Oblivion talk:Places

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995

Umm... oops. All I did was add in a location by duplicating a line, "Plundered Mine". Now everything after Plundered Mine is all screwed up. Why didn't this work? I'm guessing something else needs to be done to add locations on this page? (Feel free to delete this comment after it's fixed.)

Okay, it appears fixed, but it looks different in the actual page source. Needs proper wikification. I'll let somebody else handle that, and leave this page alone in the future until I know how it works. Sorry about the screw-up. -- TheRealLurlock 10:47, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Notes

Good to see this page here now. As a matter of fact, since no-one had done it by yesterday, one day after I suggested it, I started it offline myself. :P

Mines are so plentiful as caves that I'm not sure if even listing them makes much sense, let alone making a separate page for each! Maybe a list is ok, if people are willing to put the work to it, but a short discription for each is surely enough.

I included the Wayshine page, which I'm gonna reformat shortly.

What where you thinking each of the Fort pages would contain?

What about the pages for each road???

The headings could be reordered by alphabets.

I'll do a little something to the Villages section later.

-FMan/TX

I thought the forts could at least contain some info about the current inhabitants. I thought I saw some Daedroth at one fort or another, and it would be wise to let that one rest until you're stronger. Perhaps where the bottle of vintage wine is located etc.

Roads are just there for a general description, much like there is the regions information in the Morrowind namespace.

I purposely didn't order the headings by alphabet, because I thought that Mines were very much less important than Villages.

Nice work on the Wayshrines.

Errabee 17:21, 30 March 2006 (EST)

PS, should the various locations of the magic stones be mentioned as well? I came upon several already. Errabee 17:33, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Oh, you mean like Varla stones? If the locations are fixed, ie. every player will find them at the same place, absolutely. Similarly to the list of known locations of Great Souls Gems in Morrowind was. Well, what cought my eye about the roads is that they are links. Order of importance is maybe better, yes. I'll put in some info about the some forts. --FMan 17:59, 30 March 2006 (EST)

I just realized what you meant when I found my first one. :) I hadn't encountered any magical stones myself yet back at that time. I started the Magical Stones page then. --FMan 01:52, 2 April 2006 (EST)

[edit] Wayshrines

I don't think it was such a good idea to make a table of the Wayshrines. Easier to read, sure, but now it is out of style with the rest of the document. --FMan 21:00, 30 March 2006 (EST)

I feel it's better to have the information more easily available. And the Wayshrines fit the table style while most of the other location info doesn't. The only other good option would be to move it down to the bottom as a link. Endareth 21:18, 30 March 2006 (EST)

There are also more than one wayshrine. I have encountered multiple Julianos wayshrines and a quick look at the Oblivion.ESM file in TESCS shows that there are at least two for each of the Nine Divines. --Trithemius 02:29, 1 April 2006 (EST)

I ended up moving the Wayshrines to a link at the bottom, because they were their own page already, and it was just embedded on this page (under the cave section, incidentally). Fushi 16:55, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

It appears that the wayshrine list has the wayshrines for Tiber Septim listed as ones for Talos. Am I mistaken? Fushi 17:09, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

No, you aren't mistaken. Tiber Septim (the man) became Talos (the Divine). Thus, the shrines identify in game as "Altar of Tiber Septim", but the effect is called "Fist of Talos" or "Blessing of Talos" depending on whether you get it from the wayshrine or from a small altar in a chapel. Quillan 21:02, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

Then shouldn't we call the wayshrines by Tiber Septim (As that's how they're identified in game), yet still call the effect fist of talos? In fact, I'll go do that right now. If anyone dosen't like it, they can change it back. Fushi 22:31, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

Another random note: Shouldn't this entire section actually be in Oblivion_Talk:Wayshrines? Fushi 22:34, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Links from the Places page

Not that I want to become an authority on my own right for this page, I just want to say I disagree with linking a location to a quest (Desolate Mine). For one, the reader would expect geographical information. For two, someone (myself included) will not want to get an unexpected quest spoiler. --FMan 21:07, 30 March 2006 (EST)

I tend to agree, more from organisation reasons though. The Desolate Mine already happened to be a quest page, I've edited it a fraction hoping someone will give it the correct quest name if that's not it, and it the quest is called "The Desolate Mine" then the page should be moved to "The Desolate Mine-Quest", and linked off the geographical page of "The Desolate Mine". This is how I've tried to do all the other place links. Endareth 21:16, 30 March 2006 (EST)

It is similar to the way the villages are being treated. If you look at Weye for instance, the only info is about the two quests there. Errabee 02:26, 31 March 2006 (EST)

PS. That seems to have been adapted somewhere after this page was created.Errabee 02:28, 31 March 2006 (EST)

Should a Tamriel:<place> page be created for what kind of places? Should for example the Fort pages be actually under the Tamriel namespace? I'm a bit confused with that, because I don't exactly know where that part of the wiki is supposed to be heading. --FMan 01:52, 2 April 2006 (EST)

It was originally only for regions, then towns crept in, now it's evolved into an Encarta atlas of sorts. So pretty much anything can go there. Garrett 06:32, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Jerall Mountains

Two related (if small) questions: (a) could Cloud Ruler Temple use a location page, and (b) anyone know what's up with the stairs leading to a chest in the Jerall Mountains slightly above and west of the temple, due north of Rielle? (Approach by going up and behind, then drop down. For me, the chest contained only a silver pitcher.) The stairs have no marker. I was going to add a question to the Bruma page instead, but they're much closer to the temple and Rielle. --Thistle 21:33, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

(a) no, it's a top secret facility ;) (b) no idea

[edit] Splitting?

I think this page has gotten big enough that it really should be split up. If no-one objects too strenuously I'll probably start on that in the next few days. --Endareth 20:33, 20 April 2006 (EDT)

It seems fine to me as it is and another level in the heirarchy might make it less convenient for some. What would be nice though, would be a key or symbol indicating what sort of monster to expect at each lair ... conjurer/bandit/necromancer/animal/mystical/... etc.Djp

Right now it seems that the whitespace to the right of each place is being used for directions. It wouldn't be hard to change that to what the occupants of that place are.Fushi 22:27, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

I'd be all right with things either way (split or unsplit). I'm commenting mostly to say that adding a key for monsters might become rather complicated for large ruins/caves.... --Thistle 20:25, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

Personally, I like it all on one page. If I need to find something, I just control-f it, and search for it, all from one page (And not needing to worry if it's a settlement, or a cave). Fushi 22:31, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Seems the general consensus is against splitting it up. I might still look at splitting to seperate pages and just transcluding them on here, same as the Wayshrine section already is. That will allow for linking directly to the sections. -- Endareth^Talk 20:20, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

I am strongly against splitting. First, it would serve no purpose. Second, it works best when all the geographical data is collected into one page. --FMan 17:19, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Locations

It would be nice to identify locations by the area in which they are in, for example, Fort Hastrel (County Kvatch). But I've no idea where the boundaries should be. Any succhestions? Jim 09:45, 23 April 2006 (EDT)

Personally, I find that the vague location (Just South of Chorrol, NE of Weynon Priory) is adequate enough, so long as we keep it to major cities, and other locations that are identifiable from game start (such as lakes, roads, etc) Fushi 14:46, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

maybe using the system like in Morrowind, the location at intersection of compass directions from two locations, may be far away from them but precisely following the line. (if they say go south from [landmark] you may have to walk for two days but if you kept going exactly south you'll stand straight in front of the door.)

Maybe it would be useful to identify personalities near places. e.g. trainers or quest-starters. Sometimes in the game they say "He can be found somewhere in the Jerral Mountains", but it is a big place... so directions are useful here. --Juharfalvi 09:13, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Stables

I linked all the stables directly to the horses page. All the relevant information was there already, so I saw no need to create separate listings for each one. It can always be changed later. Quillan 11:19, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Caves

So, it looks like the caves section is the redheaded stepchild of the places, so I've taken it under my wings. I've thusfar made sure all the place names listed are accurate, all the places have links to their own page, and each of them has a rough description of it's location on the places page(Such as NE of the Imperial City, on the Red Ring Road). All of the linked pages have a template containing spots for vital data. Only thing left to do is check it all, and enter the data. Fushi 16:52, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

[edit] Imperial City Districts

I see individual entries have been created for each district of the city. How do you want to set them up? Especially the market district, I can see a listing of each shop in the district along with some basic information about what it sells, or a new page for each shop where the vendor(s), mercantile skill levels, and inventory for sale can be listed or linked. Quillan 16:12, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

There is already a page for Merchants: Oblivion:Merchants. Should we just link to that, or should each merchant have their own page? Fushi 18:14, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

Personally, I don't see any reason to create new pages when it's not necessary. What do you need to know about a merchant? Type of goods handled and mercantile skill, right? Might as well just link to the page in question. Quillan 20:02, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

So, I've been thinking: What information do we need for each city (and in the case of the Imperial City, each district)? A comprehensive listing of each place is nice, but what I'm thinking is that we should have the list of vendors found in each district, and what they sell, and actually part out the merchants page to the respective cities (And districts). I can't see any real reason for keeping the list of vendors in one place, other than possibly seeing who has the highest amount of gold for a particular kind of item sold (Which isn't even a problem at expert level mercantile anyways). The spell merchants makes more sense as a seperate page, because most of the time, you're looking for a specific kind of spell. When I'm looking for a regular merchant, 99% of the time it's not to buy. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Fushi 22:21, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Formatting

Currently there is one template for use on pages for the places listed here: Template:Caves Summary. It's used at the top of every one of the cave pages, and includes the Template:Oblivion Places Trail, as well as wiki directives to not display the ToC, nor show the edit links for each subsection, which clears things up on those pages. Soon I will be adding the Tamriel transclusion to the template, and if everything works as planned, I'll be creating matching templates for the other sections (Forts, Ayleid Ruins, etc), so that changing the formatting should be easy to do. Fushi 02:47, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Smuggler's Cave

Even if it's not got a map marker, it's still a place in Cyrodiil and so there's no reason not to include it. Perhaps put a comment that there's no marker.

There is a rock somewhere in the wilderness north or west of the City with a door under it which needs a key to open. I've found the key, but now I've totally forgotten where the rock is. Anyone know where it is? Jim 08:23, 29 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Shattered Mine

I stumbled across a mine called 'Shattered Mine' and there was no 'topic' for it. im new to wikipedia, and i dont know how to add another page. so, if someone can make it, ill add content :P

If you read the Editing page, you should be able to get up to speed nice and quick. Or for the ultra short version, just edit the page you want to link from, add a link called [[Oblivion:Shattered Mine|Shattered Mine]], save page, and click on your new link, which should be coloured red to indicate there is not yet a page there. -- Endareth^Talk 20:12, 2 May 2006 (EDT)

-thanks

-There is a Map marker for Smugglers Cave, It also is connected to a Pirate Ship in which you can hire a crew. -DainWei

[edit] Namespace Question

Is there any particular reason why alot of these links go to the Tamriel namespace? It's pretty annoying when you go to edit a page, and find out that the contents are not actually there but somewhere else. Since all of the locations on this page are particular to Oblivion, I think it makes sense to stay in the same namespace. (I was trying to edit locations of interest along the Roads, (see Green Road for example) and all of them seem to link back to Tamriel, which makes little sense, as any changes I made were not reflected in the Oblivion namespace. If somebody's got something set up here, I don't want to screw it up, but right now, it doesn't make much sense to me. If what I did for Green Road is okay, I'll do the same for the rest, but let me know if that's okay first. -- TheRealLurlock 13:04, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Filling in Console Codes

I went ahead and implemented asterisks (as previously done for the Ayleid ruins) section for the forts, caves, and mines sections, to indicate pages that need information filled in. Partly needed because I also filled in templates on all the pages, so there aren't any red links any more (at least not in those sections), but some of the pages are really just as empty as ever.

While going through things I also noticed that Console Codes are missing for a bunch of pages. I marked all those pages with plus signs. (A few of the pages that I marked contain a console code, but it looks suspicious, i.e. typo in the name, extra characters, etc, so it seemed worth double-checking). So if one of you PC types has some time to kill, you could scan through somewhat quickly and fill those in.--Nephele 21:29, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

OK, I've been able to fill in most of the console codes, using the listing at ConsoleLocationCodes. Three locations were missing, however: Fathis Aren's Tower, Fort Grief, and Imperial Prison Sewer. Do these places have location codes?--Nephele 15:59, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

One more update: I've guessed that HuntersRun01 is the code for Fort Grief and that ImperialSewers03 is Imperial Prison Sewer. I haven't done the Fathis Aren's tower quest, so I have no other names to look under there. So still question marks on that page. And, if anyone on a PC wants to check that my guesses are correct, I'd appreciate it.--Nephele 16:18, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Suggestion

I see a few issues that keep cropping on the Places page (some of which are also referred to in earlier comments on this talk page):

No one knows what to do with the Tamriel page that gets transcluded into the Oblivion page
It would be useful to give information besides directions on the Places page, for example, the main inhabitants of the location.
The directions being transcluded onto the Places page are often too detailed for the Places page. The details definitely need to be on the individual location pages, but when you're quickly scanning through the list of places, you probably don't need to know more than the nearest city.

My suggestion to deal with all of these in one fell swoop is to create '/Desc' pages for each place. A sample description would be "Small Vampire den north of Cheydinhal" (for Fanacas); one step further could be "Small vampire den north of Cheydinhal (quest-related)" to let people know that there's a tie to a quest but without really giving away any spoilers. These '/Desc' pages could be transcluded onto the Places page, instead of the '/Directions' page; they could also be the transcluded into the 'Tamriel' pages to give a minimal description that pops up both at the top of the 'Oblivion' page (perhaps bolded) and in the encyclopedia listing. Does anyone else think this would be useful? Are there any other brief tidbits of info that people would like to see in such descriptions?--Nephele 01:06, 7 July 2006 (EDT)

The way I see this is that the style is being a problem for you. One of the sayings that has been used by many of the editors and by Daveh himself on multiple occasions is that we favor content over style. That being said, if content needs to be on the Places pages and the style is preventing this, then we'll have to do something to alter the style. The style guide is only a guide.

I don't agree that Tamriel content should be transcluded onto Oblivion (or other) pages. The Tamrielic content is supposed to be a guide to Tamriel itself, and should have a paragraph long description of something, then it should links to a larger article outside the namespace. (eg. See main article: Example). This probally isn't the best place to rant about this, but since you brought it up I felt that it needed to be addressed.

As with your suggestion, I really would like to see an example of what your talking about. I'm not an expert on the work being done on this section, but your suggestion sounds like it would work :) --Aristeo 03:15, 7 July 2006 (EDT)

...

I agree that the distinction between the Tamriel:Place and Place/Directions pages is hard to follow.
I like the idea of Small/Medium/Large 'place' [compass-direction] [single landmark], as in Nephele's "Small Vampire den..." above.
I'd also like to find the following information on the places home-page (rather than have to click-through to find it):
- quest-related (and/or quest-required - the latter meaning you can't complete the dungeon w/o being on a quest)
I'd like to find the following information on the location's specific page (you must click through):
- more detailed location, # of containers, # of zones, traps/not, quest-items/not, bosses/not, keys/not
I'd like the following information to be hidden, perhaps on a Place/Spoilers page (requiring one more click through):
- strategies, trap specifics, boss names, quest item names, alternate entrances/exits, use of specific keys.
  Some folks have put very substantial spoilers as 'notes' to the location when sometimes all someone wants is to check that they didn't miss a room or a boss.

Overall: the Places home page orients you (where/what), the specific place page focuses you (check list of what might be found), and the spoiler page has any details.

Overall: agree w/Aristeo that the style might need a refresh

--Tennessee Ernie Ford 03:18, 7 July 2006 (EDT)

I've started to implement my ideas, focussing so far on the Ayleid ruins. I'll do the caves next, and then at that point I'll modify the "Places Link" template to make the new description info pop up on the Places page. And then start setting up some Tamriel pages.... So in other words, through the next few days, I'll try to set up all the place-related info based on my thoughts. If anyone has any feedback, let me know here or on my talk page.--Nephele 18:16, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Actually, I think I've gone as far as I'm ready to for now; I need to pause, and hopefully get some feedback before tackling too much more. So, look at Places and let me know what you think of the new descriptions (implemented in the ayleid ruins, caves, and mines sections); look at some of the individual ayleid ruin pages (i.e., Belda) and let me know what you think of removing the Tamriel page and instead adding in the description (the description is a bit redundant on the individual pages, but I figure it may be useful right up top for people who link in from elsewhere; also it provides an easy way to edit the info while you're editing the rest of the page). The eventual plan (if OK with everyone) would be to tweak all the place pages similarly to the ayleid ruin pages, and fill in descriptions for all the places on the Places page.--Nephele 22:47, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Revealed the next phase of my devious master plan: I just changed the places listed on each of the 'Roads' pages, i.e. Oblivion:Orange Road to use the Place Link template (alot of the description links are still incomplete, but there are enough to give an idea). That's why I opted to put all the place descriptions into '/Description' subpages, instead of just typing them right onto the Oblivion:Places page: having them set up as subpages allows the Place Link template to be used more widely on other pages that may want to list a bunch of places. At least that's my thinking.--Nephele 14:05, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Mostly I like, but you missed one feature I had in the previous incarnation - I used bold text to make the major cities stand out amid all the little caves and forts and such. Now they're all bold, so that won't work. However, I came up with a solution. I just changed the Orange Road page to use larger text for the cities. A valid workaround? --TheRealLurlock 17:24, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Another option, now shown on Oblivion:Green Road, would be to indent the non-cities further. I think the indents make the cities stand out more clearly; also, with large text, the entire description would also end up in a large font, which I'm not so sure about.--Nephele 17:39, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

That works. We can do it that way. (Unfortunately none of the major cities seem to HAVE description text yet, so we can't really see what it looks like my way.) --TheRealLurlock 19:49, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

I filled in the city descriptions, so now a valid comparison is possible. Anyone care to cast a tie-breaking vote? (the format of Oblivion:Orange Road versus the format of Oblivion:Green Road)--Nephele 20:19, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Redundant Links

There are way too many redundant links on the article. See the "Crosslinks" entry on the style guide for the reasons why I feel redundant links are a bad thing. --Aristeo 09:07, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

More than three-quarters of the way done with eliminating redundant links. I'll get the rest in the next day or so. --Nephele 16:26, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Proper location for geographic descriptions

There are several "red" links on this page (and others in the Oblivion section) for geographic regions in Cyrodiil. There are also pages for some (but not all) of these regions in the Tamriel section. Should we be linking to the Tamriel pages, or creating pages within the Oblivion section for these? I'm not sure that the descriptions would necessarily change from one section to the other. --Hoggwild5 10:00, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Given that in my pages to geographic locations (Oblivion:Panther River, etc.) I have been including charts of game-specific landmarks, I think it would be inappropriate to include these in the Tamriel section. A separate, more general article about Niben Bay might belong in Tamriel, and perhaps that could be transcluded onto the Oblivion page, but anything Oblivion-specific would not belong on the Tamriel page. (The smaller rivers, Panther, Silverfish, Corbolo, and Larsius, I'd say don't belong in Tamriel at all. I'm pretty sure they've never been named in previous games, and are probably too minor to mention. --TheRealLurlock 12:37, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Recommended Places

Would it be possible to have a page for recommended places? It could have the 10 most interesting mines/caves/forts etc. --ShadowUnseen

I think that the Tips page could be a good place to create such a list. There are already a few places listed there under Locations; I think expanding that section could be quite useful. Unfortunately, the Tips page is not in great shape so it's not too easy to find things there, but to me it seems like the most appropriate place. --Nephele 01:26, 4 December 2006 (EST)

See, my problem with this is that, due to the whole "leveled enemies" and "leveled loot" aspect of the game, no one cave/mine/fort is ever really more "interesting" than any other, with the exception of caves/mines/forts which are specific to certain quests - and even in those cases, the "interesting" part often isn't even there unless the quest is active, or the front door is simply locked so you can't get in until the proper time. Since we do note which locations are "(quest specific)", those are already covered. The rest of the places are just so generic that none of them really stands out much. (A marked difference between this game and Morrowind, which had plenty of nice goodies hiding in otherwise non-descript locations.) --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 13:04, 4 December 2006 (EST)

I don't feel that's completely true. Yes, the leveled loot in particular makes it trickier to identify interesting places: just because one person finds a necklace of swords in a dungeon does not automatically mean that's an interesting place. On the other hand, there are dungeons that really do stand out as being different. There are a handful with non-random items (although I think the Non Random Loot page already does everything that's needed in documenting that). More importantly, there are several dungeons that really do stand out as being objectively more interesting than the vast majority of places:

Lost Boy Cavern has a miniquest involving the lich erandur
Black Rock Caverns has a miniquest involving the lost Black Rock ship
Vilverin has a couple miniquests (unrelated to the Ayleid Statue that you can also find there).
Rockmilk Cave has many more bandits and marauders than any other place, plus more bosses and boss chests than other places. Even taking into account the random factor, this cave has much better loot than average.

Those are just a handful that come to mind without doing any real research into it. Other than Vilverin (which has one ayleid statue) none of these are caves that you will be sent to as part of a standard quest. But they are all places that I think are very interesting to visit... in fact more interesting than the vast majority of quest-related caves. I think documenting these places somewhere would be useful for a lot of players; it will just take a bit of monitoring to make sure that places don't get added purely based upon a single piece of random loot that somebody happens to find. --Nephele 14:09, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Yup, I was thinking more along the lines of mini-quests and layouts rather than loot. I personally like the places with lots of traps most. But the page could have the most worth-while places in terms of fun and not so much the reward in treasure. I've only started playing this month so I don't know most of the places. --ShadowUnseen 08:41, 5 December 2006 (EST)

[edit] Inns

I notice the Inns section of this page includes the Bloated Float for some reason. I'd say that's just a part of the Imperial City. If we're going to include it on the list, then every other inn that's in a city should be listed there as well. So I think it should either be removed, or all the other inns should be added. Any opinions? --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 13:10, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd say the deciding factor should be "Does it appear on the big map?" The Waterfront District does; the Bloated Float does not so it shouldn't appear. Anybody else? Rpeh 05:09, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Sounds fine to me. --Nephele^Talk 10:34, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree

David 13:05, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Size Matters

There's no definition of small, medium and large anywhere. From what I can see, small means "one area"; medium means "two or three areas" and large means "four or more areas". Is that right? Should we have it on the page or am I just being fussy? Rpeh 05:11, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yep, it's based upon the number of zones, although now that you ask I can't find my notes on what the number cutoffs were for each size ;) The numbers you state sound right and at this point to check I'd just have to do what you've probably done, i.e., go through and pull up a ton of pages and see what different places correspond to. If you'd like to add that information somewhere, feel free. Perhaps at some point a general place layout page would be appropriate to answer various questions that might come up when looking through the places page, and that might be a place for it. --Nephele^Talk 10:41, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Villages and settlements

A lot of places in this catagory are just a house with a crop field, and some are even desserted, when first looking in this catagory, I expected villages as hackdirt. so I think it would be best to make two more catagories, one for farms (odill farm and so on)and one for miscallanuous (cloud ruler temple, the abandoned house with the "the sunken one" quest)David 13:04, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I almost agree with you. The reason for keeping things as they are is that the game itself doesn't distinguish between the two - it uses the same symbol for both. As it stands, the page gives a good description of what to expect (village, farmhouse, house etc) and I think that's probably the best way of doing it. Rpeh 12:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I think that than atleast the heading should be changed to "villages, settlements and farms" or something like that. David 11:13, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Good idea. I'll leave you to make the change. Rpeh 13:24, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

it's done David 13:10, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Road signs

Do they actually do anything when activated? e.g A sign that says Anvil 'Activate Anvil', or Surilie Vineyards 'Activate Surilie Brothers Vineyards'. I would have thought that a map marker would appear, but that is not the case.--Merco 09:20, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Not a thing. Although I imagine they could have a script attached to them using the Construction Set? --Rpeh^Talk 12:22, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

[edit] missing ayleid ruin?

There is an Ayelid ruin sunken under the large bridge south east of imperial cityst west of the bridge, near the north shore.. no signs of it on land.. ).. can't get very far in it, needs a key.. I'm assuming it is quest related...

it's showing up as Vanua at the door but no map location..

EDIT: nevermind I found it listed under unmarked locations and it's plug in specific ( playing PS3 version, didn't know that it had the plugins built in... )

yeah....its only for knights of the nine

[edit] A doubt about plugin-specific places

I noticed the Oblivion:Places page does not list plugin-specific places, but the category section includes them. I just wanted to know whether it is an error or they have been deliberately left out. Can you please explain? --Mankar Camoran 08:00, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

My feeling is that the templates need to be changed such that the plugin-specific places (and quests and NPCs) are in separate categories from the non-plugin ones. This might require some re-working of these templates, however. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 09:15, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I am afraid it is not within my ability to do that. But wouldn't it be helpful if it is done? --Mankar Camoran 09:26, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

(I moved this content back here from my talk page because this a more appropriate place for the discussion.)

Yes, I think that places added by mods should be added to this article, just as I believe that NPCs from mods should be added to all relevant articles (see UESPWiki:Task List#Oblivion, for example). On the other hand, I don't really agree that they should all be taken out of the categories. I think it would be more appropriate to simply explain on the category pages that they contain content from official mods. However, I don't know whether that's a discussion that really needs to be addressed here. --Nephele^Talk 13:09, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You may have just misunderstood me, Nephele. I never said they should be taken out of the categories. I was very surprised when I could not find those places here. So I thought I could as well ask someone the reason for their non-inclusion. My reply to Lurlock was regarding including those places here, not taking them out of the categories. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the trouble. I know "Patience is virtue" and I need to practice it. --Mankar Camoran 15:16, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Something's Wrong

Can someone scroll down this page and see what's wrong? --Mankar Camoran 12:25, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Dear fellow editors, just to be more specific, the last few place descriptions aren't showing up. Problem with templates, may be? I don't know how to fix it. I am not saying this for my sake. I have absolutely nothing to gain or lose by its being fixed or not. But this is quite a heavily watched page. So at least for the sake of people visiting this page, it would be better to fix it as soon as possible. Thank you. --Mankar Camoran 15:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Mankar, I meant to respond earlier but got caught up in a dozen other things. My guess is that the page has too many templates on it. There's some unknown number of templates at which point the wiki just gives up on trying to handle any more. If that's the case, the only way to fix it is to take all the map links that you've been adding out. As for then how to handle the map links, there are a few options. Perhaps the best fix is to delete the links completely from the description pages and just have the Place Link template automatically insert the link instead. But I don't know if that's a task that we want to rush into.... --Nephele^Talk 16:29, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that... It doesn't seem to be quite as simple as that though. I just replaced the 33 camp description pages with a new test "Place Link With Map" template and it only fixed 6 of the links. I'm not rushing in to anything though - I just want to get to the point where that page works then we can look at finding a longer-term solution. I'll change as many as need changing then leave alone. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:50, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

No need to say sorry, Nephele. It's a bit embarrassing for me. I just wanted to make sure that someone knowledgeable has noticed it. Thanks for the reply. Now Rpeh seems to be working on it as well. So I shall rest content. But if those map links have to be removed, no problem. I can revert them easily. --Mankar Camoran 08:50, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually I've stopped. I want to discuss options with Nephele before doing anything more. I'd hoped it would be possible to change just a few entries to the replacement template and fix the page, but that's not working. Rather than do the whole lot, I'll put it on hold for now. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:23, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for fixing it. It's a big relief. But why do all the Daedric Shrine names include "daedric" in brackets? They seem redundant. I would have removed them myself but I am not sure why they are there. --Mankar Camoran 09:26, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Because the map has the word "daedric" in the names for the shrines, and because of the way the template works. You're right - it's redundant and a bit ugly. I believe Nephele is looking at better ways of doing the whole template/map/description thing so we can leave it for the moment.

OK, I've moved from a super-temporary fix to a better temporary fix. The upshot, in a nutshell, is that as far as readers are concerned, the page should now be fully functional. The page works and won't suddenly break if the description pages are tweaked some more (or if a few more links are added to the page). And the daedric links have been prettified. Or at least they will be once I'm able to edit the page.... I'm currently hitting the other problem triggered by pages with too many templates, which is managing to save the page when the server is busy. Before the server maxed out, I did a preview confirming that the changes would work, now I just can't do the final save.

The reason why rpeh and I were having problems actually fixing the problem in the first place is that we were barking up the wrong tree because I hadn't bothered to do any research on the details of the problem. And the problem is caused by the cumulative length of the page as all the templates are expanded not the number of templates. For details see this page. So all of our changes to reduce nested templates by moving content from one template to another did almost nothing to reduce the length of the content.

Knowing the real cause of the problem makes it much easier to tweak the templates to avoid it ;) And with all the surplus room that we know have, I've been able to make the original Place Link template more complicated. Now the Place Link template has the capability to add in a map link, making the Place Link With Map template obsolete. Furthermore, the template decides whether to add a map link based on whether or not there's one already there. So now it should be possible to go through and delete the map links from the existing description pages, and the template should automatically kick in and replace the manual link. And vice versa. Personally, I think it makes more sense for the map links to be created by the template instead of being manually inserted in the page (and with the new SI map it makes even more sense to edit the template once instead of editing a few hundred description pages).

But I'm still pondering what to do longterm with /Description pages and templates such as Place Link. Or whether it's even worth doing something more complicated to add some extra functionality.... With this issue being basically resolved for now, other more drastic changes are likely to be a low priority for me (unless I have an epiphany revealing the perfect way to do it!) --Nephele^Talk 18:03, 6 November 2007 (EST)

It really is a great fix. The page looks perfect now. Thanks a lot. And that really was a great explanation as well ;). --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 08:15, 7 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Religion

I would be interested to know what the statue at the ayleid ruins represent ( the statues that look like fairies ). --Umbacano 12:33 , 2 march 2008 (EST)

[edit] Out of this world?

I deleted this section because it doesn't fit with the theme of the page: "The UESP's Oblivion map can be used to locate all of these places." The test cells don't fit either and could arguably be moved to the Console page but the Out of This World ones are all quests (or main quest stopoffs in the case of Oblivion). This just seems like a very big inconsistency. And yes I know that also applies to the Daedric quests but at least those have a location on the main map. I'm new so I'm sure there's a good reason Game Lord restored by deletion but I'd appreciate knowing what it is. 85.92.194.123 10:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Towers

I was thinking that maybe a Towers category could be added, since I don't know what category a tower would fit into. Figgy 16:23, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Page Split

I just moved nearly all of the content that used to be on the Places page into a dozen-odd subpages... because that was so much easier than creating one missing redirect ;) Really, it's something that's been on my mind for a while. Some of the reasons:

The page has evolved into a massive list of every place in the game (and perhaps a few kitchen sinks, too). There's no reason why all of those places need to be listed on the same page.
The size of the page has been problematic (although those problems have been less severe lately due to some template tweaks), for readers and editors.
There were an increasing number of links to sections of the page. If a reader wants to see just the stables in the game, there's no reason why the reader should have to pull up a thousand other places, too.

I moved each of the previous sections of the page to its own page. Those pages are either listed in the list of links at the top of the page, or else they're transcluded back into the page. I transcluded the cities and dungeons back into the main places page because my impression is that many readers like having all of the dungeons, no matter the type, listed in a single place. For example, so you scan the page to find all places that contain marauders. Obviously the page ends up still being somewhat sizeable, but its still about half the length that it used to be.

I'm sure there are tweaks that could be made to further improve the page, but I think this was an important step forward. --Nephele^Talk 01:03, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

How about creating tags/categories such as "Places containing marauders"? Or is there a limit on how many categories a page can fit into?--67.181.102.146 18:02, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, there are already is an article listing all the places that contain marauders, namely Oblivion:Marauder Dungeons. Similar pages exist for all the other various types of enemies (Bandits, Undead, Monsters, etc.), and there is a category listing those summary articles. I suppose we could also set up some categories for the individual dungeons themselves... although without the table explaining why a given dungeon is in the category it may cause more trouble than its worth (e.g., editors debating over whether or not Sancre Tor belongs in the Marauder category, given that it contains Marauder boss chests but no actual Marauders). Given that it's not immediately clear to me that there would be an advantage from adding the categories, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. --Nephele^Talk 18:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Advantages that seem immediately clear to me -- firstly it would be on the page itself, whereas I saw no links to the category pages you gave here on the page itself (I checked on "Culotte"), and secondly it would bypass any problem with debates over a single category as you mention about the existing summary pages that I wasn't aware of, since you should be able to attach any number of categories to a dungeon's page. A single article can simultaneously be in the categories "Dungeons containing marauders", "Dungeons containing NPCs", "Dungeons containing undead", etc. Same concept as tagging photos in your photo collection. --67.181.102.146 20:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think you misunderstood the point under "secondly". The problem isn't adding pages to multiple dungeon categories. Sancre Tor, to use the same example, is already listed at both Oblivion:Marauder Dungeons and Oblivion:Undead Dungeons. The problem is that the category system doesn't allow any explanation for why an article belongs in a given category: on the article all you have is a tag such as [[Category:Oblivion-Places-Marauder Dungeons|{{PAGENAME}}]]; on the category all you have is the article name. So the categories will basically only work if they tell readers to go to the existing articles for explanations as to why each location is listed there. Which in part reflects an underlying problem: categories such as marauder dungeon or undead dungeon are actually subjective, in that subjective decisions must be made about how to define the categories (Any dungeon where undead are guaranteed to appear? Any dungeon where undead can possibly appear? Any dungeon containing an undead boss chest? Each of those lists would be very different). Therefore it won't immediately be obvious to readers why each dungeon belongs in a particular category (or categories).

On the other hand, I do see your point about the categories being listed on the individual article. For those readers who are used to the wiki category system, it will provide an easier way to find related articles. If there's an editor who agrees and is willing to go through the hundreds of dungeon pages and add categories, it will probably get done. In the short term, though, you can use the existing articles, which provide more information than the categories ever will. --Nephele^Talk 22:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think the issue about explanations for why the articles belong in particular categories would be eliminated by better choice of naming for the categories. I would not, for instance, have picked the name "Marauder dungeons" for the very reason you cite. As I said before, a good category name would be "places containing marauders." That is self-explanatory and undeniable, not requiring justification, whereas "Marauder dungeons" is a judgement call. Nothing has to be boiled down to a single category when it might fit into several, if using the tagging/wiki category system. (Another bonus is that the category pages, being automatic, do not require upkeep by editors.) I find it much more efficient this way, and one of the major strengths of a wiki system in terms of making information well-structured and easy to find. I might take up the task myself if it's fine for me to just go through the hundreds of pages and do it. --67.181.102.146 22:44, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Different realms

Discussion moved to Oblivion talk:People.

[edit] Conjurer Lairs

can someone give me the locations for some conjurer lairs that have a good amount of loot? im trying to find the downloaded Spell Tomes and i noticed when i killed a conjurer that they can carry them. Help? Goldbrand43 21:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

At Conjurer Dungeons you will likely find everything you are looking for. --Timenn < talk > 04:17, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

any lair? Goldbrand43 21:48, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion_talk:Places"