Lore talk:Empires

Notes on this article

When writing this page it became obvious to me there is an overlap of some content from other pages, but that unavoidable given the subject. To mitigate this, I've made custom summaries for the longer entries that link off to a main page (like Ayleid Empire). These pages can't be transcluded easily without getting messy or looking poor. Some entries will have new pages that are transcluded. Some shorter entries I've customised as individual entries that are not transcluded and wouldn't work as transcluded stand-alone pages anyway because the info is so little anyway (like Sload Kingdoms). Also, Lore:Tamrielic Emperors and the Appendices box will be adjusted to accommodate these changes. Several tweaks still to do. --Jimeee (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Dwarven Kingdoms

I don't know if it is relevant to this page or not, and I didn't see a spot where it would fit nicely into what is already there, but it might be worth noting that the Dwemer had a presence in Hammerfell via Mzeneldt before 1E 198. Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Empires vs Kingdoms

I see that some of these entries are not truly empires and are instead either singular kingdoms or groups of kingdoms in a province by the definition given in the page. Nations such as the First Empire of the Nords, the Ayleid Empire, the Direnni Hegemony, the Lefthanded Empire, the Yokudan Empire, the Imperial Empires, etc are indeed empires by definition (and of course, regardless of definition, what the lore has titled an empire would count as an empire as well). However, many of the entries on this page only consist of mere kingdoms, such as those of Black Marsh, Hammerfell, High Rock, Skyrim, Pyandonea, Alinor, etc. Would it be best to split this into an "Empires" section and a separate "Kingdoms" section below it? For now I'll make the section split, alongside a "dynasty" section. BananaKing5 (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that the recent additions have resulted in the creation of three level 1 headers proves that this should now be three separate pages. --Enodoc (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change article's title

" Hello. I believe its time to change the title of this article. The title of an article plays a critical role in shaping reader expectations and ensuring an accurate reflection of its content. The current title, "Empires," while apt for sections of the article, fails to encapsulate the broader range of political entities discussed, including kingdoms and dynasties. A more comprehensive and inclusive title is essential to ensure the article addresses all facets of governance systems equally. "Sovereignties" is a more fitting alternative, as it encompasses various forms of rule and authority, providing a clearer and more comprehensive reflection of the article's diverse content. --KevinM^(talk) 22:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, no. It's an incredibly uncommon word that is never used by the games at all to describe anything. The common and simpler term, while slightly inaccurate at times, is significantly better. Jeancey (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"To thine realm we may not come, nor thee to ours. Within their own Domain, each Prince is Sovereign. Only by invitation may another manifest within" —Hermaeus Mora (src)

Above is a quote from a game and there is also, Sovereignty Day. (src) --KevinM^(talk) 22:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have an alternative solution to fix the issue presented? --KevinM^(talk) 22:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I prefer Nations, Countries, and Sovereignties to Empires for the inconsistencies described above. Mindtrait0r (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hard no for pretty much what Jeancey said. The term Empires is sufficient for the TES universe. Readers understand what it means. --Jimeee (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to second Jeancey and Jimeee on this one, there is no need to needlessly complicate the name of the page, especially by changing it a word that never even appears in the series. It should remain at the status quo of what it was before. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise, I’m willing to create separate articles: Lore:Kingdoms and Lore:Dynasties, and move all related information to those articles. This would better reflect the content and ensure that the "Empires" article remains focused on its core subject. Is there any objections to this suggestion? --KevinM^(talk) 23:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with that suggestion too. I considered that when I wrote this page but I didnt do it because it needlessly made the page less comprehensive in order satisfy a terminology hang up that most readers won't care about. Spliting this page will also destroy the chronological account of the empires. The rise and fall etc, regardless of thier size or status. This page is not about categorizing the empires - its history. It's just not the scope or intent of this page.--Jimeee (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have another suggestion. why not just change the title to "Nations and Dynasties"? --KevinM^(talk) 00:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You're laser-focusing on the title of the page when literally the first sentence makes it abundantly clear what this page refers to: "Numerous empires, kingdoms and dynasties have risen and fallen in Tamriel and beyond." Its a common approach with some pages. --Jimeee (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Why have an inaccurate title instead of one that acknowledges all the info? There's also the Empire article. Changing the title from "Empires" to "Nations and Dynasties" might make it easier for what readers are searching for. --KevinM^(talk) 00:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Read what Jeancey said. Nobody in the TES fandom is searching for such uncommon or unused terms like Sovereignties, Nations and Dynasties. --Jimeee (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone provide search data or metrics showing what terms readers are searching for, does anyone have the technology or tools to view that data to begin with? --KevinM^(talk) 01:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) I don't think people not searching for said terms is reason enough to not change the name to something more accurate. Empires is simply false with what is presented in the page. With a move, Empires would stay as a redirect either way, so people searching for it would still find the page and read the aformentioned opening text, clarifying that there are more than just empires listed on the page. Seems like a win-win, making the page name accurate to the information therein while keeping any discoverability via redirects. "Countries" and "Nations" are vastly more popular terms than "Empires" in common parlance, are accurate to the info on the page unlike "Empires", and are used terms within TES (thus not anachronistic). Personally, I do think these terms work fine with the various Dynasty entries, but if that's a problem, "Governments" works fine too. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose a compromise would be to create some redirects to the page? I believe that Lore:Empires is an adequate title for the article, but I see no reason why some redirects such as "Kingdoms" (a common enough term) couldnt act as a redirect here.Tyrvarion (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My question is, do people searching for that term know the difference between the Empire and Empires? The former refers to the Cyrodilic Empire of Men, while the latter pertains to this article. Both appear when simply searching for "empire," which leads to confusion, as the only distinction between them is the plural form. The difference doesn't effectively reflect the distinct content of the two articles. Zillian (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Something like Empire vs Empires would be easily and more than sufficiently fixed with a hat note, as was already done on the Empire page - i.e. something like "This page is about all empires, kingdoms and dynasties in Tamriellic history. For information about the Cyrodilic Empire of Men, click here". I don't think "Sovereignties" is a good alternate title, and the examples provided in favor of the aforementioned title are quite weak - one refers to Daedric Princes, and the other refers to a Breton holiday celebrating something that happened back in the First Era. I agree with Jimeee's point - I don't see a huge problem with the current title, considering there is already a clarifying statement, and splitting up the article would make it difficult for readers to understand the chronological order of events. – Panguin38 ^{talk | contribs} 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Tyr's idea to make redirects if fine if there is really a concern about search. The examples and suggestions provided are no less "acurate" than Empires to describe everything listed here. Listing one or two examples of "country" or "nation" to support that argument is weak. PGE at least refers to the "empires of men" to describe various human powers (including empires, kingdoms etc) prior to Tiber. I'll say it again... the lede immediately clears up any ambiguity and hat notes are used in this exact situation to avoid confusion.--Jimeee (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't rename Lore:Men to Lore:Nords and justify it by having an introductory note saying "This page provides information on the various races of men, including Nords, Imperials..." and so on. The name of a page shouldn't be incorrect to the information therein. This isn't a facetious example just because it is a rename, it is the exact same concept. We would immediately rename the page if it were Nords instead of Men. Furthermore, PGE does not refer to various kingdoms as "empires of men", that specifically refers to the actual empires of Alessia and Reman to solidify his rule as a Dragonborn Emperor. But even if it did refer to various kingdoms, in-universe innaccuracies do not excuse wiki page names being wrong. I admit, there is precedent for pages being able to use incorrect names (Lore:Wars), but I contend that this is reason to change the names on both pages, not adhere to faulty precedent. As for the renames being just as innaccurate as Empires, I implore you to describe how the names "Governments", "Sovereignties", "Nations", and "Countries" are all four just as bad at encompassing all the inclusions on the page as the current name. Mindtrait0r (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) My initial recommendation and suggestion would probably be the same thing that I said in May (further up) - separate pages for Empires, Kingdoms and Dynasties. But if the purpose of the page is to have everything in one place and in some sort of chronological order, I would recommend Kingdoms. Partly because that would mean the page title is more significantly different from Lore:Empire, partly because there are numerically more Kingdoms than Empires detailed on the page, partly because Empires are just an amalgamation of Kingdoms, and partly because Kingdoms generally outlast Empires anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On a parallel note, do we need all these different articles on the "Kingdoms of" Pyandonea, Alinor, Hammerfell, Black Marsh, Skyrim, High Rock and Elsweyr? These pages are functionally orphans as they only link to each other, while the main province pages probably cover most of the pertinent information already. Meanwhile I would imagine a visitor looking for information on the "Kingdom of Hammerfell" or the "Kingdom of Black Marsh" would expect to find that information on the Hammerfell or Black Marsh pages, not somewhere completely different. --Enodoc (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding those articles, I suggest raising the issue on their respective talk pages. For now, let's keep the discussion here focused on this article's specific concerns. ;) --KevinM^(talk) 23:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Better to keep the discussion in one place rather than on 8 different talk pages. This article is the theoretical parent, and this article is the only reason those articles even exist. --Enodoc (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)