Online talk:Wrothgar

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


Is this page about the DLC pack, or the in-game zone that it's going to be set in? From my understanding it's the latter - it's categorized as a zone, has the zones template at the bottom etc. If so, I think the name should stay as it is, because everything suggests that the zone will be named Wrothgar. If the page is about about the DLC pack, however, then it can be renamed, but also should be changed to reflect this. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 19:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It was decided here to treat this like a place page, and to list the DLC packs on Online:Crown Store for now (although creating a separate DLC page in the future might be preferable as the Crown Store page continues to expand). Are we still sure the zone will be called Wrothgar though? All recent (2015) information on the DLC calls it Orsinium. —Legoless (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
All this promotional info refers to the DLC pack, not the zone, I believe. It's still called Wrothgar everywhere in the game files, dialogue, achievements, lorebooks, etc. My theory is that they decided to name the DLC after the city and not the zone, because it expresses its "orcishness" better than less recognizable "Wrothgar". --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I am hoping the same; that the zone will still be called Wrothgar, and it's just the DLC pack that will be called Orsinium. Otherwise they'd have to change all existing in-game references to Wrothgar as well, not to mention it being inaccurate. This may require tweaking Mod Header to compensate, but I think until we know for sure we might as well leave it as it is. --Enodoc (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the rename proposal until we know more. —Legoless (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

() Based on the official announcement, it definitely seems like Wrothgar is the name of the zone and Orsinium is the name of the DLC. Since the latter is also the name of a location within the zone, this now directly conflicts with our current 'place page' system. I think it's time to seriously consider having individual entries for the DLC game packs, separate from both the place pages and the Crown Store. Does anyone have any suggestions? —Legoless (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just result in unnecessary duplication of all the information? The quests, for example, would end up being listed identically on the DLC page and the zone page, unless there's something else that we could use the DLC page for. But then we'd be missing out info. To avoid duplication, I think the current setup works fine. --Enodoc (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was initially thinking. However, there's plenty of info that our current place page layout doesn't cover, such as price and features. Online:Imperial City currently lists places and quests in their entirety, but barely mentions the Tel Var system and doesn't cover more obscure features like the Patrolling Horrors or the various unlockable collectibles. There's plenty of content that could also be moved from the place page to a DLC page, such as release dates, the promo banner, and the currently unused cover. I see very little overlap if we take a feature-based approach to documenting the DLC. The issue in my mind is actually deciding on a layout. Do we need something similar to {{Content Summary}}? Will the DLC need individual pages, or will an entry on Online:DLC work? —Legoless (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Aye, that's a good point. So we'd perhaps use the page to link to the zone page for the places and quest lists etc, rather than repeating the lists themselves? In which case, I would suggest that Online:DLC would be a better idea, and we use that for all the links rather than a separate page. In the meantime >>> :) --Enodoc (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, so like a Quests bulletpoint could link to the full list at Online:Imperial City#Quests. —Legoless (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I think something like {{Content Summary}} would also be a good idea (perhaps a smaller version though if it's part of a longer page of all DLCs). Perhaps call it {{Online DLC Summary}}? --Enodoc (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The other issue would be naming. Moving the subzone page to Online:Imperial City (place) seems like the logical thing to do, similar to what I did with the Orsinium city page. That way the DLC redirects take precedence. A bot would probably have to go through and change all the IC links though, since most refer to the place. —Legoless (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I was actually thinking the opposite, so Imperial City (and Orsinium) would be full pages on the places, since that's what the names "actually are" (the DLCs are named after the places, after all), while Imperial City (DLC) (and Orsinium (DLC)) would be redirects to the DLC page. --Enodoc (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Usually the game brands and titles are given wiki precedence, which is why pages like Shadowkey exist (for some reason), and why Skyrim:Dawnguard (faction) and even Skyrim:Dawnguard (disambiguation) are 'below' Skyrim:Dawnguard. —Legoless (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and I'd be inclined to agree if they were getting their own pages. But since the DLC pages are only going to be redirects, I think a real page should take title precedence in this instance. If I already had the DLC, and was looking at the in-game map of Orsinium, I'd be more interested in finding out what the city has for me than in a link of pages about the features of the whole DLC.
I just created {{Online DLC Summary}} as well, but I see you found that already  :) --Enodoc (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think {{Mod Header}} will need to be tweaked if we decide to have the DLC on a page other than Online:Orsinium, correct? By all rights it should link to the DLC section rather than the city page. —Legoless (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Already done in anticipation. On the other hand, I don't think it would matter that much if the Mod Header said Orsinium (DLC) rather than just Orsinium. It would make it clearer that it's part of a DLC pack, and there's no hover text on mobile devices anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about that a bit more, we could set Mod Header up with a condition that if namespace=Online then append " (DLC)" to modpage. If we did that, we wouldn't need to change anything other than the template itself (ie, none of the links to Imperial City and none of the existing uses of {{Imperial City}}). --Enodoc (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

() Mod Header icon proposal, modded out of one of the Achievement icons. If you've seen anything else around the DLC on PTS that you think screams "Orsinium" or "Wrothgar", we could have a short-list. --Enodoc (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Second proposal. I actually like this one better, as it's easier to see. --Enodoc (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Either are fine with me. I've sandboxed a potential DLC page. —Legoless (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Shall I edit Mod Header to take the "(DLC)" parameter and set up redirects at Imperial City (DLC) and Orsinium (DLC) in preparation for that page launching? --Enodoc (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure; it's live now. I added the purple crown icon as well. —Legoless (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
So I guess since the DLC page has the disambig qualifier, ON:Orsinium (city) can go back to ON:Orsinium now? I can't move it myself due to the page history. --Enodoc (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Maelstrom Arena[edit]

Looking quickly on the stream it appears to be called Arena: Maelstrom (in line with Trial: Sanctum Ophidia, Dungeon: Spindleclutch et al.), so should we just be calling the page Maelstrom? Maelstrom Arena also seems to be the quest name, so that would avoid disambiguating the quest from the place. --Enodoc (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see that part, was it the map marker? The Oblivion Gate inside was labelled 'Maelstrom Arena' I'm pretty sure. Going with the map marker seems fine though. —Legoless (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It was the compass marker (so yeah, essentially the map marker). I think the map marker takes precedence when it exists; if I remember rightly, the order of precedence for naming is Map Marker > Loading Screen > Top-Right Pop-Up > Name on the Door > Local Map. --Enodoc (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

() Although the map marker is indeed "Arena: Maelstrom", the hover text for fast travel is "Maelstrom Arena" (similar to how "Trial: Sanctum Ophidia" appears as "Sanctum Ophidia"). The place is also never named simply "Maelstrom" in the patch notes. I think we have to just assume that labelling it "Arena: Maelstrom Arena" in-game was too repetitive, and based on how we treat Trials and Group Dungeons currently I'd say precedence goes to the fast travel text here. —Legoless (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK sure, that makes sense. --Enodoc (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Since it appears ZOS have finally abandoned the concept of subzones with the overhaul of the LFG system and their total lack of relevance in Wrothgar, it seems like a good time to make a decision on what we're going to do about it on the wiki going forward. Wrothgar's three regions are very visibly different, but they have no names. This was remedied with Lower Craglorn when we enquired on ESO Live, but we can't really depend on that approach. I propose that we adopt the unofficial names of Western/Central/Eastern Wrothgar for the sake of consistency with the other zones, at least until some sort of official terms emerge. The problem is that Wrothgar was in the works for a long time; future zones might abandon any form of recognisable division. Do we figure out a new system for these subzone-less regions now, or do we wait until it actually becomes an issue? —Legoless (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The three subzones of Wrothgar are so strongly different that it'd be weird if they really had no names. It's still possible that they actually appear somewhere in the game, hidden in a book or a piece of dialogue. I'm going to search the game files for them when Daveh uploads them. As for the solution you proposed - it seems alright for now. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 13:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
They have defined them in the promotional material as distinct areas: This breathtaking and diversified zone is divided into three distinct biomes--boreal, tundra, and arctic, so I would suggest we start with those ecological names. I've gone for an ESO Live answer already as well. --Enodoc (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
So do we go with "Wrothgar Boreal/Tundra/Arctic" then? Doesn't seem ideal, but it would work. —Legoless (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, as alone they don't make syntactical sense. Unless we go for "Wrothgar Boreal Forest", "Wrothgar Tundra", and "Arctic Wrothgar". But "arctic" is a bad word for that one anyway, as that implies northwardsness, and Wrothgar is not arctic. It's snowy because of altitude, not latitude. --Enodoc (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Those were my thoughts as well, although it starts getting a little too elaborate if you try to make those biome descriptors fit grammatically. The directional approach simplifies the issue. —Legoless (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Western, Central, and Eastern sound just fine and not overly complicated for me. And by the way, northern Wrothgar does seem to be arctic, as it's the same latitude as northern Skyrim, and it even borders the snowy Haafingar. It's Rivenspire that seems to be unusually warm for its latitude, perhaps because of the Doomcrag influence or something. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If there's no outright opposition to the subzone idea, I'll go ahead with the directional naming. They can always be moved later. —Legoless (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've seen ESO Live yet, but they answered my question. The subzones are officially unnamed.      :(     --Enodoc (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rkindaleft zoned quest - where best to put it[edit]

So, I found one quest that is actually in Rkindaleft, which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong, "zone" - it shows up under that heading in your quest log. Oddly, the other quest in Rkindaleft shows up under Wrothgar. I'm not sure if this quest counts towards the quest achievement in Wrothgar DLC or not...I plan to link to it on the Rkindaleft page, but would it make sense to put a link to it on this page as well, in case someone has missed it? I haven't found any other quests in the DLC (such as the Old Orsinium ones) to be doing this. Anghara (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a bug, and should be under Wrothgar. The quest in Troll's Toothpick (Bangkorai) does the same thing. It should go on the Wrothgar page like the others, as well as in the Rkindaleft page as a "Related Quest" like you see on other pages --Enodoc (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

New node levelling?[edit]

It seems to me like the materials node levelling has been adjusted with the introduction of the Thieves Guild DLC. My VR16 character earlier found spawned a mix of the two top tier raw materials or solvents. Now it seems to find purely the highest tier. I do not know if it is notable, or if it is, where it should be noted. —MortenOSlash (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I updated the battle levelling page, and I guess it would also go wherever else node locations are mentioned. --Enodoc (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Good to have it documented correctly. Thanks. —MortenOSlash (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)