Online talk:Places

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

Transprovincial Regions[edit]

Okay, so transprovincial may not actually be a word, but you probably know what I'm getting at. Judging by the Interactive Map, there are a number of regions which transcend provincial boundaries. so I was just wondering how we would handle listing them with regards to the province pages, and indeed also if we end up listing them here, as they are probably important enough to be listed here.

Here's the regions in question:

  • The Rift and Eastmarch both cover the area all the way to the Inner Sea coast, meaning they pass over the Velothi mountains out of Skyrim and into Morrowind.
  • Reaper's March is half in Valenwood and half in Elsweyr.
  • Bangkorai is mostly in Hammerfell, but there's a bit of it in High Rock.

Enodoc (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (GMT)

We handle it by ignoring it, the map is neither finalised, nor accurate. In Skyrim I suspect the Old Holds will dominate. Elsewhere other regions have been confirmed, their absence from the map shows it to be in the early stages. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:10, 26 November 2013 (GMT)
I only listed one of the regions from the map on two provincial pages, and I only did that because the map specifically mentioned that it was in both Elsweyr and Valenwood. We shouldn't assume in-game locations and boundaries unless specifically stated (as was the case with Reaper's March). Jeancey (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2013 (GMT)
Fair enough. We'll leave it until we know more about it then. Thanks! --Enodoc (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (GMT)
I have already talked to several people about this, but I believe that all the province pages should be deleted. Any information or reference to the provinces will be in a lore manner and can link to the lore pages. There is nothing in the game data representing the provinces, and all locations in the game can be referred to by their zone, subzone or general alliance. This doesn't mean that you can't describe Mournhold as being in Morrowind, for instance, just that Morrowind doesn't actually need or deserve a page in the online namespace. Jeancey (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2014 (GMT)
Cool beans, I concur to that effect. If it's not in the game data, then it makes sense to not have a specific [Online:] article for it. I was wondering whether you guys would find a way into the game data even without a CS/CK.   :P   --Enodoc (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2014 (GMT)

Regions and Zones[edit]

I see we now have pages for both Regions and Zones, and was just wondering how we are differentiating between them. Are we considering all zones also as regions, and then adding more geographical areas to regions that are separate from zones? Also, what is being defined as a "subzone"? Having played the ESO beta, I haven't noticed zones being split into four easily-identifiable sections. --Enodoc (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2014 (GMT)

Regions and zones are the same. Each region as three subzones. I have fixed the zones page. There is no need for a page to be created for the generalized term "subzone". In the game data, each zone is given three subzones, and each location is in one of those three subzones. Jeancey (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2014 (GMT)
So is ON:Regions superfluous? For the same logic as you stated above, anything that isn't within the game data as a specifically named area could just be directly referred to its lore page. --Enodoc (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2014 (GMT)
Well... it's not really named zone either. That's just the standard MMO vocab for an area with its own map and such, and they have referred to it as a zone, but it isn't really called a zone in the data, just an area. If that makes sense. Jeancey (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2014 (GMT)
Yeah that makes sense. But if they're ostensibly the same thing, we don't really need both Regions and Zones pages? We can decide which we want to use, make sure it says everything, and set the other as a redirect. --Enodoc (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2014 (GMT)

Division by Alliance[edit]

I'm thinking it might be useful to mark and categorize all place pages based on which Alliance's area they occur in. Since it's impossible for players of one Alliance to visit the locations belonging to other Alliances, it will only be possible for a single character to visit about half of the locations on the map. (Cyrodiil and various assorted extra-planar locations can be visited by all characters, of course.) I feel like we should have a label that clearly marks which alliance they are located in. Possibly it can be done in the upper-right corner, like the expansion icons for the earlier games. (Though if ESO ever gets any expansions, that could get confusing.) But the regions should be split up I think into 5 categories - one for each Alliance, one for Cyrodiil, and one for everything else. (Cyrodiil should be separate because it's possible to run into people from opposing factions there, while the other locations are safe from any PVP.) We might do the same for NPCs who live in these areas, or quests local to areas, any items or creatures that can only be found in them, etc. (In my experience, there aren't many area-specific items, other than quest items, but there may be some.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2014 (GMT)

Possibly. What if we tint the infobox based on the alliance the location is in, like we do for races with the NPC summary? We are definitely deleting the province pages now though, so we don't have to worry about using those to categorize things. Also, you CAN visit other alliances areas once you hit 50, if that changes things. Jeancey (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Tinted infoboxes is a glorious idea, so start working on it. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:00, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
Really? The only time I had a level 50 was when they gave us all free level 50s on the first PVP beta, and at that time only Cyrodiil was available. Does this mean there will be PVP in the alliance areas as well for level 50 chars? That actually sounds scary, since the alliance areas are bound to be full of low-level chars (since you need to be at least level 10 to even start PVP), so it seems like this might encourage trolling of opposing alliance areas by bored level 50 players... I really hope they don't screw that up, since I've never been a fan of PVP play. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
PvP is only available in Cyrodil. I haven't done it myself, but thats what Zenimax are saying, once you hit 50 you can cross Alliance borders. There are systems being developed to stop trolling and allow players to play in peace. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:08, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
From what they have explained, you will only see people who are also in your alliance and level 50. All the quests and monsters are boosted to your level as well. Jeancey (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2014 (GMT)
I'd be all for a tinting. I would recommend using the following as a base (these are the colours used for in-game icons in Cyrodiil): #688FB3 for Daggerfall Covenant, #C3AD4A for Aldmeri Dominion, and #DE5D4F for Ebonheart Pact. Although I don't actually think the alliances need their own categories, since we already have categories set up for each of the zones. All that would involve is an unnecessary extra layer of categories, since the zones are fully contained within their alliance already. --Enodoc (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2014 (GMT)

() I've implemented the tinting we were discussing above so we can see what it looks like. The different versions can be seen at Online:Khenarthi's Roost, Online:Betnikh and Online:Fungal Grotto. The colours I used were those I suggested above, from the in-game Cyrodiil map, although lighter versions may work better in this case. There's also an extra/alternative identifier I would like to try, based on Lurlock's suggestion of icons in the top corner, which could be used either in conjunction with the tint, or separately. I'll be testing it out as an extra for now, so that may be there by the time anyone looks at this. --Enodoc (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2014 (GMT)

Honestly, a lighter color might be better. Either that, or just having the tint for the name section, not for every section. It's just too overwhelming as it is. Jeancey (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
I've lightened the colour (they are now #AFD3F5, #F3E191 and #F5A49B) and added the icon identifier that I was talking about. Personally I like how it looks with both; the only thing we could potentially do is move the Alliance icon to the main icon location for the zones, since they don't have an icon of their own, and downsize the main icons to 48px, as I think 64 is a bit big. We may even be able to come up with a sensible comparable icon to use for Cyrodiil and Coldharbour locations. --Enodoc (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
The only issue I have now is that the icon causes the text to become off-center. It looks funny :P. Otherwise, the color is fine, and I do like the icon being there. Jeancey (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
Yeah sure, I though that. If we make sure there's an icon on the left, hopefully it should re-center itself. I'll downsize the left icons to 48px and try it. --Enodoc (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2014 (GMT)
OK, so as long as we have an icon on the left, the padding that I just added should mean that the text is completely centred now. --Enodoc (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2014 (GMT)

Categorizing by Zones[edit]

I constantly find myself irritated by the ESO place trails, which currently appear in the format, "Online: Places: Battlefields". Categorizing based on icons worked well for Oblivion and Skyrim, but the logic behind it kind of flies out the window when applied to ESO. By far the most significant aspect of any place is the zone it's located in. I think updating the trails to appear as, "Online: Places: Stonefalls / Battlefields", or even just "Online: Places: Stonefalls", would be a big improvement. The zone is currently only listed in the summary template. —Legoless (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (GMT)

Agreed. And ☑Yes Done. --Enodoc (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (GMT)

Houses vs. Homes[edit]

Would it be a good idea to differentiate houses (e.g., Inconspicuous House or abandoned houses) from residential Category:Online-Places-Homes? These houses, that are not residential dwellings and generally serve other purposes, could belong to Category:Online-Places-Houses. Or do we throw them all into the same pot?  ~Shuryard (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (GMT)

Probably a good idea to categorise them all together, just in case player housing gets introduced. Is there a reason to separate them, apart from the Justice system? —Legoless (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2015 (GMT)
We need to redo them all anyway, since every single locked house now has one or two brand new inhabitants who also need to be added. I've been adding the inhabitants when I come across them, but pretty much every town has at least one locked house. Jeancey (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (GMT)
(edit conflict) No, I don't think so. Even with the justice system, not all residential homes are locked. All together it is.  ~Shuryard (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2015 (GMT)
Houses are player owned, and Homes are NPC owned (per older games). Until player housing is introduced there is no need to have two categories, but any 'Houses' should probably be renamed 'Homes' in case of the eventuality. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:00, 18 May 2015 (GMT)
We are talking about the categorization right? Cause many of the are name "So-an-So's House". Jeancey (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2015 (GMT)
Of course, the Homes categories are practically nothing but "So-an-So's House". The idea is that homes are occupied (by NPCs), and houses are just buildings. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:23, 18 May 2015 (GMT)

Number of Crafting Stations[edit]

I've noticed that on locations with Crafting Stations, we make a point of listing the number of stations of each type. Is this really useful information? Really, the only information that's useful to the player regarding number of stations is whether that number is 0 or not 0. A location with 2-3 Cook Fires is no more useful for crafting than a location with just 1. I'm thinking the table might be cleaner if we changed it from:

Crafting Stations
Blacksmithing 2
Clothing 2
Woodworking 1
to something more like:
Crafting Stations
  • Blacksmithing
  • Clothing
  • Woodworking
or possibly even:
Crafting Stations
  • Blacksmithing (x2)
  • Clothing (x2)
  • Woodworking

Though again, I think the number is completely irrelevant. A location either has crafting stations or it doesn't. That's all that really matters in the end. This also matches the way we list houses and services in cities, so there's good precedent for this kind of look. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the third option. It preserves the count data, and seems a bit more natural than the currently displayed 1 values. —Legoless (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds reasonable. I think the only reason it is like it is is because that's how it was done in the Skyrim namespace, and the style was just copied across. --Enodoc (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Plus, that way we don't have to change how we are entering the data, just how it is displayed.... technically. I think it should be a relatively easy change to make. Jeancey (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Simple tweak if we want to remove the numbers later. --Enodoc (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice. I'd say that the number is just as irrelevant in Skyrim (beyond being 0 or not 0), so we might as well make the change apply there as well if somebody is up for it. Of course there we do list things like number of Ore Veins and such, and in that case the numbers are relevant. But for crafting stations, a simple yes or no would suffice... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's relevant enough info to include. It'd be just as well off in the main text, but considering we already have a special section in the summary template we may as well include the data there. Besides, some places might be particularly large, and knowing that there's more than one crafting station might be of some use. —Legoless (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


Should be there imo Phoenix Neko (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Added. —Legoless (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)