Morrowind talk:Desele's Debt

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

I don't know that it needs to be sectioned...it's not that hard and intricate a quest, that needs several steps. I mean, didiving it into "get the quest," "travel to Suran," ... would just be wasteful. Somercy 12:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, there's more to it. Desele says something about her brother having the money, and him being found in a cave near Gnaar Mok if I'm not mistaken. Would have to search the CS to find out about this... --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Please see User talk:DrPhoton#Sectioning on Morrowind Quest for more on sectioning quests. --DrPhoton 05:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This quest, as well as The Code Book quest, was skipped over, since I had done The Bitter Cup (though Telvanni Agents was not skipped over). RaphX 07:49, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Question about edit/deletion[edit]

To whoever undid my edit: I don't quite understand your reasoning. Either you should have deleted my edit and the one I was replying as well. Leaving just the latter note here might lead someoneelse trying to clarify it - again. -92.227.83.216 07:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Would you mind giving some more details about what was deleted? There don't seem to have been any deletion of content for at least a year so I'm not quite sure which one you mean. –RpehTCE 08:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I believe our anonymous friend is talking about Nephele's deletion of his/her comment in the section above, where he/she correctly noted that the quest with the brother referred to by Lurlock is the later Lirielle's Debt quest, not this one. I believe Nephele's point was that the original question was in regard to the sectioning of this quest as part of a reorganisation that took place last year, and the quests have since been reorganised. Our anonymous friend's contention is that his/her point resolved the confusion that was apparent in Lurlock's post, and its presence would prevent others from attempting to similarly clarify the situation. --Gaebrial 08:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I undid this edit because to me it didn't seem relevant to the original discussion on this page. The discussion was about whether or not to "section" the article. It had been triggered by DrPhoton's March 2007 edit in which he said the "Detailed Walkthrough needs sectioning". And it seems like the discussion was fully resolved by his May 2007 edit in which he did the sectioning. I didn't see how re-opening an obsolete discussion would help anyone. --NepheleTalk 11:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)