Community Portal

This is the primary discussion forum for the CS Wiki. Decisions made by the editors here on the Wiki will be posted here, as well as links to on-going discussions. Please be sure to use Signatures and Indentation appropriately in discussions - if you are unsure of proper style, please see our Welcome to Wiki Syntax guide.

Contents

Discussion Subpages
Active Discussions

• None

Old Discussions

• None

Debate on Discussions

When Wrye made the original page, he decided to include debates within this page. I prefer to keep them on a separate page, and simply have blurbs here about the decisions that have been made, to keep things concise. So I'm putting this debate here (since this was the style currently in use before we lost the Community Portal), please post your comments. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

The approach at UESP is that discussions start on the Community Portal and then move to a subpage if they get very long. The advantage of starting them on the CP is that people who watch it may ignore a first post, but will notice if a discussion becomes contentious and then pay attention. Whereas if you only have the subpage, there will just be one notice when the subpage is started -- and thus your regulars may fail to notice a discussion that they would like to contribute too if they knew it were contentious.

The downside of this approach is that the CP page tends to grow in length and thus require more active pruning to archives and subpages. And countering argument in preceding paragraph, if it's the norm for longer discussions to start on subpages, regulars can adjust to that.

Either way, links to subpages should be in an easy to find place. I've recreated the Contents section that got lost earlier to facilitate that. --Wrye 19:07, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... That sounds reasonable. And it seems to be working pretty well with us here. Alright then, unless we have any objections, I'm amenable to that. --Dragoon Wraith TALK 19:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Signatures

Before the Community Portal was lost, we had been having a debate about where signatures go in discussions. While the discussion had not been closed, no input had been made for a while. The voting, as I remember it, was 4-3 in favor of putting signatures at the end.

The primary argument for putting signatures at the front of posts was so that we know who is talking before we start reading.

The primary arugments for putting signatures at the end of posts was because this is how things are generally done in letters and the like, and because it definitively ends our post (so someone after us with sloppy signing won't be confused for part of our post).

Feel free to make any comments you like, as to whether we should consider this poll closed (in which case I will move my signatures), if you have anything more to add, or if you feel that either side was misrepresented. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I think we should close this discussion next monday. I don't think we'll see any more votes. --Qazaaq 09:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Sounds fine to me. By the way, please include a space between your post and the previous post. --DragoonWraith TALK 20:03, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

It's Monday. :) --Wrye 17:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is, I think moving the signatures on this page is a good idea and all old signatures you come along. --Qazaaq 18:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Alright. For the sake of clarity, I will change all of my signatures on this page, and I'll use the end from now on. I'm not going to change every instance of my signature however, as it is probably the most common non-word string on the Wiki at the moment (I know it's the most common link...)--DragoonWraith TALK 19:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Just moved all of my signatures... perhaps we ought to put a return before our signatures if they're at the end? I see a lot of signatures wrapping, making it somewhat difficult to read. --Dragoon Wraith TALK 19:28, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea, will do that in the future. --Qazaaq 20:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Article vs Discussion Distinctions

While this Wiki, by its nature, has a lot more discussion than most, including in the Article space, there is a general problem here that far too many things are signed, as if someone's personal writing that cannot be edited. This is not acceptable on a Wiki - everything is open for editing unless specifically a discussion or in someone's user space. We need some discussion on exactly what we want this Wiki to be like, and how we can fix things as they are. --Dragoon Wraith TALK 00:12, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm against signing anything but talk pages and discussion pages like this. Discussion should take place at the forums or the articles talk page. For questions about an article counts the same, talk page or the forums. If an article is in need of discussion put a link to a forum thread or the talk page at the bottom. Leaving your name will discourage others to edit the article and encourage discussion with only author instead of everyone on the Wiki. Signatures on existing pages should be removed. --Qazaaq 10:03, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying I won't comply with any rules set, but I don't fully agree. I just don't see any evidence that any of my tutorials have been edited by anyone other than me after the first week they were posted, whether signed or unsigned -and that was only to correct the capitalization of the NIF scripts. I now sign most of my tutorials so that people know whom to contact for questions, clarification, or help with their learning process. I really like to be able to assist people in a personal way with modeling and texturing, and how I can I do that if they can't find the original author of a tutorial no one else has touched in eight months? --SickleYield 11:09, 3 July 2007 (PST)

I agree with you completely, but to play devil's advocate and to repeat some ideas lost to the server crash: If people have questions they should leave them in the tutorial's discussion page, and if they really want to contact the original author then they can look at the page's history.

--Haama 04:38, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

The History page should be sufficient. By including your signature, you may be preventing others from editing the article. Further, it also breaks, I think, the cohesion of the Wiki - when one gets to your tutorial, one seems to leave the general, public, Wiki, and enter the private world of your tutorial. This kind of seam is something that web designers actively avoid in general, and it's especially important for something like this. The biggest flaws in the Wiki are that it's difficult to navigate and that too many articles ignore the rest of the Wiki.

Out of curiousity, how many people have contacted you by way of your tutorials? I realize this is a concern, especially with a tutorial entirely written by yourself. I think there may be situations where a signature could be appropriate, but it can't be seen as declaring ownership or rights to the article. Anytime there is something that says "This is mine", it detracts from the Wiki, in my opinion. On the other hand, if we could find a way to show that you are the primary contributor to a given article and that you are receptive to answering questions, that would be excellent. As I said earlier, the History page should be sufficient, but it's often not. Very few people actually look there.

Anyway, I often feel like these discussions are preaching to the choir a bit, so I'm glad to see another viewpoint. Please, Sickle, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the topic.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:22, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad to see that this effort is continuing. As I posted earlier (before the Great Loss), no attributions on article page is absolutely the norm for this type of wiki. And it's an important norm for the reasons already mentioned (encouraging people to edit articles) -- that's absolutely core to wiki approach. Credit and contacts are not problems -- again the history and discussion pages serve those purposes quite well.

And this is not based just on theory -- this is my experience from writing quite a few articles on UESP and editing many, many others. When you write an article on a wiki, you're only the first person to write that article. As the text at the bottom of each editing page says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here."

Along those lines... Something that should be done at some point is removal of attributions from article pages -- if it's a clear article (not a discussion), then chop out the attributions. This was one of the things that the we had to do at UESP a couple of years ago (and still have to do a little bit with some newbie edits).

--Wrye 16:36, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

General Cohesion Initiative

Something I personally I feel is lacking here is cohesion amongst the articles. Too many articles are stand-alones, with few links to them and few links in them. Everything should be interlinked - you've all, I'm sure, had the experience of looking up something on Wikipedia and suddenly realizing that you've spent over an hour reading a dozen or more different articles which have increasingly little to do with whatever you looked up. That's how a Wiki should be - links everywhere, where you can move through the pages just by clicking and learn about everything. Navigation needs improvement here, as does the amount of linking we use.

I also recommend breaking up tutorials somewhat. Avoid large, scratch-to-finish tutorials, favoring shorter pages which focus on one specific thing, with links to the next step's page. This makes specific information much easier to find.

So in general, we need ideas about what this Wiki needs. Please post your ideas. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:12, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Before everything was lost, Wrye mentioned something about a breadcrumb trail like the UESP. I like it, but I'm not sure if it's that's going to solve the problem with the tutorials. --Qazaaq 10:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Depends. Are the parts more important than the whole? I strongly feel that no user wants to read an article on importing body meshes, then an article on editing vertices in Blender, then an article on export into NifSkope, then an article on getting a cuirass into the CS. They want to know how to put what's in their head into the game, start to finish - and the rank beginner doesn't have the slightest inkling how many steps there are or in what order to look for them. This is what made me start writing tutorials to start with. The scripting section alone drove me absolutely nuts, and still does. I've never once wanted to know all the functions in the game. I've wanted to perform one specific action with one specific character which many other people might also hav been interested in - but it wasn't there, because process tutorials are for the most part not written for scripting. (Try going from "My First Script" to "set up a character who always sleeps, gives a script message on attempt at vampire feeding, and can still wake up later on.") --SickleYield 11:31, 3 July 2007 (PST)

Community "Sheriff"

I have been appointed the community's first "Sheriff". What this means is that I have access to a special "rollback" tool for reverting pages (useful for fighting spam/vandalization), and that I can lock and unlock pages (and edit locked pages). I have been chosen, as far as I can tell, because I was the one who bugged Bethesda about making one, though I also have some seniority around here. I'm told this is a "trial run" and that others may be promoted as well in the future. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Sheriff Action Requests

This really should go in my Talk page or something, but since there was a section about this before, I'm putting it back. After things get settled, I expect to remove it.

First of all, a number of requests had been made, regarding the site design, the search engine, and the Toolbox. I cannot do any of these things, but I have passed these requests on to Bethesda directly (as I do not expect that they check here regularly).

Further, I'd asked for suggestions for changes to the Main Page, most notably the blurb in the top right, and the Featured Article that hasn't changed since the Wiki began. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I think 'the blurb' is looking quite good like this, there isn't much you can change. For the featured article I'd suggest A beginner's guide by dtom, it's an excellent guide and I'd be nice to see something different. --Qazaaq 10:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Terminology Discussion

Wrye's lengthy article explaining the confusion of modding terminology has been lost. While I am sure that it will return, I just wanted to point out that this discussion is ongoing - see the thread on the ESF. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Discussion has been almost entirely recovered, but is now at UESP:Modding Terminology. --Wrye 18:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Trivial / Homeless / Uncertain Facts Page

There had been some talk about creating a page for random, but useful information, or information that needed investigation. The idea would be that things could be put there, to be integrated into a relevant article at a later date. It would function as something of a "to-do list" for the Wiki, though with a relatively narrow scope. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

It's a good idea to have a page for these things, it's better to have them here than only in someone's head. A link from the main page or the talk page is a good idea, those facts should be read by as much people as possible. --Qazaaq 10:19, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I made an Unfinished Articles category, that should be useful for these kind of things. It's better than having no category at all. --Qazaaq 18:18, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Scripting Section Hierarchy

Suggestions for improving the way the scripting section was laid out and put together should go here. I know there was some discussion of this, but I forget exactly what suggestions had been made or what was being discussed. I feel that improvements can certainly be made, so I want to encourage that discussion to restart. --DragoonWraith TALK 00:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Like I mentioned at the Discussion vs. Article section, I think the breadcrumbs sound like a good idea. To organize the scripting section is should work very well. --Qazaaq 10:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

At the very least I would like to see all of the subcategories found in Category: Scripting to be placed on the Main Page. However, I think the scripting heirarchy needs an overhaul. I would mainly like to see the scripting tutorials mixed in with the scripting category. I suggested something along the lines of: Basics (variable types, blocktypes, commands), Functions, Basic scripts (stuff like the MessageBox Tutorial to further show how to exploit a single command), Advanced script (a working Dynamic/Linked Lists tutorial), etc. There was more, but I'll need some time again to look over the subcategories.--Haama 13:05, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with including all of the subcategories of scripting in the Main Page. I think it would look cluttered and I don't think it's necessary. Other than that, though, it seems like your ideas are good. --DragoonWraith TALK 20:07, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

My brain's more of a phantom limb right now, but I'm going to try to look through the scripting stuff now. The first thing that strikes me - should Conditions really be under scripting? There are some condition only functions, etc. that might find a better home under a AI subcategory of Actor Behavior. More to come, or I'm asleep, one of those.

Didn't get too far, but here's what I'm thinking so far - set things up more as a heirarchy, particuarly a tutorial-aimed heirarchy, then as the current shotgun blast of information. For instance, the variables page talks a little about shorts, longs, and floats when it should have notes of all of the types of variables, including the special variables. The script type page is a better example of how things should look, but it still needs to mention Magic, Object, and Quest scripts somewhere and the incredibly basic and necessary info on how to attach those scripts.

Another side point, the links to "See Also", etc. articles should mention whether they're taking a step back in the heirarchy (i.e., from Category: Functions to Category: Commmands). Having categories listed as subcategories of each other is simply maddening.

So here's the heirarchy I've got so far:

1. Background Info
   1. Using/Attaching Scripts
   2. Script Types
   3. Block Types
   4. Variables
2. Functions
   1. Splash page describing the parts of most functions, what OBSE is, different CSes, etc., with a link at the bottom to the different filters/categories of functions
   2. Functions themselves, of course (hey DW, is the brief discussion of the OBSE filtering, etc. still here?)
3. Basics
   1. Debugging (Troubleshooting doc, etc.)
   2. Useful Code and Tutorials - not necessarily easy, but necessary information to correctly use a function (i.e., the MessageBox Tutorial), do the most common tasks (i.e., how to use an activator), or building blocks that most other tutorials will use (i.e., [[Unplayable Items|tokens).
   3. Console Commands - more debugging goodness, really
   4. I think I might put random information in this category. By random, I mean useful information like (I think this is true) when using an activator you'll want to put the MoveTo player on the activator rather than the calling script, to make it move that very frame, and will want it to be disabled, etc.
4. Advanced - the rest of the tutorials
5. Misc. (haven't figured out where to put this stuff)
   1. Random info
   2. Lists of commands/functions as they appear in scripts
   3. Lists of globals/game settings
   4. Questions and answers that might prove useful
   5. Script processing - probably in the first sections with script types? The category might have to be reworked to be more than Script Types.--Haama 22:19, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good. I hope to at least get started on the filtering thing today, in answer to your question. What remains of that discussion can be found at Category Talk: Functions. --DragoonWraith TALK 08:57, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't think we should split up the tutorials in two sections. The goal of the whole thing is making information easier to find, so why make it more difficult? You already have to look in two categories; tutorials and useful code. The rest sounds like a good idea.

--Qazaaq 20:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Bot for scripts

Seesh, I just found a script from a link in the OBSE Wishlist section. Is there a way to make a bot that will look through the wiki for <pre> tags?
--Haama 16:53, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused, what do you mean you found a script from a link in the OBSE Wishlist?

Dragoon Wraith TALK 23:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

lol, that's my point exactly. It's a DropAllItems script, explaining how to do it for a request (at the bottom of the OBSE Wish List page). This is the type of information that should be readily available, but is nearly lost in the middle of nowhere.

--Haama 04:43, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Aha, yes, that kind of thing is rampant on the Wiki, unfortunately. Worse still, it's not just scripts (and not all scripts use the <pre> tag), so I'm not sure how much this can be automated. I suspect that we will have to actually go through the Wiki to find stuff.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:13, 4 July 2007 (EDT)