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.

Discussion Subpages
Active Discussions

• None

Old Discussions

Signatures	Vandalism after Recaptcha
Where to put something?	Navigation Suggestion about Functions
Wiki Updates, August 7, 2007	Questions on the Wiki
Debate on Discussions	Article vs Discussion Distinctions
General Cohesion Initiative	Scripting Section Hierarchy
Terminology Discussion	Trivial, Homeless, Uncertain Facts Page
Bot for Scripts	General Organization
Move?	Community Sheriff
OBSE Plugin Functions	Article Tags

New Administration Noticeboard

Sheriff action requests and requests of Bethesda should now go here.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 11:56, 7 March 2008 (EST)

2nd Revitilizing the Wiki thread?

The first Revitilizing thread seems to have helped quite a bit, and is nearing the 200 post limit. I think it would be good to make a second one, and as per the suggestions by SciMuse - keep the discussions out of it and, if we do pop in, keep it light and only mention things that can currently be done. I was also thinking that we can add to the OP as we fix/update the wiki to address the comments. Finally, thread title - "Te h wiki - Comments, Suggestions, Rants" with an OP that explains we'll stay out this time.--Haama 18:50, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

As I mentioned in PMs, I think this thread should start with the unveiling of the new Main Page and Help sections. Hopefully this week? We could use some (a lot) more DYK factoids, some more featured articles would be good, and I need to bash my head against the W3C some more before then.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 19:02, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It can't hurt to make another thread. We could announce changes every once in a while to bump the thread and get a few idea's. I guess it's better than limiting the discussion to the Wiki only, that didn't work a few months ago and I don't think it will work now.

Waiting for the new main page sounds like a good idea, we could recap the changes made since Haama started the previous thread, including the ones that haven't been mentioned (help section (I should finish that), liquid layout/user CSS, admin noticeboard). We should probably point to the thread somewhere on the Wiki too. Something for the new news item?

--Qazaaq 19:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Pseudo-Code Examples on Function Pages?

A user on the ESF suggested having pseudo-code examples for functions, for the sake of novices who have difficulty understanding the more technical syntax section or are still new at reading code. On the one hand, I think pseudo-code is great for explaining things, especially to novices, but on the other hand I will worry that it will lead to clutter. So, do people think that adding pseudo-code examples to the function pages is a good idea? Should it be for all of them, or just ones that are particularly confusing? Thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 07:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

There are some functions that need a tutorial/overhead explanation (i.e., Messagebox Tutorial). From the ESF thread, the GetNthActive... functions need one. Looping apparently needs a better one? And from another thread the Input functions need one (though, apparently, it will be moot by v15 :) ).--Haama 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Magic Function Subcategorization

Well, I was working on some scripts and I was getting tired of searching through that huge list of functions in the Magic Function section, so I added three subcategories to break things down somewhat. The Magic Item Functions category might be worth breaking down further, but right now I'd actually like to get back to those scripts I was working on.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 20:36, 1 March 2008 (EST)

User CSS Enabled

TS7 has enabled the Wiki's User CSS function, so no more messing with userContent.css or Stylish - you can just use your "User:Name/esstyle.css" page. See mine at User:DragoonWraith/esstyle.css.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 18:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Functions in scripts category/pages

There's a category (set of pages?) that lists the vanilla scripts with certain functions. I imagine that all of these were determined with v1.0 and there have been some changes since then. This thread, for instance, points out one such instance where the function doesn't seem to be there (whether it ever was there).

It looks like these functions are easy enough to find (Find Text), and I imagine there are differences between the versions. So, should we delete the category/pages?--Haama 14:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Deleting Questions

I started the process - it doesn't seem to be as daunting as I thought it would be (hooray for Category:Request an Article). Anyway, should we make the decisions on where to put the question (delete, request, etc.) on our own or wait for a second vote?--Haama 18:17, 19 February 2008 (EST)

You can also use the {{Missing}} tag. Might be useful for questions that aren't formatted like proper requests (as described in the Request an Article page).

Dragoon Wraith TALK 18:52, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Good point, but not the main question :P I was thinking that the first person could make the suggested move (tag or category) and the second could remove the Questions category.--Haama 20:06, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Progress

Through the H's. Didn't mess with these questions:

• Articles for Troubleshooting
  1. Can_I_remove_NPCs_pickpocketing_others_messagebox
  2. Cs_saved_as_tes_file
  3. Help_none_of_my_changes_in_the_construction_set_show_up_in_game
  4. How_can_I_fix_an_aquired_Crash
• Interesting info
  1. Effect_Shaders_on_Mounted_Actors
  2. How_would_I_create_a_statue?
• Tutorial comments
  1. How_to_avoid_Bed-Furnituremarker-Warp
• Should be on the wiki - quick answer?
  1. How_do_I_Use_One_AI_Package_On_Multiple_NPC's
  2. How_do_I_change_the_PC's_starting_location
  3. How_do_I_script_a_spell_to_summon_a_creature
  4. How_do_I_stop_faction_members_from_attacking_eachother (maybe troubleshooting)

Further Progress

I've done the rest, now we only have to do the answered questions?

• Troubleshooting
  1. I cant save my mod (not answered yet)
  2. Invalid cell coordinate (not answered yet)
• Interesting info
  1. Rotate Entire Area
  2. Shaders on weapons or armor
  3. Talking Creatures?
  4. Variables In Companion Script Reset After Closing Oblivion Gate
     • Info already in Troubleshooting and added to Cell Reset
• Should be on the Wiki
  1. Mods Without Master File
  2. Levels of AI Processing
  3. NPC Find Player
  4. Stop NPCs from attacking aggressor
  5. Sound preview not working
  6. Shaders Leaking?
  7. Weapon reach

"Answered" Section

Everything in the Answered section, in theory, "isn't of real importance to the public" - I vote for whole-sale deletion of everything in the category. I recommend that people go through, give things a cursory glance to make sure that it actually isn't anything useful, and if not, yeah, we can just ditch all of it.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 15:58, 24 February 2008 (EST)

2nd vote. Treat it like we did the questions and list which ones might be useful and why?--Haama 16:35, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, but I expect that most will not be.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 17:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)

We should go through the category briefly, look at the titles and open anything that could be interesting. There are 269 answered questions and most can be skipped by looking at the title, this shouldn't take very long.

Before deleting the category and the pages within we have to make sure none of them are also in the solutions category. Shall we call this decided then?

--Qazaaq 19:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)

There's only like three of us here, anyway. If we've all commented, I'm going for it.

Gstaff probably won't be around to delete them for a while yet, anyway, so we don't have to worry about losing anything if I make a mistake.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 00:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Progress

Well, I've done the Answers starting with A, B, and C. There are 216 answers left to go through. I'll continue working my way through those. There were a few that I didn't delete, which I placed in appropriate request places (either request an article or interesting discussion tags).
Dragoon Wraith TALK 00:28, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Navigation Suggestion

I've spent the last couple weeks basically devouring the information on this wiki. As a contributor, I am both new and not very decorated, but in all the reading I've done, I have discovered at least one minor change that would make the navigation much more user-friendly. Could someone include a link to the Categories page, right in the ToC on the Main Page? I know you can find the Categories page via the Special Pages link, but that's not very intuitive, and searching for material by category is a pretty general-purpose function. I think it should be linked right underneath the Tutorials link, as the last entry.
RedFault 10:14, 8 January 2008 (EST)

That would be a request for the DragoonWraith, the sherrif, he's the only one (except BethSoft employees) who can edit locked pages. It doesn't really matter to me, the search function has always been my favorite. There's still room in the index so if nobody objects it should be done. It's probably best to ask this on DragoonWraith's talk page.

--Qazaaq 10:59, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Category Overhaul

If there are categories that aren't useful, maybe we should look into a category overhaul, as well. That's something I can do myself, of course. I'll see if it's feasible. I think navigation is more intuitive from the point of view that you identify a broad subject, and then slowly zero in on the specific information you're looking for. This wiki contains a lot of great info, but it's a living nightmare to find some of it. Ideally, I think you should be able to start at the Main Page, and make your way to any significant article from that launching point. Interlinking articles are important too, of course.

For my own personal use, I have already discovered that the Categories page is easy to find in the Special Pages area, but for other newcomers, it would be handy to access from the Main Page. Just a thought.

RedFault 17:24, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I think it would be a good idea to make portals like Wikipedia has (example). There's a lot of information on this Wiki and it's not easy to find if you don't know exactly what you're looking for or where to look. Portals will not only function as a central place for articles about an aspect of modding they'll also help index the information on the Wiki for the editors and authors.

I have a general idea of what's on the Wiki and where to find certain information. Yesterday I stumbled upon this article. I hadn't seen it before, but it's quite old and very interesting information. I'm convinced that navigation on the Wiki can be improved tremendously. And discussing this is necessary, but as it has always been, there are only a few people contributing and even fewer discussing what's going on. I'm considering starting a thread in the Construction Set forum about this, as that's where most Wiki readers will see it. But before I start doing crazy things, I'll await your reactions (yes, I'm hoping for more than 1).

--Qazaaq 18:17, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Well then, you'll get the one (of two) other opinion :) The wiki has been especially dead for the past 6 months (except the questionable/slightly obnoxious Questions category). The wiki has, what, 2000 articles so it would be ridiculous to do by yourself or even a handful of people. Also, they not only need to be reorganized, but also checked for accuracy.

Less generally, though, how exactly is the portal different from the Main Page/Side Bar Categories?
--Haama 19:28, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I was (thankfully) too hasty in my previous statement, and I have removed it.--Haama 21:33, 16 January 2008 (EST)

(Responding to both of the above) I was not familiar with Wikipedia's portals but that is essentially the kind of setup that I think works. I do also agree with Haama that the side bar on the Main Page is close enough - the only difference is semantics. But after following the link to the forums, I found a lot of my own concerns listed there. Not only do you spend a lot of time here just trying to find the useful information you need, but then when you find it, it's not always accurate, and more often than not it's badly written. I especially hate seeing people mention that "they're not sure" of something they have just written (it shouldn't be there if it isn't a tested fact), or that "we need to get more info on this". That's the reason I have been concentrating on the Beginner's Guide as a starting point. It contains (mostly) accurate information, and covers pretty much every aspect of mod-making from a beginner's standpoint. From there, if you need more specific info, you should be able to follow internal links to whatever you need.

As an aside here, I contacted Tom Dawson at the BSF, and he is still planning to write guides for the Texture/Mesh aspects of modding - that will be a great asset for the guide.

I have watched a lot of solid projects die when they simply expand too far beyond their core principles, uncontrolled. I am a newcomer here, but I hope you will consider my words for what they're worth, and not how old they are. This wiki needs a simple facelift. The skeleton is already here. We should just go back and pretend we're noobs again, start with the first page, and navigate our way from general, FACTUAL info, to more specifics, and then organize the Main Page in such a way that you can follow the same trail. I also highly recommend that we weed out duplicated information (consolidate facts from multiple sources into a single article), and eliminate untrue, untested, or dubious material.

I don't think that's all that much work. A lot, yes. Too much, no. And the end result ought to be a resource that newcomers to modding can use to get up to speed, at the same time that experienced modders are coming back to check on things like the functions list, the specific mechanics of some particular game feature, etc. - confident that the information they're reading is true and will work as stated.

I'm not just blowing smoke here. I try to work as big as I talk. I would be happy to get the entire project underway - I just don't want to start tearing up the existing structure without a decent discussion first. This kind of guide should exist for every modding community on the net. It just needs to be done right.

RedFault 10:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

On more info/untested facts - Don't be as quick as some others to discard information labeled as "untested" or "we need more information". There are still many things in Oblivion that are untestable, but would be good to have a theory of what happens. For instance, there is no proof that scripts run once a frame, and the best you could do is prove that a quest of delay .001 and a loaded activator will run the same number of times. However, it's an incredibly useful theory, and as far as I've ever been able to tell it's correct.

I think it comes down to what standard do you want to hold this wiki to, and more importantly what standard will attract others to the wiki to start working on it again. If you aim too high no one will be able to post anything. For instance, both DragoonWraith and I recently posted some formulas that were not tested 100%. However, their default values had been tested quite a bit at UESP, the numbers fit very well with the game settings' defaults, and so we plugged in the game settings and wrote them up here, marking how much they'd been tested in the Discussion page. Should they be taken down?

I'm not saying aim too low, though - completely false information should be discarded (and the other idea about combining duplicate information is excellent). I think the best position would be to stop treating this like any other wiki, and to start treating it like science. We don't have secondary/tritary sources to cite as proof of what we post - we have to test it ourselves. That takes time and will always have some missing information because there are simply too many possibilities. If it's properly labeled - how it was tested, what can and can't be told from the test, etc. than that's fine by me. Hopefully someone will come along and fill in the information later, and if not then it wasn't important.

Most importantly, though, I think we need to continue this on the forums. I'm going to start up a simple thread entitled "Revitalizing the wiki" and ask for opinions.--Haama 11:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

RedFault, I completely agree with everything you've said save one - that this isn't too much work. At least, for me, it is. There is a ton of information here, and yeah, not all of it is easy to find, nor is all of it accurate (though I don't know where you guys claim to be finding so much of it, I've seen nearly every page in this Wiki and quite nearly all of them are accurate as far as I know - and that is pretty far, if I do say so myself. Obviously, there are some things I have undoubtedly missed, and there are some topics with which I am not at all familiar, but I generally find information on the Wiki reliable, when it can be found.

The issue of navigation, redundancy, and making sure that everything is clean, professional, and certainly, improving accuracy, are definitely things that have come up several times - I've tried to generate discussions on these topics, both here and on the forums, several times. But there really are not that many people very interested in helping out. And frankly, it is a ton of work. I'm all for it, and will definitely help where I can, but I know I don't have nearly enough time to do what you suggest.

I'm going to check out Haama's thread now.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 11:56, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I was writing a response, but I'll leave that for the forums. Be sure to quote or summarize what's already been said.

--Qazaaq 11:48, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Bah... After the last forum thread, I swore we wouldn't move this to the forum again. These discussions should take place here - it's important that there be an archive of discussions like these. And, of course, it's important that the community checks here and discusses things here, but of course that hasn't happened. Moving it to the forum is the right thing, because you can't get people to respond here, but bah. Very frustrating.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 11:56, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry for the delay, was having some internet difficulties and wording/tone difficulties :) It's up now. I'll let everyone post their own quotes over there; I feel a bit weird about truncating the statements and quoting Redfault (who hasn't asked for it yet).
--Haama 12:29, 10 January 2008 (EST)

You're right, it's probably better like this. Thanks Haama.

--Qazaaq 12:37, 10 January 2008 (EST)

(Responding to all of above) I will be happy to continue the discussion wherever we post it. I just hope that we are working while we're talking (as much as our schedules allow, of course). XD
RedFault 13:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Suggested Table of Contents for Main Page

I have finished what I consider to be the most effective layout of the Main Page. Below is my complete suggestion for the ToC, so that you can see how it would look. If the ToC were set up this way, I would move on to concentrate on organizing these pages to properly link related information.

If this creates a ToC which is too long (I don't believe so, but I anticipate that many others will), I also have a condensed suggestion which involves eliminating several of the numbered entries, which are only included here for convenience. The numbered entries listed here could all be found on the first page of the unnumbered category to which they are attached.

I don't know how this might interfere with the implementation of Portals, which I consider to be a great idea. I am not trying to conflict with their implementation - I started this before Portals were more than a gleam in Qazaaq's eye. There are a number of ways that this ToC could be blended with the new Portals.

--RedFault 11:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Do people like this version better than what's there currently? Input here would be nice. RedFault put a lot of work into this, and the ToC as it stands is pretty useless...

Dragoon Wraith TALK 18:53, 19 February 2008 (EST)

What it Would Look Like:

Getting Started

1. Oblivion Mods FAQ
2. About Modding Etiquette
3. A Beginner's Guide
4. Troubleshooting

Data Files

Main Menu

1. File
2. Edit
3. View
4. World
5. Character
6. Gameplay

Building and Editing

1. Main Editing Windows
2. Basic NPC Creation Tutorial
3. My First Dungeon
4. My First Shop
5. Basic Landscaping Tutorial
6. Quest Design

Objects

1. Actors
2. Items
3. Leveled Lists
4. Magic
5. Miscellaneous
6. World Objects

Actor Behavior

1. AI Settings
2. Packages
3. Combat Style
4. Dialogue
5. Detection
6. Pathing and Playtesting

Quests

1. Quest Design
2. Dialogue
3. Journals & Stages
4. Quest Targets
5. Results

Scripting

1. Complete List of Functions
2. Commands
3. Variables
4. Using "If" Conditions
5. Code Optimization
6. Useful Code

Categories

Tutorials

Troubleshooting

Glossary

Links

Don't know - I think I like Portal links rather than the old "sub-category" list. Two reasons - it would shorten the ToC making it easier to read, and we have much better flexibility with the Portals than with the sub-categories of the ToC. I'd say leave Getting Started, Data Files, and Main Menu as is make the rest single-line Portal links. Also, for now I think we should continue to include the Answered Questions and Solutions (or at least link to them from Tutorials).

News - I don't know that we should leave the news bit up. The wiki is changing, but I don't think any of us would like to put it up as news (oh... and none of us have since August which kind-of looks tacky).--Haama 18:13, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I agree, on everything actually. Portal links are much more efficient and clear than an index like this. Of course a couple of central links need to be included too.

I don't think we should keep the news thing up either, but adding a new element seems in order, perhaps a list of Community Portal topics?

--Qazaaq 18:21, 21 February 2008 (EST)

So, are the portals in a good enough shape to go? They looked like it, but I only glanced at them. Also, should we be a bit honest about how the wiki - that is, it might be hard for novices and if you have a question about anything you can fill in the gaps at ESF?--Haama 11:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I've been thinking that the Main Page should be a portal itself. We also should have several prominent links on the Main Page - how to use the Wiki, where to get help, how to help out, etc, with pointers like "If you have a specific question about your mod, go to the forums" and "if you have a really hard time finding something, and finally do, put a note in the Talk page so we know that it needs to be easier to find" and, for the love of god, "if you think it's warranted, slap an Article Tag on pages". If you look on the Main Page of Wikipedia, you see "Welcome to Wikipedia", with a link in "anyone can edit" that links to a quick page explaining the page and how people can work on it, and to the right of that you see a series of subjects. Right up top. Just under that you have a series of utility links, and then the Featured Article, News, and such are given the prominence they deserve. We can't do all of that precisely, of course (we don't cover news, and there's not really a lot of history On This Day worth mentioning here, but Did You Know would be great [keeping it updated regularly would be a huge pain, though], and we could use to have our own News section much like we do now).

Anyway, these are my thoughts. Not really sure whether the Portals are ready - Qazaaq's done that himself, for the most part.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 11:23, 7 March 2008 (EST)

The portals are done, as far as I'm concerned. User input on the portals would be great, putting them in clear view on the Main Page should help with that. The animation portal still needs to be made, but I'll do that tonight.

I like the ideas for the main page I've been thinking about that myself, but I wasn't sure how to fill the space. We should probably try a few things on a test page.

--Qazaaq 12:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Started on a test page. Lemme know what you think.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 00:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Questions on (advanced?) wiki syntax

I have a couple of questions on wiki syntax, if anyone knows the answers:

I would like to work on the OBSE v14 functions as soon as the Beta comes out. If I do so I'll need to mark them as beta, and once the beta is over I will have to mass edit and remove the Beta tag. I would also like to be able to put them into a v14 Beta category and then move them to a v14 category. Does anyone know an easy way to do that?

Some of the formulas on Category:Potion Strength are incredibly long, but I'm not sure how to condense them, especially because some require powers of fractions. If at all possible, I would prefer to place the fraction on two separate lines with a paranthesis big enough to cover both lines, and maybe even superscript the power. However, I don't know if that is even possible. Any suggestions?--Haama 21:02, 6 January 2008 (EST)

For the beta thing, you might try a template? I dunno, you could create a template {{OBSE v0014}} and at first have it warn that it's a beta, and then later blank it or give a simple mention that it was first added in v0014 (or use it to add the category tag).

As for the math stuffs, see here.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:34, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks DW. I've already started adding the v14 functions with a beta tag (I'll just have to remember to take them all off with the final release). That formula page looks great - starting to comb through it!--Haama 17:36, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I tried out some of the stuff from that page. I don't think the MediaWiki or TeX that the page talks about are available here.--Haama 17:54, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I'll e-mail Gstaff, but in the meantime (or if nothing can be done), since the TeX stuff on Wikipedia creates an image, you could always create the formula on Wikipedia (in a preview page), save the image, and upload it here - which is similar to what I did for the Trigonometry page (I didn't bother to create the formula since Wikipedia already had one, but I did grab theirs and upload it here). This has the advantage of giving you the ability to remove the white background from the image if you would like - not a bad idea considering the background here. It is, of course, more work and more time-consuming.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 15:04, 20 January 2008 (EST)

For the record, I just talked to Gstaff and apparently he never got or accidentally deleted the e-mail without seeing it. I've resent the e-mail to him.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 19:14, 19 February 2008 (EST)

The Wiki Sys-Admin (TS7? not sure) said he'll add the LaTeX stuff next week, and he'll look into the Parser stuff when he does that.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 16:53, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Good news indeed. I'll PM Niaht and tell 'em.--Haama 18:02, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Erm, any update? I noticed the Toolkit (sweet!), but haven't heard about anything else.--Haama 12:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)