User talk:Foubister

Sorry about that first contribution of mine on the talk page for Reflect Spell. I thought I had accidently put it on the wrong talk page, panicked, deleted it, and then realized I had hadn't made a mistake after all. Guess my learning curve has a few bumps.

Welcome

Hello! Welcome to UESPWiki. Don't worry about the bumps, it's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our Patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox and don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors if you need any help. Have fun! --Timenn-<talk> 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the welcome! It's appreciated, and encourageing, to know that someone took the time to do so. This will be my first attempt at contributing to a wiki so I'm planning on learning as much as I can before I take the plunge and actually change or create a page. Those links are going to come in very handy, thanks!--Foubister 04:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Spells

Thanks for adding that info, but I was wondering if there was an exception for some of them (because I thought you could use Greater Powers, i.e. racial abilities, to get a better spell). Is this the case? Thanks! –Elliot ^talk 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'm going to be doing an individual one for each effect. For example: Fortify Attribute can be aquired via spells, races, birthsigns, doomstones, vampirism, and perhaps one or two ways from KotN (although I haven't tested those so will not be including them).

Can you please use lower case on them as well? (The words spell making, enchanting, and spells should be lower case.) Thanks. –Elliot ^talk 08:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'll go back and change them.--Foubister 08:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have gotten all the way up to Damage Magicka. I will let you fix the rest :) –Elliot ^talk 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops on an edit summary

Accidently hit enter before fininshing my edit summary on Shivering:Gardens_of_Flesh_and_Bone. Should have said: Changed "quest-related" to "quest-specific. If anyone cares. lol Will look to see if there's anything in the guidelines about that.

Quest-Specific

I'm not sure I agree with changing "quest-related" to "quest-specific", but "mostly quest-specific" is a definite no-no. Dictionary.com defines "specific" as "having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose", and adding "mostly" to that doesn't work. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was following the format on the regular Oblivion pages. They have places listed as "quest-related", "quest-specific", and "mostly quest-specific". I was thinking along the lines of continuity but, if needed, I can revert my edits. Foubister 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "quest-related" because almost all locations can be visited outside of the related quest (afterwards if not beforehand). If there's a location that can only be visited during a quest, then quest-specific should be used. I hadn't noticed Malada and Vahtacen before - I've changed those two.

Don't revert your edits: I'd like to see a few more opinions before making any site-wide change. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see (I think) what you mean by related vs. specific. If the area is accessible only during the quest but not before and not after said quest then it is considered quest-specific? I thought it only meant the area was inaccessible before the quest. With "mostly" I assumed that meant that most of an area was inaccessible until the quest was started. I'm going to defer to your greater knowledge on this one. If I've understood you correctly, then I'm not sure what would be the best phrasing to use. Foubister 15:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer quest-related as well. While many places are inaccessible before the related quest, they can be visited at all times after the quest. In rare cases like Xeddefen where the interior is more or less destroyed, another term could be used (specific is a good choice), but otherwise the Notes section is meant to explain exactly when and when the place can be visited, which is all part of the OPRP project - like Gardens of Flesh and Bone, Xedilian and Fort Ontus. --Krusty 15:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I think "specific" gives the impression that a place is only accessible during the quest. Using "related" makes it clearer that the location simply plays a role in a quest. I don't think any clarification for how many areas are affected is necessary: as Krusty says, the notes should do that. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about it and doing it that way does seem much clearer. I'd be happy to go through the places categories and make the appropriate edits, unless you'd still like to wait. Foubister 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to go ahead now. We have the person making the original edits (you), the person who expressed a concern (me) plus an admin (Krusty) all agreeing so I don't see a problem. If there are objections later, it's not difficult to go back. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Working on that now. I have a character that's completed all the quest in regular Oblivion so I'm confirming each one before changing it. Once that character has completed all SI quests, I'll do them. Foubister 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)