User talk:TheRealLurlock

ESO Quality Color Template

To answer the question in your edit summary, the "a" code is used used 19 times on 5 pages (ignoring template documentation and User space). It might also be used by other templates. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you list those pages for me? I feel like the "artifact" designation really doesn't apply to ESO, so those could probably be changed. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are a ton of pages that use other codes on that line, "e" being by far the most common (e.g., Glyph of Absorb Health). The five that use "a" are: Campaigns, Crafting Motifs, Leveling, Racial Style Learned, and Styles. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, "e" is standard, and that's what I'd expect them to use. (It's what I use personally as well.) "Epic" or "4" are acceptable too, the former being how it's seen in-game, and the latter being how it's represented in the database. "a" or "artifact" I believe to be completely fabricated and have no actual basis in the game either as seen by the player or internally. I looked into those cases, and as I suspected, there was no legitimacy to the "a" being used for those. I noticed that several of them were added by your bot, so if you could keep that in mind next time you run a task which uses this template, that would help. (Not sure if that's anything you plan to do, but just in case.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The bot didn't add those, from what I saw, it just updated links to be in the correct format using the existing templates. Just to cover off the occurrences outside of Online space, "a" is also used in template docs and on a couple of user pages: User:Enodoc/Sandbox/ESO XP/Doc and User:Vyraesi/Sandbox. I've checked those that might come from other templates, and either the template doesn't allow it or "a" is never used in the relevant parameter, so we're good there. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed those, so assuming that was all of them, the only page that should now be using the 'a' is the template's own Doc page. (I used "6" on the Crown Crates page instead only because all the other ones on that page were using the number instead of letter codes.) To be fair, I don't know of any other cases where we'd necessarily need to use either the Apex or Radiant colors, but it might be useful for links to said items elsewhere. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that should've been the last of them. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 04:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Morrowind spell page tables

Hi, I recently edited Morrowind:Conjuration Spells to eliminate horizontal scrolling on some mobile screens. I wanted to get your input, since you created the page. Do the changes look okay? If there are any problems, I've started a discussion at Morrowind talk:Conjuration Spells. If it's fine, I can make similar changes to the other Morrowind spell pages. 108.184.13.99 10:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Travelling Merchant

I noticed that you added "Travelling Merchant" to NPC pages as a vendor type. This has resulted in in displaying as the NPC's title, e.g. "Absolard, Travelling Merchant", which is incorrect because his actual in-game title is "Merchant". I don't suppose {{Online NPC Summary}} could be modified to support unofficial vendor type names? The alternative is to manually add it to every page like this. —Legoless (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Could get a bot to go and do that. I've been informed that we should also change the spelling to "Traveling", since that's the US standard. I do think it's useful to distinguish them, even if they have the same wares. (And the Outlaws Refuge Merchants definitely are different since they have those justice achievement furnishings.) I do want to first confirm the exact routes of each of the traveling merchants, going to involve a lot of in-game merchant stalking. It's possible some of the ones I thought were traveling are actually just merchants with stalls out in the wilderness who don't actually travel... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:ESO Crate Card alignment

Sorry, that was my bad. It was caused by my edits to {{Image Sandwich}}. Should be fixed now. Rigel Kent (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I thought it had something to do with the change to the center class from before... At least it's fixed now. Did we also fix how the image sandwich and other overlays work on mobile? I assume that was why you were messing with it... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mobile display was okay before. This was more for IE≤10 users, and some SEO if I can figure out what to do with the alt text. Rigel Kent (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Changing Redirect Links to Anchors

I've undone your edit to Online:Daily Rewards. Changing a link from Online:Dusky Fennec Fox to Online:Pets#Dusky Fennec Fox is counterproductive. Anchor links break whenever the header name is changed, which happens to collectibles with some regularity. On the other hand, using the correct redirect link allows for a single edit to be made in future to correct all links across the site. It would be a lot more helpful to set up new redirects as needed rather than revert to using unnecessary anchor links. —Legoless (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, as long as these redirects don't exist (and less than half of them do, and many of the ones that exist are misnamed) having a link that actually leads to a page is far more useful than a red link that goes nowhere (or in the case you cited NO link whatsoever). Are we planning on making the hundreds of redirects for every possible item in the game? I think that's very unlikely... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

While I'm at it, another advantage of anchor links over redirects is that it makes it clear to the person editing if they're linking to the correct page. Let's say the pet was a regular Fennec Fox. Someone who didn't know or bother to check might make a link to ON:Fennec Fox, which is an existing page, and would thus appear as a blue link. But it's for NPC Fennec Foxes, and not the pet Fennec Fox, which would be found at ON:Pets#Fennec Fox. Sure, you could link to ON:Fennec Fox Pet, but those are only used some of the time, and you'd have to double check every link. Linking to the anchor makes it immediately apparent what you're linking to and you don't have to double check, so there's less room for error. The only way that link would ever become invalid is if the Fennec Fox were somehow removed from that page, and why would anyone ever do that? I don't think there's anything wrong with anchor links, and in fact they're less prone to errors and disambiguation issues than links to redirects. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We probably should get a bot to create the missing collectible redirects, since that's what we've been using since before release. —Legoless (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Imperial City Locations

I've undone your changes to several Imperial City place pages which specified "Imperial City" as the zone rather than "Cyrodiil". The wiki currently considers Cyrodiil to be the zone, with the four subzones being Aldmeri Territory, Daggerfall Territory, Ebonheart Territory, and Imperial City. Imperial City is not treated as a separate zone because it does not function like one in-game. Any change to that arrangement would require wiki-wide alterations to be made, as well as a serious consensus to make the change. The correct location to specify the District is in the "location" parameter, the reason being that Districts function as Quest Hubs, not subzones. —Legoless (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it combines all IC locations into the Online-Places-Cyrodiil, which is already huge because Cyrodiil is by far the largest zone in the game. This makes it much harder to find IC-specific locations because they're lost in the noise of Cyrodiil locations. It's far more useful to the player to have them placed in the Online-Places-Imperial City category. There's also the matter of Cyrodiil proper being available to all players, while the Imperial City requires the purchase of a DLC. This kind of separation is not the case with any other cities in any zones. They are treated separately by the game, and they should be treated separately on the wiki as well. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That is an issue of categorisation, and filling the infobox with incorrect info is not the way to get around that issue. If the categorisation is really that important (which is debatable), a template change is needed. Furthermore, I also noticed that the two group dungeon Trophy Vaults had ICP/WGT listed as their subzones. Group dungeons are absolutely not subzones. —Legoless (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, technically, subzones aren't even a thing. They were a concept that was eliminated back in the alpha stage of the game. We still keep them around for historical reasons, but there's nothing official about them. I do think we need to treat IC locations differently from the rest of Cyrodiil, for the same reason we don't include the Clockwork City locations in Deshaan. It's treated entirely separately by the game. It requires an additional purchase (or ESO+). You can't access the city overland from Cyrodiil. It's its own thing and should be treated as such. How would you suggest changing the template to handle that properly? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The comparison between IC/Cyrodiil and CWC/Deshaan is bizarre. Subzones may no longer be a thing, but mechanically zones are very well defined and Imperial City is not one. It might be listed on the zone maps in-game, but so is the Aurbis mapmode etc. IC functions as a walled-off city; it does not have a separate zone map (but rather has a zoomed-in map which can be highlighted from the Cyrodiil zone map, like other major cities), and it takes place in the same instance as the rest of Cyrodiil (as evidenced by sharing campaigns). As I said, if you want to challenge the fact that the wiki correctly considers IC to be a part of the Cyrodiil zone, that requires establishing serious consensus to the contrary, either through a Community Portal discussion or equivalent. Unilaterally changing it on a few pages is not productive.

The paywall is also not a factor at all for the purpose of determining a location's zone. The dungeon packs also restrict access to certain locations, but we still consider Ruins of Mazzatun to be in Shadowfen. Bringing up the DLC paywall does not counter the fact that Imperial City is part of the Cyrodiil PvP zone.

As for the template change, I have no idea as I'm not involved with template design. I imagine a special parameter could be used on IC pages to ensure they end up in Category:Online-Places-Imperial City rather than the Cyrodiil category while leaving the actual zone/subzone/location displays as-is. Personally I don't hold categorisation in very high regard given the technical nature of those pages and general lack of reader-friendliness, especially at the cost of displaying incorrect information in the userbox to achieve the desired categories. —Legoless (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Imperial City is a zone - all quests in the Imperial City are listed under "Imperial City" and not under "Cyrodiil". There are no quests which take place within Cyrodiil that are related to the Imperial City and no quests in the Imperial City related to Cyrodiil (with the single exception of that one introductory quest which is basically just "Go to the Imperial City" - but all DLCs have a similar introductory quest.) It has its own achievements, entirely separate from the Cyrodiil achievements. Absolutely nothing that happens in Cyrodiil affects the Imperial City or vice versa. (At least not anymore, since they stopped locking the sewer entrances when one alliance controlled the ring keeps.) In terms of content, it's actually larger than Hew's Bane or the Clockwork City. (It has 3 commerce areas, 3 set crafting sites, 2 group dungeons, 13 skyshards, and the sewers alone is roughly equivalent to 7 delves.) It's way more than just a "city", and it's definitely not a subzone by any definition. I compare it to the Clockwork City because technically the CC is entirely contained inside a cave in Deshaan - you are shrunk down in order to enter it. But also, like Clockwork City (or Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood or even the Morrowind and Summerset chapters), it is a DLC, and its locations should be grouped together and not lumped within its parent region. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Quest categories are again irrelevant in determining a zone, unless we are willing to include the likes of Aetherian Archive as zones as well? As for CWC, you are incorrect in terms of both the lore and the game mechanics: in lore, the small CWC model in Deshaan is not the actual city; as for game mechanics, CWC does not show up anywhere on the Deshaan map, unlike IC which is literally a part of the Cyrodiil map. —Legoless (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just your own personal definition. You can't keep moving the goalposts. The fact is that the vast majority of game mechanics treat it entirely separately from Cyrodiil. The map is literally the only exception. Look, clearly the Imperial City is just a different animal from all other locations in the game. It doesn't fit neatly into any categorization - it's not quite a city, not quite a zone, not quite a subzone (whatever that is), and thus requires special treatment. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's moving the goalposts to point out that quest categories are clearly not based on zone divisions when the likes of trials and group dungeons are considered to be separate. I'm not arguing against the fact that IC content is very much separate from the rest of the game, as you might expect with a DLC. I was simply pointing out the reasons the infoboxes are filled out a certain way. —Legoless (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Imperial City is the finest example of inconsistency we have. It appears, quite literally, to be a zone within a zone, if our basic definition of Zone is something that appears in the Locations list. And thus, it remains the one true example of a sub-zone. (Artaeum is a close second, in that it is quite literally part of the Summerset zone in the way its content is defined, yet is completely separate in the Locations list.) I'd be happy to go either way with Imperial City, but a wider editor discussion is needed. --Enodoc (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(←) Actually, most dungeon quests are listed in their parent zones. E.g. Fungal Grotto quests are listed under Stonefalls, etc. The exceptions to this rule are the dungeons added by DLCs, including the Imperial City, and trials of course. The difference with these is that dungeon and trial locations are clearly just one location, without significant internal divisions. Yes most of the dungeons or trials have multiple rooms and some even have internal loading screens, but it's still just one clearly defined location where one singular event takes place. Each dungeon or trial has at most 2 quests, its main quest and the Undaunted pledge (4 for the dungeons with I and II versions). The Imperial City is not like that. It has a whole host of quests, including a main quest storyline, a bunch of repeating quests, separate individual quests in each district, etc. In this respect it is also much more like a zone than it is like a trial or dungeon. (It even has 2 dungeons contained within it.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as the zones go, could Imperial City be done by using the zone2 parameter of {{Online Place Summary}}, maybe? Have zone=Cyrodiil|zone2=Imperial City, for example? That leaves the primary zone in Cyrodiil, but also categorizes IC locations into their own category. As the template's written now, the Zone text would simply read: Cyrodiil, Imperial City, which looks okay to me, apart from the possibility of that being interpreted as two actual zones, which it's not. Other possibilities are to simply add a hard category to the page, or an extra category that doesn't display to the template. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Imperial City's quests are already under Imperial City/ in the Trail, so I would say zone=Imperial City and zone2=Cyrodiil is the best course of action for consistency between the trails for quests and places, while not messing up what's shown in the in the infobox either. Might need to edit the template itself to stop it from saying "Zones" though... I wonder how many other places use that zone2 parameter... --Enodoc (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Turns out zone2= is not used at all, so we can just remove the bit that makes it say "Zones", put Cyrodiil in zone2, then I think everyone's concerns are alleviated. --Enodoc (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, "Imperial City, Cyrodiil" is definitely preferable to "Cyrodiil, Imperial City" - they should be in order from smallest to largest. But which category gets used in that case? I thought "zone2" was the one used for categorization, but not sure... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Both have a category assignment, so it would stay in the Cyrodiil category but also go in the Imperial City category. --Enodoc (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here's a question - I've noticed that locations in the Imperial Sewers are being treated differently. They have "zone" set to "Imperial Sewers", and "subzone" set to the section of the sewers they're in, "location" being more specific about where exactly they are in the section, and "Cyrodiil" and "Imperial City" are not mentioned at all. See Alik'ri Alcove for example. So what do we do here? I could set zone2=Imperial City, and thus the zone section is listed as "Lambent Passage, Imperial Sewers, Imperial City". Or I could set it to zone2=Cyrodiil, but then we just get "Lambent Passage, Imperial Sewers, Cyrodiil". Or we could also change zone=Imperial City and get "Lambent Passage, Imperial City, Cyrodiil" - either way, we're short one parameter. Could also change to subzone=Imperial Sewers (getting "Imperial Sewers, Imperial City, Cyrodiil") and just put Lambent Passage in location. What makes the most sense? Remembering that only zone and zone2 get categories. The only other option I can think of would be to actually add a zone3 to the template to cover these situations... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you made those pages, so I'm not sure of your thought process there  :P

Based on the discussion here though, I would go for the last option; i.e., subzone=Imperial Sewers, zone=Imperial City, zone2=Cyrodiil, and have the section in location as Lambent Passage, South of the entrance to the Vile Drainage. --Enodoc (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't be held responsible for whatever nonsense was going through my head two years ago. Especially since at the time I knew basically nothing about the Imperial City. I still only know a very little about it - Imperial City content on the wiki in general is sorely lacking in almost every respect. It's the very first DLC and remains by far the least-documented. I was hoping somebody else with more experience there would expand on these pages at some point, but it seems like if I want something done I gotta do it myself... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

100,000

Allow me to congratulate you on this most auspicious day of being the first human on UESP to hit 100k edits! There is no way to possibly summarize the ton of information and countless pages you have added to the site, but know that its much appreciated. Thanks! --Jimeee (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Are...are you a bot? Congrats! --Xyzzy ^Talk 02:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

To loosely quote: When some post asks you if you're a bot, you say "yes". — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Description for Druscashti missing on Dwemer ruins page

Hello! New contributor here. I've made some (very) minor changes to a couple of pages; mostly regarding availability or quality of loot-- however, my last change, which was an attempted change in the description of Druscashti (the description on the Dwemer ruin page did not include that it was the home of the Quarra clan) has accidentally removed Druscashti's description from the Dwemer ruin page entirely (simply says view on map). I fear that I do not know enough about how the list mechanics function to fix the issue currently (I'm attempting to learn how to do that as we speak). My intent was to clarify and add quality- but that was unfortunately not the result, and I thought I should let someone know.

Also; I wanted to thank you (and everyone else) for making this such an amazing source for RELIABLE and thorough Morrowind information. Literally second to none.

ErichPryde (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (GMT)