Difference between revisions of "Community Portal"

From the Oblivion ConstructionSet Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Onxe
m
imported>Wrye
(Wrye Changes)
Line 251: Line 251:
:Last I checked, the Upload thing only accepts images. Otherwise, I'd be all for it. Perhaps e-mail Gstaff about it?
:Last I checked, the Upload thing only accepts images. Otherwise, I'd be all for it. Perhaps e-mail Gstaff about it?
:[[User:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">D</span>ragoon <span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">W</span>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">TALK</span>]] 03:08, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:[[User:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">D</span>ragoon <span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">W</span>raith]] [[User_talk:DragoonWraith|<span style="font-family: Oblivion, Daedric Runes; size=2;">TALK</span>]] 03:08, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
== Wrye Changes ==
Okay, I'm sure that this stuff has been talked about before. For sure there was a major effort at putting together portals. But I'm not sure that was a good idea. To some degree it seems that we're now lost in a plethora of index pages (portals + categories + sub-categories). Kind of a lot.
And I've never been very happy with the combination of articles and categories -- you just end up with a mess (IMO). (In contrast, I think that something like this is better: [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes3Mod:Modding Modding@UESP] -- a nice long list with short descriptions which I can easily scan up and down. In other words, it's better to have less index pages with more links on them.) But not to spend too much time arguing.
Sorry if that sounded like a rant, I know you all have worked hard on this, but it's still fairly hard to find your way around and figure out where to add new material.
So, I've done a couple of things. If these go over well, then I'll do some more if I have time (what I ''actually'' wanted to do was write an article on standardizing menu behavior -- but I couldn't find a good place to put it -- where it was likely to be found). Anyway, the two things that I've done are essentially both article/category splitting efforts:
* [[Glossary]] -- This is a conversion of the [[:Category:Glossary]] page to single page article. I copied most definitions to it, while expanding some. I have intentionally left some articles out which didn't really seem to belong on a category page. If this page is well received, then the old article pages that have been completely included should be deleted as should the [[:Category:Glossary]] category itself.
* [[:Category:Data Files]] - I've removed the article type text off this page into several articles [[TES Files]] (actually a major rewrite) and [[Windows Vista]]. I've also added a new article: [[Esp vs. Esm]]. I've then gone back and changed [[:Category:Data Files]] to be just an manual index page. At which point I hit the  "too many index pages" and "category pages should not be treated like articles" problem. So I figured I had done enough damage and stopped. :evil:
** One point here is that the [[TES Files]] page is a good introduction to very basic issues in modding. Moderately thorough and not ''too'' technical (unlike e.g. the [[Modding Terminology]] page, which is a bit thick.) IMO, [[TES Files]] probably should be linked to directly from Getting Started or something like that. But I looked at the HTML code and went "eep". So I left it alone. (And again, enough damage already.)
Cheers! --[[User:Wrye|Wrye]] 04:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 04:16, 31 May 2008

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

Old Discussions

Cleaned up Hosted Images

Just went through the image log, added {{afd}} to the ones that have no business on the Wiki. Leaving a note here so that if anyone decides to do so again at a future date, they know they only have to go through the ones after this date.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 08:19, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Toolbox for Tutorials

I think it would be a good idea to add a toolbox on tutorial pages with the tools used in that tutorial. That way we can standardize all the "Tools Needed" and "Requirements" sections in each tutorial. On the Wiki pages of the tools we can add some installation instructions, trial programs and alternatives. Next to the TOC would be a good spot, it's only a list with links so there's not a lot of space required. Here's an example of what I mean:

Tools used in this tutorial

Required

Optional

I didn't want to go ahead and start adding this to the tutorials right away (first want to finish the help section anyway), but I thought I'd put it up here and see what you think.
--Qazaaq 09:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Looks good to me, I say go for it when you get the chance.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 06:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Very good idea - I wonder if we should do a similar bit for the scripting tutorials and list all of the "See Also", functions used, Standardized Snippets, and articles up top?--Haama 11:41, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

New Administration Noticeboard

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


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)

This has driven me nuts a few times. Here's the link to the User Style page.--Haama 13:31, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

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:

Further Progress

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

"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)



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)
Parser extension should be added, TS7 says we should test it to make sure it works. The LaTeX stuff is giving him trouble, but he's still working on it.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 16:36, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I had contacted Niaht earlier (Feb) and never heard back. Otherwise, I'm not too sure what to do with the functions - I tried looking at [1] but that doesn't give a good starting place for ?web?wiki? design. Are these for templates only? I wanted to be able to create one page/template for all of the functions that need to worry about message spam, lag, etc. while still having relevant text for each (i.e., using the function EquipItem instead of AddItem), but I'm not sure how. There's a "page exists" function, but... no seriously, what's the point of a page exists function? When is it necessary to know what's on another page, let alone that another page exists? Confused...--Haama 19:19, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
{{PAGENAME}} should be able to do what you want. Write the message and replace the function with {{PAGENAME}}, that should change to the page it's displayed on. This is what you can use to change larger pieces of text: {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | Community Portal | This is the Community Portal page. | This is another page. }}. But for the function name {{PAGENAME}} alone should be sufficient.
--Qazaaq 20:19, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
The parser functions work! At least this one does, I don't know about the others.
--Qazaaq 20:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Qazaaq - I'll try it out in a bit.--Haama 21:02, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Works! - I've updated the Update template to say Article for articles and Category for categories.--Haama 01:02, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Function Info Template category

I've added a Function Info Templates category so we can know which templates (i.e., MessageEXFormatting) have been created and can centralize function information. I've placed this in the Toolkit as well so it'll be easy to find. I know I haven't gotten all of the templates, so please add as needed.--Haama 19:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Uploading test mods

I'd like to upload a test mod for the Variables category. I'm hoping that this will make it easier for others to run duplicate and counter tests, as well as lend a bit more legitimacy to the wiki. It will require OBSE and Pluggy to make testing easier and to have a text file with the results. Format will be along the lines of

Global Float tests
Test 1a: aaaFValue = 8388606 (exp: 8388606)
Test 1b: aaaFValue = 8388607 (exp: 8388607)
Test 1c: aaaFValue = 8388608 (exp: 8388608)
Test 2a: aaaFValue = 16777215 (exp: 16777215)
Test 2b: aaaFValue = 16777216 (exp: 16777216)
Test 2c: aaaFValue = 16777216 (exp: 16777217)
Test 3a: aaaFValue = 33554432 (exp: 33554431)
Test 3b: aaaFValue = 33554432 (exp: 33554432)
Test 3c: aaaFValue = 33554432 (exp: 33554433)
Test 4a: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 2147483646)
Test 4b: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 2147483647)
Test 4c: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 2147483648)
Test 5a: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 440359962751356)
Test 5b: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 440359962751357)
Test 6a: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 44035996275135651)
Test 6b: aaaFValue = -2147483648 (exp: 44035996275135652)

--Haama 23:43, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Last I checked, the Upload thing only accepts images. Otherwise, I'd be all for it. Perhaps e-mail Gstaff about it?
Dragoon Wraith TALK 03:08, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Wrye Changes

Okay, I'm sure that this stuff has been talked about before. For sure there was a major effort at putting together portals. But I'm not sure that was a good idea. To some degree it seems that we're now lost in a plethora of index pages (portals + categories + sub-categories). Kind of a lot.

And I've never been very happy with the combination of articles and categories -- you just end up with a mess (IMO). (In contrast, I think that something like this is better: Modding@UESP -- a nice long list with short descriptions which I can easily scan up and down. In other words, it's better to have less index pages with more links on them.) But not to spend too much time arguing.

Sorry if that sounded like a rant, I know you all have worked hard on this, but it's still fairly hard to find your way around and figure out where to add new material.

So, I've done a couple of things. If these go over well, then I'll do some more if I have time (what I actually wanted to do was write an article on standardizing menu behavior -- but I couldn't find a good place to put it -- where it was likely to be found). Anyway, the two things that I've done are essentially both article/category splitting efforts:

  • Glossary -- This is a conversion of the Category:Glossary page to single page article. I copied most definitions to it, while expanding some. I have intentionally left some articles out which didn't really seem to belong on a category page. If this page is well received, then the old article pages that have been completely included should be deleted as should the Category:Glossary category itself.
  • Category:Data Files - I've removed the article type text off this page into several articles TES Files (actually a major rewrite) and Windows Vista. I've also added a new article: Esp vs. Esm. I've then gone back and changed Category:Data Files to be just an manual index page. At which point I hit the "too many index pages" and "category pages should not be treated like articles" problem. So I figured I had done enough damage and stopped. :evil:
    • One point here is that the TES Files page is a good introduction to very basic issues in modding. Moderately thorough and not too technical (unlike e.g. the Modding Terminology page, which is a bit thick.) IMO, TES Files probably should be linked to directly from Getting Started or something like that. But I looked at the HTML code and went "eep". So I left it alone. (And again, enough damage already.)

Cheers! --Wrye 04:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)