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)

I do have people contact me via PM at forums on a regular basis saying something like, "I read your tuturial but I don't understand this part," or "How do I do this over here," etc. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up to start with. That's okay, though. If I'm honest with myself, the bottom line is that if I'm going to spend six to eight hours writing, taking screens, editing and formatting a tutorial, I want my name on it. That's not a wiki-oriented goal, so I will take it elsewhere. I'll leave what I've done here, but I'm not going to give you ten more hours of work updating these tutorials for free for no credit at all. No one looks at History pages.

--SickleYield 11:09, 3 July 2007 (PST)

Sure they do. The history page is a normal aspect of the site, and so long as the attribution style is maintained, people quickly learn where to find such information. So let me show you a few history pages...

• UESP:Better Bodies. Took me about 4 hours to research, arrange, write the first version of the page. Several other people (esp. NioLiv) almost immediately grabbed the baton and quickly dumped a bunch of additional material on there. By two days after I posted it, I was already getting much more out of it than I originally put in.
• Tes3Mod:Leveled Lists a basic theory paper on leveled lists in Morrowind. It's fairly technical info, some of it known to other people, a lot of it knowledge that I figured out entirely by myself.
• Formids This is my original paper on formids. It covered a major point early in the lifetime of the game and provided modders a framework for understanding a crucial aspect of modding. Again, mostly my work with a few contributions by others.
• SI Reference Bug. This page was a crucial part of making the SI reference bug known. I wrote the first versions, summarizing Dateranoth's analysis, doing additional research, adding in a lot of my own knowledge, etc. A number of other people subsequently updated it (esp. Dateranoth and Nephele, who both put in a lot of work doing analysis). This page is a substantial part of why Bethesda actually fixed this bug. We documented it thoroughly and linked to it from front page of UESP. And with over 100k views, I think you can assume that it's part of the reason your copy of Oblivion is not hosed by this bug today.

These are just a few samples of my contributions at UESP (where I'm at #11 contributor with 1844 edits). And what do you notice about all this? I don't sign on the article pages. Now, I have no problem with ego and wanting credit for your contributions (my ego is certainly not small), but 1) credit is perfectly clear for those who have the wit to look for it, 2) you can see exactly what someone contributed by using the diff functions, 3) you'll often benefit from other people adding material to articles that you originally wrote, 4) you're already benefitting from the contributions of other people who have already seen the benefits of the wiki approach.

You can of course post your tutorials elsewhere. Other people who couldn't cool their ego down a little have done the same. What happens? They get lost, forgotten. They're there for a while, but then they quit updating, then they disappear. Or worse, they stay around, but get out of date and can't be updated by anybody. (Example: Felic became active late last Fall. He knew about the wikis, but decided to post his material on the forums anyway (ModFood). Great effort, but he's gone now so his posts can't be edited, updated or reorganized, and one day that topic is going to get wiped out by one of the periodic forum purges.)Wikis solve all these problems -- the information persists and gets updated as needed. The advantages to everyone are huge.

So, keep all that in mind before deciding that you can't handle having your authorial credit shifted restricted to the history tab. Frankly, if my justifiably huge ego can withstand it, so can yours. :lol:

--Wrye 22:57, 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)

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)

It's probably best to leave this section here. The equivalent page at UESP would be the Administrator Noticeboard. Ideally there will be more than one Sheriff, and people filling such positions come and go -- and for both these reasons, the relevant discussion should be in a common area, not on a particular Sheriff's page. Granted some small nuts and bolts stuff is likely to end up on DW's page, but larger issues should be here. (Or, if the discussion gets too large, on a separate common page.) --Wrye 16:46, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Good call on the common area for multiple "sheriffs" (I think the title's a little silly sounding), I hadn't thought that far ahead. Here this will stay.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 00:05, 5 July 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)

Function Filtering and Overhaul

Original Discussion

Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:24, 8 June 2007 (EDT): When OBSE first came out, I went and made it its own section, complete with function categories and the like. I fell away from Oblivion modding, and those pages have not been updated in my absence.

Noticing the lack of those functions, mmmpld went and accomplished the impressive feat of cataloging all functions, OBSE and Vanilla, here.

Given that this is considered useful, should OBSE functions be included on this main Functions page? We would, of course, still have Vanilla functions categories, and it would be easy to filter out OBSE functions for users who do not use OBSE.

It would mean a few things. First, this page would be quite a bit larger than it is. Second, this page is linked to directly from the first page, and OBSE is not officially supported by Bethesda (which may lead to some issues, or may not). Third, we would need to create additional OBSE and Vanilla versions of each function category, so we would have, for example, Actor Functions, Actor Functions: Vanilla, and Actor Functions: OBSE - this is the only way to maintain the ability to filter out only the kinds of functions we want to see. It would also mean more categories listed at the bottom of each functions' page - for example, you might see "Functions | Functions: Vanilla | Actor Functions | Actor Functions: Vanilla" - I don't mind this, but it could be an issue.

The advantages is that it's much easier for scripters who are actually using OBSE, without making things more difficult for scripters who don't. The functions wouldn't be segregated, and it would be easier to see what functions are available.

I am quite willing to do the work to set this up, but I'm not into unilateral decisions like this, so I would like some feedback.

Personally I wanted all the functions on one page, which as far as I know can't be done with the categories (at least from our side), so I'd still use the List of Functions. May also be a bit more confusing for those new to scripting. I'm indifferent really. —mmmpld 00:22, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

I think most scripters using OBSE will have read the OBSE documentation, so when they come to the wiki it's probably to look up more info on a specific function(s). New scripters on the other hand could easily become confused. Those are just my thoughts, though, and I am all for making OBSE more visible on the wiki as long as things are clear to new users. (And thanks for getting on top of the updates, DW - I've tried to keep up in your absence, but all of v0011 and most of v0010 are undocumented here). Scruggs 01:57, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Dragoon Wraith TALK 11:27, 9 June 2007 (EDT): Thanks Scruggs. I've been meaning to get back into it, but at this point I haven't even gone through to see what we do have, other than noticing that we were missing functions.

Anyway, that's a good point, mmmpld. I hadn't considered that problem. Your list will certainly remain valuable should we do this, so that there is a way to get them all in one place.

My thoughts are this - first, move all OBSE functions from their current page to one that has (OBSE) on the end of it, so that when they're all together, you can easily see which ones require OBSE. The top of the Functions page would explain, briefly, what OBSE is, and link to the corresponding page.

Then the break-down categories I described above would be made, and functions would be assigned categories. That means we would have a category for all functions, a category for all Vanilla functions, and a category for all OBSE functions. I'm not sure how warranted it is, but perhaps an Expansion functions or SI functions category (I'm only aware of PushActorAway, are there any others?). Then we would have the various "Type" categories - Actor Functions, Magic Functions, etc, plus a Vanilla-only and OBSE-only versions of each. This should make it very easy to continue scripting without OBSE functions if one so desires, while also enabling someone to see all the functions of a particular type that he could have access to. Checking one page is always nicer than checking several.

Oh, and another consideration. Is "Vanilla" an appropriate name for non-OBSE functions? It sounds a little informal to me. Seems like it should be "Native" functions or "Oblivion" functions or something.

I think there are a few other functions for SI, such as IsPlayerInSI. There's a list on the forums - http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=666465&hl=. To be exact, these functions are added by the new CS, and not the Shivering Isles expansion pack. The reason I draw this distinction, is that there were alot of problems with the new CS and, whether warranted or not, I won't use the new CS. For this reason, personally, I would like the original CS functions and the new CS functions to remain separate.

A brief explanation of OBSE and a link to mmmpld's list would work. The benefit of that organization - once you're using OBSE the source of the functions doesn't matter much, and if you want to make a non-OBSE mod, you can use the vanilla lists.

"Oh, and another consideration. Is "Vanilla" an appropriate name for non-OBSE functions? It sounds a little informal to me. Seems like it should be "Native" functions or "Oblivion" functions or something." Either term adds information where there should be none (Gricean logic, so take it as far as you want). Making the distinctions for OBSE and CSv1.0 functions should be enough.Haama 12:18, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Dragoon Wraith TALK 12:27, 10 June 2007 (EDT): So we should divide things by v0.8 (the version of the CS originally released to us - I'm fairly certain that we never got v1.0), v1.2, and OBSE then? Sounds good to me. Do you like the idea of having the different categories, each with an "all" section, a "0.8" section, a "1.2" section (if warranted), and an "OBSE" section?

Sounds good. I suppose it should default to the "all" version of the category (if it's set up to have a default) with clear OBSE markings? Don't know, most of the contributors seem to use OBSE, but don't know about the readers, and there's a substantial dislike of OBSE on the forums, so maybe the default should be of the vanilla functions.Haama 17:20, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Progress

Alright, I've set up almost all of the categories, and I've started adding functions to them. So far I've gotten through the vanilla functions that start with A and C, as well as all of the "Record Variable Functions".

I have not created new versions of vanilla's "Object Functions" and OBSE's "Reference Functions" - both of these labels are now confusing, thanks to the Terminology Discussion. Thoughts on what to call these?

Also, originally I had planned on moving every function page to one that had (OBSE vXXXX) or (CS 1.Y) after it, so you could see where each comes from in the category lists. I'm now starting to think this would just look cluttered. Thoughts?

Anyway, anyone who wants to help, feel free! But to keep things clean, please start with getting the CS functions into the CS categories, and then move the OBSE functions into the general categories as well as the new OBSE categories. That way we don't have things that are only in the General section and we don't know where they should go (easy enough to check, but this is enough work without adding more).
Dragoon Wraith TALK 16:20, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

All right, a little more than a quarter of the way through the original functions, and done with the version 1.2 functions. I've done all of the "small" blocks of letters - that is, everything but G, I, M, P, R, and S. Obviously still a lot to go (137 1.0 functions, to be exact), but it's a nice start. I'm done for now, as this is mind-numbing. I may tackle some more later.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 21:15, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

I did GetActionRef, until I realized that all of the condition functions have been setup for the general category, but not the CS 1.0 category, so I'll do those now.

--Haama 18:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

• sigh* Guess I can't work on this now, nevermind.

--Haama 18:51, 6 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)