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

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
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?

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

"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)

Move?

Some of the discussion on the Revitializing thread, as well the two month wait on Parser functions has got me wondering - how much support will Beth continue to put into this site? I don't think they'll do anything to shut it down, but it has been hobbling along with some very bare functions for a while now and I'll let you think of any other reason you can.

So, I asked over at UESP whether a move would be welcome and feasible - the answer seems to be yes. By move, I mean keeping most of this intact - the function pages, definitely the portals, any non-bylined tutorials, etc. Now for the bigger question, how would the normal CS wiki editors feel about it? (if you're reading this, you count as a normal CS editor) Of course, if it sounds like a possibility we'll bring it up on the Revitializing thread.

A bit more of my input - It depends on how good the bots can be and how much of the site they can keep intact (which will require more discussion - sorry, I'm not too good at timing these things). Most of the move will force us to reorganize information, but that's somewhat the goal anyway. I think it would open the discussion of what can be done about Navigation - possibilities encourage discussion.

I... very strongly do not wish to do that. This site is linked to by the CS Help tool (actually, this is the Help tool), and it is important to have all of this information in one centralized place. I very much think this is the place that it should be.

Further... I'm somewhat unclear on why the Parser functions are so critical. I completely agree; it's fairly clear that Bethesda is once again ignoring this site; we're not likely to get them or any others. But I don't see that as a good enough reason to move.

I'm just one person, and I've give my opinion; I'm more than willing to listen to others. However...

I really don't think we can move. Bethesda never specified the Copyrights of this (note the continually angry red uppercase link to Project:Copyrights in the edit page), but it's fairly safe to say that they consider this Wiki, and the information and articles contained within it, to be their property. This Wiki adds value to their company, however little that may be, they're not likely to want to give it up. And I really don't think that they're going to want to have this Wiki become just a giant re-direct to UESP.

So, I think this discussion is kind of dead in the water anyway.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 02:46, 15 February 2008 (EST)

To be clear, it's not so much the Parser functions as much the difference in attitude and participation. The people at UESP want their wiki to be useful, as good as it can be, and are all very active while Beth seems to be in a 'Fallout or bust' mode and we have to bother them to get anything (I do mean bother, I know GStaff and all of them have more important things to do).

I can go either way on it, just bringing it up as a possibility.

Copyrights - Reading the bottom again, it only talks about other's copyrights so I don't know. If we go forward there should be an e-mail to Beth about it.--Haama 10:36, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I have no doubt that the people at UESP have the best intentions but they can't make up for the shortage of contributors we have now, and I think that moving will only make it worse. I do agree that the UESP Wiki is far better than this one.

Besides that, moving is a hell of a job and we don't even have time for a proper reorganization.

--Qazaaq 18:13, 16 February 2008 (EST)

If the people at UESP want to help, they are more than welcome to sign up here and help.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 21:10, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I'd support DragoonWraith on this. There is no good reason to move this to UESP, they both run on the same technical platform (MediaWiki), and if you ask me to choose between Bethesda and UESP in terms of longterm infrastructure availability potential, I'd rather bank on Bethesda. They have an excellent track record supporting their mod community, and as a corporate entity they are generally better suited to maintain such a thing. Plus, both UESP and this wiki are major community assets, and the community might do well not to put all eggs into one basket. I have (lurker) accounts on both wikis, so there is nothing preventing anybody to work on both. Clavis0 22:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Ironically, I don't really agree with Clavis0 - I don't find Bethesda's track record terribly impressive, nor do I have any doubts about UESP's continued existence at this point (UESP has been around since before Daggerfall, seriously now). My main objections lie with the fact that this ought to be the place where people look for information on modding because this is where the CS itself sends people who look for help.

Also, it is, at least in my opinion, advantageous to have this Wiki specializing in modding, as opposed to a section of UESP's Wiki. I find UESP's search function even worse than the one here - search for something, and you're liable to get results spanning the entire Elder Scrolls series. You can uncheck sections, but it's irritating to do. Finding information there will likely be just as difficult as here.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 23:02, 16 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)

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)

Article Tags

I've created a series of Templates to be used as tags on articles. You can find those here.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:14, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

They are very useful, thanks. --Qazaaq 17:46, 7 August 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)

As of yesterday Haama and I have been promoted to Sheriff, the three of us will be busy with the reorganization for now and as part of that we'll see if any protected pages need attention. Congratulations Haama!

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

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)

Couldn't find a better place for this request. It would need to go to Bethesda. I would like to request the addition of the Parser Functions. This would allow a number of flow control functions (conditionals) to be used in the creation of templates. It is a very standard extension for MW sites since 1.6/1.7, and would be very handy to have here.

--Niaht 02:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

GStaff is pretty approachable, and you can ask him yourself. PM on Bethesda forums would probably be the best way.

--Haama 18:24, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the information Haama. I've made the request to GStaff via PM.

--Niaht 20:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)

This should get its own page now, I think.
Dragoon Wraith TALK 18:54, 19 February 2008 (EST)

OBSE plug-in functions placement

Should these be included with the normal OBSE functions (as with TSFC) or kept separate (as with Pluggy)?--Haama 13:12, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Personally, I vote separate. If there were a better filtration system than categories, I'd be all for it, but until adoption of those utilities goes up...

On the other hand, perhaps we want to encourage adoption of those utilities? *shrug* It would be great if using TSFC or Pluggy wasn't something that people complained about...

In other words, I can see reasons for both. I lean towards separation in this case (including of TSFC), but I could be convinced otherwise if people think that's a better idea. If they're integrated, the functions should have (TSFC) or (Pluggy) after them, similar to (OBSE) or (CS 1.0) - which I believe TSFC already does?

Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)