User talk:Jondrasar
- A numbered list just makes it seem too linear.
Well, to be fair, almost every quest in Oblivion is pretty linear... :) Endareth 01:07, 6 April 2006 (EDT) (Person who uses lists a lot!)
True, when you get right down to the nuts and bolts it's all hard-coded but The Elder Scrolls series as a whole has more of a non-linear feel to it than most other single-player dungeon crawls I've played. I usually try to get as far as I can on my own and read quest details when I get stuck or lost. Jondrasar 01:26, 6 April 2006 (EDT)
Just an FYI: When linking to a city within a quest page, try to not link to the tamriel transclusion of it. Generally this will bring you back to the city listed within the games namespace anyways. Also, when editing descriptions for anything located within subpages (Ex: Oblivion:Quests/questname), there will be a subpage of the quest (/Description) that should be edited, instead of the actual quest page Fushi 00:40, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
re: Fushi's commentsEdit
"When linking to a city within a quest page, try to not link to the tamriel transclusion of it".
"Also, when editing descriptions for anything located within subpages (Ex: Oblivion:Quests/questname), there will be a subpage of the quest (/Description) that should be edited, instead of the actual quest page".
- The incorrect link in the Description was copied and pasted from an incorrect link already existing in the Details section (see point 2). I didn't catch the bad link, sorry about that, I'll watch for those in future.
- I intended to edit the content (grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc) only, but when the Description is formatted with :{{/Description}} instead of the usual ==Description== this makes it very difficult. All that shows up in the edit page is:
- ==Description==
- {{/Description}}
No previous descriptive text appears, making it impossible to even see, let alone simply edit out any errors or make changes. One must copy the original text from the originating page as it displays, not as it is actually formatted, and paste in into the description area. Hence, my copying the bad link from the Details part of the page because it wasn't available from the Description section.
Take a look at the Fighters Guild Quests and Thieves Guild Quests sections. None of those quests uses {{/Description}} but uses the much easier and simpler ==Description==, which creates a separately editable Description section that leaves the original text intact for the purposes of editing. This is how I found them when I first started editing pages and this is how I've left them. I edited the section you refer to because I believed it to be in error. This is the first I've seen or heard about using {{/Description}}. Is the Main Quest section different somehow that it requires {{/Description}} instead of ==Description==? Where are these details discussed and decisions made?
- Fushi has been working on subpages for improved accuracy of information that is referenced in more than one spot. This has been getting discussed extensively on the Style Sheet page, which admittedly may not be that obvious for someone just starting editing here. I must admit that using the /Description style can be a little trickier to edit, might try and look into a way to try and improve that, but I still think it's worth sticking to. -- EndarethTalk 03:29, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
I appreciate the feedback Fushi. I'll fix the city links in the Details section as soon as I post this, obsessive compulsive that I am, heh. Jondrasar 03:09, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
- I generally fix things as I find them, so it's fixed already (unless you've changed more than just that one page). As Endareth said, we're in the midst of switching over. I suppose the best rule of thumb is to ask someone in the discuss for that page, if you don't know. Fushi 03:33, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Thanks Endareth, reading now. Jondrasar 03:43, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
Fushi: nope, I just fixed the city links and Next Quest link (Next Quest formatting might still be incorrect but at least it points to the correct page now). Didn't want to revert something to something I'm not sure it's correct to revert to, lol. Jondrasar 03:48, 3 May 2006 (EDT)