Template talk:Lore Place Summary

Alignment

I was wondering how one goes about defining the alignment of the template (i.e. left, right, center)? Thanks beforehand.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't any way of doing that. Now you should be able to add "|align=left" to switch it to the left hand side. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this useful?

I am tempted to propose this for deletion because the template itself is rather uninformative and bland. The information that could be contained in it is better suited for information in the article (there aren't any stats or numerical values to portray). I think it was supposed to be used for a categorical hierarchy, but I think it missed that boat.

Now, this would still be useful for categorizing, but the table really should go... Elliot (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The parameters are very limiting, and it seems to exist simply for categorising purposes. --Legoless 17:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The categorisation scheme was quite useful, but it's more complex than I originally realised. If you just prod the template, though, I'll revert because I'm damned if I'm going to have to remove all the links. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bodies of Water?

Can any template shamans out there tweak this so it's more descriptive of bodies of water? As you can currently see at Lore:Lake Geir and Lore:Lake Honrich, I just can't quite get it to cooperate; saying that lakes are types of "regions" doesn't quite seem right to me. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:45, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

The entire template needs some serious expansion. Perhaps a "landmarks" section would be sufficient for lakes, mountains, etc. —Legoless (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

Additional region parameter(s)

With ESO, we've seen a dramatic increase in regions within regions, so I think it would be appropriate to add some sort of sub-regions parameter. It would probably be best if it didn't automatically link (I haven't had a formal discussion about it, but I think redirecting the sub-zones to their respective zone pages would make things easier in the long run). Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 18:47, 4 May 2014 (GMT)

This, please. It was already an issue even before ESO. —Legoless (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2014 (GMT)

Purely by functionality, this is already partly doable with the type and name parameters; would you be looking for an actual sub-region entry as well (eg for Koeglin Village, having Sub-Region: Alcaire and Region: Stormhaven); or would that not be necessary (eg having Koeglin Village's region as Alcaire, while having Alcaire's region as Stormhaven)? --Enodoc (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2014 (GMT)

Oh wait, you say we might redirect sub-zones to their zone pages, in which case, could we not just do region=Alcaire, Stormhaven (or region=Alcaire (Stormhaven), or just region=Alcaire) and regionLink=Stormhaven#Alcaire? --Enodoc (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2014 (GMT)

Actually, what I mean is a parameter for sub-regions within a topic region. So, on Greenshade's page, we could have a "Sub-regions" section of the infobox listing Greensmarrow, Drowned Coast, and Court of Wilder King. A parameter for lesser regions encompassed by the subject region. Although I supposed it could hypothetically be used either way. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 15:30, 5 May 2014 (GMT)

Oh yeah, that makes sense I guess. Hadn't considered it that way around at all, honestly. In which case, it looks like a simple case of add-a-row. It probably would only be used on region pages, as it would otherwise need to be named differently in each case; Sub-regions for the list on region pages, while an entry on a location page would have to be Sub-region. In which case, using region=Alcaire (Stormhaven) and regionLink=Stormhaven#Alcaire would probably suffice. --Enodoc (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (GMT)

Well, I'm kind of rethinking the whole page-merging thing. Considering most of the High Rock pages already exist in some fashion due to DF, we'll probably want to create separate pages for each sub-zone for consistency. But regardless, I think a Sub-region parameter would be appropriate, even if its utility is limited to applicable region articles. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 21:44, 5 May 2014 (GMT)

OK, the parameter's in, subregions=. It's entirely basic; we'll have a play with it and see if it works out. It's currently not restricted by any other parameters, and takes all forms of free text (ie, no autolinks, categories or anything are applied by it automatically). --Enodoc (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2014 (GMT)

Exactly what I was looking for; thanks! Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 22:53, 5 May 2014 (GMT)

(←) To go on a similar topic, could we add a similar parameter for a specific location like a city. So for Balmora, we have the basic region of Vvardenfell but could add another parameter for the West Gash since Balmora is located in the West Gash, which is in turn located in Vvardenfell. The subregions parameter that we have now is for regions like Vvardenfell, for the purpose of listing them but what I'm asking is almost the opposite. --Vincentius1 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this not work? —Legoless (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that was for regions like Vvardenfell, to list its sub-regions, that what it says for the description. But that works, if it's okay. --Vincentius1 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine per the above discussion, although I suppose it might be better to have it display as the singular "sub-region". —Legoless (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, subzones is specifically for regions within a region. As I mentioned four years ago, if you want to detail a location that is within a subregion, you could use region=Alcaire, Stormhaven, region=Alcaire (Stormhaven), or just region=Alcaire. --Enodoc (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Maps

What about maps? Currently ESO provides huge amount of maps of various cities regions and towns. This info can be extracted out of the game files if needed. The question is wether we need that information and will we add it into the template?

My opinion would be that the map of the certain region must go where now the overall image goes due to the fact that generl view of the place may vary from era to era but mapping will be changed rarely. What are your opinions on the subject?