Shivering talk:Nanette Don

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search


Her dress is absolutely gorgeous. What is it? Is there a way for the player to get a copy? Sarikitty 06:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the red finery. The easiest way to obtain it would be to buy it from Tilse Areleth at Common Treasures, though it also appears randomly in containers. –Eshetalk 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh superior, so that's standard finery in SI? /happydance Thank you! 08:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bug Desc[edit]

While researching her schedule a few AI packages stood out because they seemed quite bugged. Here they are:

The first one is the package that makes her read her book all day long until Stage 25 of the rel. quest: SE02NanetteDonStudy. She is supposed to read this book but since she doesn't carry a copy and it isn't present in her house, it would seem logical that she should just stay still, a normal feature of broken packages. From my in-game observations (the picture I took of her shows her exactly during this particular AI package) I notice that she is reading. At this point the most logical explanation is that she reads The Book of Daedra since she carries a copy on her person and its count is -1, which usually means that it is used in a package.

The second package relates to the above. Her second reading package (SENanetteDonXaselmRead75) is set to use this book, which again is no-where to be found. It is possible that the books for the two packages were mixed up, since a copy of the above-mentioned one is present in Xaselm. Based on my findings in regards to the above package (i.e. she reads her own book instead) I included this package in the schedule as well, although I'm not 100% sure.

The next problem is one of random percentages that concern three packages, all set to commence when there is a gap in the other packages: the above-mentioned reading package, SENanetteDonXaselmAlchemy50 and SENanetteDonXaselmSummon100. The second package is set to make her use the nearby mortar & pestle while the third should make her cast an Apprentice level Summon Skeleton spell. The main problem with these is their timing. All packages have random probabilities; they are: reading 50% (chance none is <=50), alchemy 25% (chance none is <=75) and spell 0% (chance none is <=100). As you can notice I added the actual raw data from the CS (chancenone) because I'm not sure whether the percentages I gave were correct.

In any case, if I'm not mistaken AI packages are chosen in order from top to bottom. So, assuming my percentages are correct, I have two ideas of how the schedule would work out: read package is evaluated, if it isn't chosen she stays still, after 1 hour package gets re-evaluated. This means only the read package is used (I doubt this is right). Or, more likely: read package is evaluated, if it fails: alchemy package is evaluated, if it fails: spell package is evaluated, but never gets chosen, therefore she stands still. This is because a) percentage is 0% and b) she can't cast a summon skeleton spell.

My third theory is that I've got the percentages wrong and that they are actually: 50%, 75% and 100%. This would make more sense: if you fail one action, it is more likely for the next to happen (assuming that's what happens). However, there is still a slim chance that, if the first two packages are not chosen, she will stand still (she can't cast the spell). Now.... Have I got this completely wrong? Thoughts? --SerCenKing Talk 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One Section Only?[edit]

This article is obnoxiously long and drawn out, with no point of reference whatsoever. I added the cleanup tag, and will start tonight, but please please please help divide up this article. SkoomaManiac 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please use a Sandbox for the task - when you're done, you are more than welcome to contact me and get an opinion. Thanks in advance! --Krusty 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Shite. I'll undo it.SkoomaManiac 01:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to format the Shivering Isles people under the guidelines of the Oblivion NPC redesign project? Axxchor 02:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That would be a question for the ONPCRP talk page. SkoomaManiac 02:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Shivering Isles namespace is already a part of the ONPCRP. Therefore, all SI NPC articles are already under the guidelines of the ONPCRP.--Kalis AgeaYes? Contrib E-mail 03:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
So am I right to think that SkoomaManiac would do well to divide up this person page into sections described by ONPCRP? i.e. - Quest Involvement, Schedule etc.? I ask for my own reference as well. Axxchor 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

() No, we do not split up pages in sections such as "Schedule", "Inventory" etc but rather incorporate everything into a fluid text. The only option here really is to proceed similarly to Relmyna Verenim and add "Through the Fringe of Madness" and "Rebuilding the Gatekeeper" sections to document what she does during those quests. --SerCenKing Talk 09:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

While your attempt looks good, I think we should wait and see what happens when the SIRP gets closer to completion. It is true that the SI NPC pages are massive, and I considered making sections for Nanette Don back when I revamped her, but it works for some NPCs and looks awkward for others. Relmyna is so incredibly complex and interesting that it was a no-brainer to add sections to her page, while Nanette Don is a bit more secondary. It’s all about consistency and maybe we should just wait a little while (I’ll have all the SI NPCs finished shortly) and then discuss if any of the pages should have headers. --Krusty 09:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
ok so do you want me to speedydelete my sandbox? I personally think it looks ridiculously awkward with no sections (not to mention harder to edit) but I'm a new player in this game and if you say to wait a while, I will. (by which I mean, her article is so long, it would be IMO kind of silly NOT to break it up. SkoomaManiac 21:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Remember, this is my opinion only. We have LOTS of NPC pages the same size (or bigger) than Nanette's, so I think we should have this discussion when all the SIRP work is said and done. Also, since you created the Sandbox in the wrong namespace, we will have to either delete it or move it to your userspace anyway. If you feel strongly about the whole sections-thing right now, it is probably a lot wiser to discuss it here. --Krusty 22:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about it enough to screw up what you guys are doing with the ONPCRP. I'll add a topic in the talk section of the redesign project, add a delete tag to the sandbox and move it to my userpage. Easy enough. And by all means, send me a tasklist with something I can specialize in with the Redesign project if it'll make it go faster. Otherwise, I can slowly work my way through the general tasklist, if that's what needs doing. I'm all for becoming involved with that if I'm needed there. But I DO think a wall of text (especially the size of Nanette Don's page or bigger) is rather off-putting, intimidating to read, and harder to make quick edits to. So, speedydelete, move, new talk section, and message me, by all means. SkoomaManiac 03:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The new sandbox can be found [[User:SkoomaManiac/sandbox/1|here]] and the new conversation can be found here. —SkoomaManiac 04:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible reference?[edit]

Nanette Vaughn was a witness in the relatively publicized Jocelyn Dooley case (for the murder of her husband), most memorable for her erratic behavior, including requesting that the judge run out to get her a McGriddle before she testified. Her testimony played a large role in Dooley's conviction.— Unsigned comment by Snappysir (talkcontribs) at 23:09 on 6 February 2013‎

Other than the name, and both being slightly crazy, what is the connection between the two? Is there any specific connection to the case itself? Or Nanette requesting a food item? Jeancey (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2013 (GMT)
-Edit, still getting to know this form- Similar name, slightly crazy women responsible for the downfall of their trusted friend. Also, the prosecution said later that right up to the end of the trial they weren't sure if Nanette fully understood the fact that she was sending her friend to prison, which I thought was pretty similar to interactions with Nanette Don in Passwall. If nothing else, I thought it was neat. — Unsigned comment by Snappysir (talkcontribs) at 00:41 on 7 February 2013‎