User talk:TheRealLurlock/2012 06

Addition to Spelling GuideEdit

Your recent addition to UESPWiki:Spelling states that "Daedric Princess is never correct". Consensus was reached before that 'Princess' can be correctly used (see this discussion). I strongly disagree with the decision, so if you'd like to start a community discussion we might hopefully be able to get rid of that rule. Otherwise, without consensus, that sentence should be removed. —Legoless 15:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lulz; I was just coming here to say something along those lines. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 19:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of Invocation of Azura. • JA^Talk 19:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if that is in favour of "Princes", but it has this line near the end, "Azura is the only Daedra Princess I have...". The Silencer speaks^Talk 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The other book that uses the phrase "Daedra Princess" is Purloined Shadows, right at the beginning of the fifth paragraph and at the end of the first sentence in the tenth paragraph. Now, what I find interesting is that in the Daggerfall version of Invocation of Azura, it uses the phrase "Daedric Prince" instead, but uses feminine pronouns throughout, such as "she", "her", etc. It's in the later version of this book that the term "Daedric Princess" is used, indicating that the use of this phrase was intentional. Purloined Shadows only appears in Oblivion and Skyrim, but it too uses this phrase. So, it looks like the developers intended to use this phrase - whether it was to specify their assumed gender or highlight their ambiguity, I'm not sure. Are we going to go against the developers in this situation, and assume that they unintentionally made a lore-based error? • JA^Talk 19:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as we know, the book was edited in-game but the general public does not know, or general usage changed. Alternatively, we could assume that Hammerfell and High Rock prefer to group them all as Princes but Skyrim and Cyrodiil do not. Whatever it is, Princess is used in two books--more recent ones--than Prince in reference to (generally) female Princes, so I would think that such would be preferred. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that these are exceptions to the rule. Both Azura and Nocturnal are otherwise consistently referred to as "prince" rather than "princess". I think we should treat these two cases the same way we do typos. When directly quoting the books, leave them as "princess" since that's what the books say. Perhaps even add a sic tag to indicate that these are known exceptions. But in all other cases when referring to them use the generally preferred "prince". We can amend the Spelling page to mention those exceptions, but in general, "princess" should not be used. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 02:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that there are examples of one or both of them being referred to as "princess" by NPCs; it's not just limited to two books. A substantial number of the people of Tamriel seem to know them as "princesses", so it's incongruous to have a ban on referring to them as such (in the lorespace, at least). No one's denying that they're also called Daedric Princes occasionally, we're just saying that "prince" and "princess" are interchangeable for these specific daedra. More to the point, it's unnecessary to have an explicit ban when mere non-proliferation of the term by editors will suffice, and unnecessary policy is generally bad policy. No one here is going to start an edit marathon to make sure they're always referred to as daedric princesses (I think), and I wouldn't personally call them princesses outside of mentioning they're sometimes called that on their respective pages. But in my opinion, if another editor comes along and makes a contribution which happens to refer to one or both as princesses, he/she isn't really doing anything wrong, and the speech police shouldn't be called out to change their work over something so arbitrary. That carries the potential of needlessly antagonizing editors who are just trying to positively contribute. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(←) Even if there are a few exceptions though, they are far more frequently referred to by the gender-neutral "prince". I've amended the rule indicating that there are exceptions, but it's definitely still worth noting that usage of the term "Daedric Princess" is very rare compared to "Daedric Prince". --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion problem (Lore Places)Edit

Hey Lurlock, I wonder if you could help me out on a problem regarding Lore Places. As you can see in the edits, I have tried to harmonize Skyrim:Dunmeth_Pass and Lore:Dunmeth_Pass. The mandatory Place Summary description entry and the transclusion of the Lore text underneath resulted in two sentences starting with “Dunmeth Pass is …” on Skyrim:Dunmeth_Pass. Using noinclude and includeonly, I managed to let the second sentence start with “It …”. But this is displayed on Lore:Places_D as well, and now there is no link to the main Lore article. How can I achieve a clean transclusion that results in a good text on all three pages? --Holomay 11:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it with a little namespace-check. Now only displays "It" in Skyrim namespace. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it! I think I see what #ifeq is doing - I made another edit so that now the texts are identical. Hope it's ok. --Holomay 13:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Brandy for the Fundraising DinnerEdit

Sorry for the delay in responding. Anyway, yes, Dulnea Ralaal's disposition was (and is) above 80 (100, precisely) and she gives to me just one bottle of brandy. I use the Xbox Goty Version, is this different? --Giant Lizard 16:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No easy way of knowing. I have the PC version (still GotY), and I looked at the actual scripts in the construction set to verify the bug. Not having the Xbox version, I couldn't test that, so I don't know. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)