivionspace page for the Oblivion race High Elf because it is essentially Oblivion material. I cannot disagree. I change my position on its removal: I am neutral on whether it is removed or remains on the page as a secondary image instead.
• I disagree that "the removal of all gameplay information" has occurred. The gameplay information remains: spells, attributes, skill bonuses, and NPC reactions. I shall account for all of the removed prose so as to explain how I have not engaged in "the removal of all gameplay information":
  • I removed the formerly transcluded lorespace prose. As I have accounted in detail for its removal, I shall not reiterate.
  • I removed the prose summary of the innate spells of the High Elf race. The multi-sentence paragraph format that they were presented in was harder to parse than the bulleted list, which was below them on the page. That list also provides the names and magnitudes of the spells (which the paragraph did not), and makes clear which effects belong to which spells in a way which the paragraph did not. Though this is not a relevant concern because the formerly transcluded lorespace prose has been removed, its placement immediately after that could have given rise to confusion via the misapprehension that the written description of the spells was a continuation of the lorespace transcluded prose instead. The most simple reason for its removal is that it performs the same function as the spells list, but less effectively.
  • I removed the prose summary of the skill bonuses, which also included in its body a prose description of the spell High Elf Elemental Weakness (I have accounted for this earlier). Even were the prose summary of the skill bonuses to return, the prose description of High Elf Elemental Weakness should not return with it. The written format that they were presented in was harder to parse than the table format below. The table is much easier to evaluate at a glance, and allows sorting. It has been removed because it performs the function of the table, but less effectively.
  • I removed the sentence explaining how to achieve the highest possible magicka in Oblivion. I did so because it is a non-sequitur: it indirectly, rather than directly, relates to the Oblivion race High Elf. It is interesting trivia, certainly, and I would not be opposed to its return under the Notes section. However, on consideration of the balance of convenience, I do not believe it has a place on this page. The reason for this is that players seeking the highest possible magicka in Oblivion will first go to Oblivion:Magicka, only coming to Oblivion:High Elf if they are already aware of the magicka bonus — and such a player would likely already be aware of the Atronach birthsign, and would thus not need to see this explanation in the main body of the page. Certainly if this matter is not on the Oblivion:Magicka page I think it should be added to it. I do not think it should be added back to this page.
  • I removed a sentence suggesting that mage NPCs are a kind of NPC of which players using the High Elf race should be particularly wary. I removed it because it was wrong. The levelled lists for weapons, which NPCs draw their weapons from, include enchanted items. To single out mages as threats to the elementally-weak High Elf race is to incorrectly imply that archers and melee enemies will not be a threat on the same grounds — which the levelled lists disprove. I also think this sentence should be removed because it is an elementary observation: the knowledge that the High Elf race is weak to elements (which is knowledge that a reader will gain from the list of spells) necessarily gives readers the knowledge that the High Elf race will be vulnerable to enemies dealing elemental damage. I thus oppose any readdition of this prose. The following sentence appears to logically flow from the previous sentence, and so by justifying the removal of that sentence I have justified its removal too. I will revisit this if it transpires that the following sentence is drawn from different presuppositions, however.
  • I removed a paragraph describing a number of different kinds of enemies. I did so because I view it as non-relevant information. It contains non-relevant information of two different kinds. One is the listing of different enemy types that High Elf NPCs can occur as. I removed this because I believe it to be, as I have said earlier, predicated on the judgement and interpretations of its author. I do not know why the author singled out those types of enemies to list. I do know that the information should be — that is, ought to be, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to be — available elsewhere. I would not oppose the reintroduction of this prose under a specific section about NPCs (I will provide more information about this proposal later in a separate post), which fully and exhaustively lists every single kind of enemy that can occur as the High Elf race. I believe this would eliminate the current issue with this prose, that being that it is based on subjective judgement. The second kind of non-relevant information is the sentence describing these enemies. I have removed it because it is wrong, and because it is information about the kind of enemy rather than the race of the NPC — for example, all Necromancers wear robes, and thus the information that High Elf NPCs wear robes is not information about the race but rather about the class. In short, this is non-relevant information that is only on the page because of incorrect assumptions about why these NPCs use the equipment that they do. I do not believe it should be returned to this page.
• It is suggested that it is a problem that the edits I have made cause the page to go against the practices on display on other, equivalent, pages. Perhaps this is a problem for the moment, but it will be resolved when I edit the other, equivalent, pages to match this one.

I appreciate AKB's initiative in adding pictures of the High Elf player characters without equipment. Their addition was a very good edit. The images are an excellent depiction of High Elves as they exist in Oblivion, but I do think that one of these images could be raised to be the main image for the reasons that I have previously expressed — or both images with Template:Multiple Images 2. I am also in favour of AKB's idea to include a sampling of faces from character creation. This is a good idea which directly relates to the race High Elf as players experience it. I was unaware of the inconvenience that the ongoing editing of the page had caused; I thus apologise for expressing my confusion so quickly.

Thank you for bearing with me throughout this long post. I hope I have allayed any concerns which may have arisen over my previous edits to this page. I eagerly await Imperialbattlespire's contributions with relation to his own contributions to this page and those of others. Please feel free to ask any questions or request any clarification of me. I will be happy to answer. Ngā mihi. — Halsbury Blackstone _﴾talk﴿ 08:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that, per Wikipedia guidelines—and by extension, our own—that you keep your replies concise and that you discuss only the content, not the contributor. A two-paragraph post does not require a reply of over 13,000 characters, and in a mostly two-person discussion, it's not necessary to mention AKB at all, much less 17 times in a single post. Doing so makes this sound personal and combative. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Kia ora. I'll take aboard the advice about concision. Re-reading my reply as it stands now, I'm not too keen myself on the length of my post. It's unfortunate that I can't do anything to reduce its length now. I've also taken aboard the advice about mentioning individual users, and I apologise that I may have given the appearance of a personal or combative tone. As such, I've edited my former post to remove the specific mentions of AKB which were not necessary. I apologise for any confusion that this may cause and regret that I am unable to more thoroughly fix this problem (even the edits I have made to the post now risk destroying too much context). I do note that the link to the Wikipedia guidelines in the preceding post is broken, but the point is made. I will endeavour in future to keep my posts to readable length. I apologise again for the length and tone of my preceding reply. As always, feel free to direct questions to me. Ngā mihi. — Halsbury Blackstone _﴾talk﴿ 01:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(←) The link is fixed now. And yes, as someone who can be verbose at times myself, I know what you mean about losing context. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 02:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Traits section is missing

I came here looking for a summary of racial traits. I think for Altmer it's 100 points magica boost, 25 points weakness to fire, frost, and shock, 75 points resistance to disease. Not sure if I got that all correct since it is missing from this page, which is my trusted source of such info. — Unsigned comment by 73.6.183.171 (talk) at 18:46 on 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The section isn't missing, it's just been renamed "Spells" here. This entire page was heavily edited about a year ago and is laid out rather differently than all the other races' pages. For consistency, either the other pages should be updated to match this one, or this page should be reverted to match the others. — Wolfborn^(Howl) 02:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)