Oblivion talk:Places

Archives
Archive 1: Jun 2006 - Jun 2007

Road signsEdit

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? --RpehTalk 12:22, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

missing ayleid ruin?Edit

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

A doubt about plugin-specific placesEdit

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. --NepheleTalk 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)

Something's WrongEdit

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.... --NepheleTalk 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. --RpehTCE 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. --RpehTCE 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!) --NepheleTalk 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 CamoranTCE 08:15, 7 November 2007 (EST)

ReligionEdit

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)

Out of this world?Edit

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)

TowersEdit

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)

Page SplitEdit

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. --NepheleTalk 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. --NepheleTalk 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. --NepheleTalk 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)

Different realmsEdit

Discussion moved to Oblivion talk:People.

Conjurer LairsEdit

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)

What Happend To The Places Pages?Edit

I think someone messed up the lists, just 2 days ago I was checking out campsites with full page info and screenshots and everything, now its just showing a blank pointform list with no links, needs to be restored. Mightylink

Oh its back now, thanks for restoring, or maby I just came at a bad time wile it was being edited, anyway thanks :) Mightylink
There was a glitch in the latest set of code updates, but as soon as I noticed the glitch, I fixed the code. Pages that happened to be freshly generated during the hour or so when the glitch was in place may have problems, but purging those pages should fix them. --NepheleTalk 21:36, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Quest Specific?Edit

What, exactly, does that mean? I assumed that it meant that a location (or part thereof) could not be accessed until a specific stage of a quest was reached. Then I saw that Nenyond Twyll is listed as quest related yet it is completely inaccessable until stage 20 of the Liberation or Apprehension? quest. --Foubister 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right in that assessment I think. The description for Nenyond Twyll is incorrect in that case, and needs to be fixed. --Timenn-<talk> 11:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Had a heck of a time finding where to go to fix it. It makes sense, though. One edit changes multiple pages. Smart. For any other newbies, like me, I changed Oblivion:Nenyond_Twyll/Description which changed the text on (at least) three different pages. --Foubister 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A page overview...Edit

I landed on the Places page from a link in the console page(s). My purpose was to find an example of the usage of the location codes as well as to see if there were any comments on using the other location reference methods (i.e. Tamriel 10,-90) that I have seen in the text on this site. I was hoping the places page would at least give and overview of "places". Especially since many of the bug related topics contain references to "cells". So it seems then that "Places" either contain or are strongly linked to "cells" and "locations". I did have some success using the console command coc (I think) and one of the location codes mentioned on one of the place page links but others did not work so I could not help but wonder why?

BTW, I know this is old stuff and will never see a reply here but at least I have set myself free of the angst of fishing through it looking for a couple of good examples. — Unsigned comment by Mgntml (talkcontribs) on 18 September 2010

I'm not sure I understand you. Console location codes should always work. If there are numbers then it's probably an exterior. Use coe instead of coc and just the numbers, so coe 10,-90. rpeh •TCE 12:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing battlehorn Castle on Fort listEdit

Battlehorn castle is not on the fort list, despite other plugins/downloads getting their places listed (with a notation that the locations are 'plug-in specific). Bamspeedy (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Added. —⁠Legoless (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Places" page.