User talk:RobinHood70

Return to "RobinHood70" page.


Could you confirm the Robin we have is you? I'm passing out rights, so it'd be good to know if that's the real you before I make you an admin. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that's me. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicatelli pageroniEdit

Hello Mr. Adminostropolous this page is a duplicatication: Online:Sibati-Dara. The HotBotTed created it. Papa bless, have a nice day my friendidlydoppler — 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like one of the other admins took care of it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! Robin Hood  (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Authors of WalkthroughsEdit

Hey RobinHood, you've been the one mostly checking over my work, so I decided it would be best to ask you this. I've been trying to add authors to the pages from the Walkthrough Not Written section, but I'm having trouble with deciding who the author is for each because it seems unclear. Is there any particular way I should go about writing in the author, or is it alright to just say it was multiple people? Secunda (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a big concern, so don't spend a whole lot of time on it. If you can readily find a single person who entered most or all of the reward information, then by all means, put that name there, but if several people added the info, or if one person added it and then another person made significant corrections (beyond just spelling/formatting), just say it was multiple. Mostly, the entries are there as verification that the information has been entered, and so we have someone to ask if something seems incorrect or unclear. Since probably half the people whose names you've been entering (if not more) are no longer active on the wiki, the second reason no longer even applies in a lot of cases. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I just realized you said "author", not "reward writer". Similar advice applies, though: if one person wrote the bulk of the article (or re-wrote it) and then others only added bits and pieces, enter the name of the main writer; otherwise, just enter "multiple". Robin Hood  (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing In ActionEdit

Just so you know, I detest this quest right now. I have tried numerous times and have failed every single time to get Tullius to even give me the dialogue to release Thorald, nevermind already knowing that I wouldn't get the order had I been successful. I have finished the Civil War on the Imperial side, on the PS4. I cannot remember if the dialogue was ever available on the PS3 though, but as you were the one to add that part to the page last March under Prisoner of War (side with Stormcloaks and he denies, side with Imperials or be neutral and he allows the request but doesn't give the order as its bugged), and the only talk page confirmations of the dialogue also mention taking the order to the keep (so they are clearly modded games), I wanted to check with you, before I took yet another hack at the page. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Robin, but I remember this being impossible last time I tried. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Just in case I wasn't clear, which I don't seem to have been trying to read that mess above, I wanted confirmation on the ability to trigger Tullius' agreement dialogue in the game. It certainly isn't with SSE, but may have been in the original release, though it would still have been bugged by not actually giving you the release order. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 02:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In the original game, the requirements are that you have a faction rank of 5 or higher in the Imperial faction, and that the quest be between Stage 30-55. Given what you've said, it would seem like you should fulfil all the requirements, but I'm wondering if maybe you can only get to that faction rank under certain circumstances, like doing Season Unending a certain way so that more battles are required, or it may simply be completely impossible. Tracing through the CW is beyond nightmarish, so I'm afraid that's as much help as I can give you. The possibility of going the peaceful route was already there in the Bugs section when I edited the page (added in this edit), so I assumed that it was possible in the base game and just expanded the details based on what I saw in the CK. If nobody's able to do it in the base game, then by all means, remove the info about a peaceful resolution from the body of the article. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In Season Unending I swapped Riften for Dawnstar and compensation, Tullius was not very happy. I hadn't chosen a side yet but had followed Hadvar so Tullius accused me of betrayal. I then choose the Stormcloaks but took the crown to Tullius. This may have made the faction ranking impossible if they both made a -1. I had four Hold quests and then took Fort Amol and Windhelm. Now maybe I'm missing something, but I don't remember seeing faction ranking anywhere in Skyrim, excluding the three numbers of -1, 0, and 1 associated with belonging to a faction. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
They're used by the game, but unlike Oblivion, they're completely hidden from the user. See the College of Winterhold faction, for example. Having said that, I don't see anything in the Civil War that sets faction rank in the traditional manner. There's a pseudo-rank given in some places (and I'm not sure if even that is used anymore), but that would have no effect on the faction rank that the dialogue is checking. So, my educated guess is that it's not possible to ever satisfy the conditions of that check, but that's not an absolute certainty. Still, I think between you and AKB never being able to trigger it, no matter what you did, and what I'm seeing in the CK, I think it's a safe enough assumption to say that it's not possible. The IP who added the info in the first place probably had USKP and didn't realize that that affected things. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot-request: RecipesEdit

Okay, so after I go to the trouble of creating all of the Food Recipes and Beverage Recipes, Update 13 went and changed all of their names, so instead of "Blankedy-Blank Recipe", they're all now "Recipe: Blankedy-Blank". I could change them all, but it seems like more of a job for a bot. Think you could manage that? — TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, ignore this. I just realized I made pages for the food items themselves, not the recipes, so there's no need to change anything. Oops. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad I could help! :P Robin Hood  (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Arena Template HelpEdit

On Arena place pages there is something causing a lot of empty space at the top of the page. It also makes it conflict with having a quotation above the rest of the article. I assume the culprit to be {{Arena Place Summary}}. Would you (or any template maestros looking at this edit) have a look. Thanks. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 03:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of one extra line, but that's it. I'm not seeing anything worse than that myself. Have another look and let me know if it's still there, and if so, what browser/platform you're using. Thanks! Robin Hood  (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That stops a conflict with the quotation, and as long as there is one you won't see a space. However, on AR:Old Run its visible. It must be the {{APRP Header}} pushing downwards. Tweaking the placement of the two templates doesn't remove the space, only deleting it. [edit] Also to be a pain (my speciality), could you adapt the newly discovered loadtext parameter from Online Place Summary to use with the Arena summary for those leading quotations. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that should now be fixed, and the loadtext code has been copied over. I'm going to be AFK for a bit, but if you want, I can set up a bot job to move any existing quotes into the template later...or you can do them by hand if there aren't many (haven't looked). Robin Hood  (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. No idea how many pages are affected, but I think only a couple actually have the summary box. Probably better left to hand. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted closed gates and the mapEdit

So now that Online:Gold Coast Northern Gate, etc., are deleted, has any thought been given to how links from the map are going to get to the merged-in page? I woulda thought redirects made more sense. -- Conan776 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The currently-existing locations on the map have been updated to point to Online:Border Crossings, meaning there is no need for redirects. KINMUNETALK﴿ 10:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blue text for word wallsEdit

I guess this edit could have broken the word wall text formatting. -- 15:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the case. I don't quite understand the cause right now, but I'm looking into it. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Of all things, it turned out to be a setting that was meant to stop denial-of-service attacks for one of the built-in template functions. I loosened the setting slightly and everything's fine now, though you may need to do a hard refresh in your browser to see it. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi. I tried to create a new field on Template:Book_Summary/Game to support a link to Motif Styles, but it didn't work. It should function similar to the Collections field, so I have no idea why it doesn't display when I try to call it. Any ideas? --Jimeee (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It works fine for me. Did you maybe just make a typo in the parameter name, or were you trying it outside of Online space, maybe (which is why I added the ns_base parameter to mine)? It's also possible that it was just some kind of caching issue. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That works, but only if I use that exact template. The problem is all the motif book pages use the "Book Summary" template (i.e. Online:Crafting Motif 18: Akaviri), not "Book Summary/Game". I only edited "Book Summary/Game" because I thought it was similar to when the "Collections" field was added. I'm not sure how these two templates work with each other, but my goal is to have the style field available in the regular template. --Jimeee (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Just a couple of minor sub-template tweaks needed. It was this one that was the main problem. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks! --Jimeee (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


Choco chip cookie.png
You have been given a cookie!

Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say:

For all the incredibly confusing template work!

Legoless (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ring of Vampire's KissEdit

Hi. Regarding this revision: But when you use the ring on others (Touch), nothing happens. Presumably it causes the player to absorb their own health (Self), making it effectively pointless. No? — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 03:39 on 21 March 2017

It's probably irrelevant to the game mechanics, I haven't looked into it, but since the Construction Set says it's Touch, we put Touch. It might make sense to add a note to the page to say that that's effectively pointless, though. Robin Hood  (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

RUESP as interwikiEdit

Hello, I see your commentary. Is it possible to add Russian UESP as interwiki? Did english sestion already discussed with Russian section about it? Sorry for my English. Alex Great (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Daveh is the person to talk to about that, and you should talk to the admins at RUESP as well. Currently, they run completely independently, so we have no control over whether they want to copy everything back here or if we'd be starting from scratch. Robin Hood  (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, both community wikis developed independently by each other so long time (from 2006). I think my question is not first question about merging of both wikis at united domain. Thanks for answer. Alex Great (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Book FooterEdit

As I was reading the CP I remembered my distaste for the Book Footer template. My distaste comes from the links that have to be manually added everytime it is added. Also, it needs to use the Lore Link template because it sits in two namespaces, and you had wanted to reduce its usage. I wonder if you could perhaps you could rewrite it so that it autolinks the 'up', 'next' and 'prev', while also accounting for the differing namespaces. That would probably require a secondary parameter for the displayed name. If you think that would be more complicated than the way it is now let me know. Of course this massive change of direction would need approval via CP if the idea is feasible, so as a famous person once said "don't be hasty" and change the template itself just yet. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm "taking the night off", so to speak, but I'll have a look at this tomorrow and see if there's something that can be done. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm...for such a simple template, when you combine it with Lore Link, the two of them together become fairly complex. I don't necessarily think that we'd be able to convert all the existing Book Footers, so a second template would probably be the way to go, at least until we get a feel for it. That being the case, I don't think community discussion would be needed at this point...I can just go ahead and design one and we can see how well it works. The best way to do it, I think, would be to shadow Lore Link (or possibly even call it internally). So the simple case would be identical to how it is now, minus any linking:
|up=Up Page
|next=Next Page
|prev=Prev Page
Then a more complex case could add display titles or namespace-specific links and titles:
|up=Up Page
|next=Next Page
|prev=Prev Page
|updisplay=This goes up
|obup=Oblivion Up Link
|obdisplay=Oblivion Up Text
The first three could even be unnamed parameters, though you have to be careful with spacing there...I think they'd need to come all on one line if we did that. (For bizarre historical reasons, MediaWiki strips spacing around named/numbered parameters, but not unnamed ones).
Does that seem like a good approach? Robin Hood  (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd one would be needed as most Next and Prev are shortened to simply "Part 2", and though I'm not sure any Up links need a display name I suppose it wouldn't hurt to include it. I was thinking more of replacing Lore Link with the NS_PARENT or NS_FULL, as there really shouldn't be any cross-namespace links in the footer. For example Songs of the Return vol 24 in Skyrim links to vol 56 which appears but in Lore it links to vol 27 from ESO. This is actually done by not transcluding the footer and writing one in each namespace, which would really complicate matters to include options for that. I'm not sure how numbering parameters works but probably best to do it so they can be separate lines for consistency. And now I see that maybe you have included a way to solve the SotR transclusion, but my ramble is done for now. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 11:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
So, as I started working on this, it occurred to me that we already have the next/prev values in the Book Summary, and I just had the bot add the up value. I modified the Book Summary template accordingly and created {{Book Footer Auto}}, which should require no parameters should just work. There are numerous instances where the next/prev in the footer didn't match the one in the summary, but one thing at a time...does Book Footer Auto actually work well here, in theory, or are there still a lot of places where we need special handling that can't just be fixed in the prev/next of the Book Summary? (Note that many pages won't display anything until the job queue catches up...if you do a null edit on the page, that should fix it.)
I think I understand the concept that it avoids redundant duplication in the footer by pulling the data from the summary box, but it doesn't seem to work despite null edits. The Nst template will probably suffice and at least then there will only be one section of complicated templating and not two, though the prev and next parameters are not transcluded with the Book Summary (afaik) and therefore it would only pull data that is already adapted. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't do enough testing on it before I left for lunch. It should be working in most cases now, though we may still need some tweaks for transcluded pages here and there. It's still fairly primitive, but if you specify pagename=2920, MidYear (v6) as a parameter, for example, it'll load the prev/next/up from that page in Lore space. Now that I'm back from lunch, I'll do more testing on it myself and see how things work out. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be working now, and it works as I understand it above. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

() Hmmm...this might need some re-thinking. Apparently, the data from the summary box gets saved as hard links instead of templates (i.e., Lore Links get converted to their Lore pages rather than staying as templates), so what I was trying isn't working out quite as expected. There may still be ways around it, it's just not going to be as easy as I'd hoped. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the "auto" template is a good idea, but it's going to have to go on the back-burner for now. I can almost make it work, but not quite. Because of how MetaTemplate works, the book summaries on every page would need to be altered to make them work the way we need them to, so I'll go back to Plan A, skip trying to load anything, and just give you automatic linking in some other template. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Take 2Edit

Okay, give {{Book Footer 2}} a try. It uses the same parameters discussed way above (prev, prevdisplay, next, nextdisplay, up, updisplay), and you can prefix any of those with the two-letter namespace letter to add namespace-specific parameters. It also supports skippage, though unlike the original Book Footer, I made it lowercase for consistency with all the other parameter names.

Examples (first in Lore, second in Skyrim):

Prev: 2920, Second Seed (v5) Up: 2920, The Last Year of the First Era Next: 2920, Sun's Height (v7)

Prev: 2920, Second Seed (v5) Up: 2920, The Last Year of the First Era Next: 2920, Sun's Height (v7)

Gotta go, but hopefully that's clear enough. Robin Hood  (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oblivion World SummaryEdit

I don't know if it's due to your recent edit of the template, but the {{Oblivion World Summary}} does not display the "# of Zones/Towers/Caves" as title sections (i.e. darker colour than the part with the number), as it does with the Place Summary. Can you remedy it please? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 20:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It was apparently never like that; I've changed it now. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


The header for the OPRP project is missing a word, which requires manual (i.e. bot) fixes on all affected pages. An anon found and fixed one for us as an example. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, easy peasy. Bot's working on it now. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Last modified on 3 June 2017, at 18:29