Difference between revisions of "GECK:Community Portal/Organization"

Revision as of 19:11, 18 July 2009

This page is for discussing the general organization of the G.E.C.K. Wiki. Please add new topics of discussion to the top of the page, with its own secondary header (example: == Header ==). This can be done by clicking the + symbol in at the top of the page.

Page Edited

--Jacob Community Editor 00:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed some format due to the page being to long.

Adding in links to Tes4CS

I note that some headers are bolded: =='''Header'''== - I'm removing that wherever I see it for consistency. Yell at me if wrong.
I see no category for "stuff that's new in the GECK, and wasn't in the Tes4CS" - the Godsend category is closest. Should I add them all in there, or create a new category? I notice the page is linked twice from the What's new page, at the top and the bottom of the list, so I'm guessing an old "what's new" page got folded into it? While the existing name is cool, I'd personally rename it to "what's new" since that's what people would be looking for. Only, renaming a category is probably a pain in the butt, since you'd have to change it everywhere. Just another good reason not to use categories for organisation.
I'm linking similar pages in the TES wiki over, in the 'see also' section of each page. Where a function is new, I'm noting that in the notes, with the same term each time ("This function is new in the GECK, and was not available in the TES4 Construction Set.",) so it'll be easy to search for them and add them all to a "what's new" category later, once I'm told what that category is.
Since I don't know the Tes4CS, I'm going by whether a function exists in their wiki to decide whether a function is "new" or not. I check their List of functions, then do a site search for the function name. If nothing found, I assume it's new in the GECK.

If people could let me know if I'm doing stuff wrong, that'd be cool :) DewiMorgan 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming the sub-heading standard is the same as most wikis - sentence case rather than title case?
Any chance of making TES4 CS Wiki pages not be CAPTCHA'd? The point of the captcha, I presume, is to prevent external spammers, rather than internal linkers.
Any chance of making the URLs skip the "index.php"? Or at least, allow it? It might just be a a case of adding "index.php" to the DirectoryIndex line, or otherwise a mod_rewrite line like:

RewriteRule ^((?!=index.php)[^/\.]+)/?$ /index.php?title=$1 [L]

Holy cow, you've done a ton today. Thanks for all your hard work!
Dragoon Wraith 23:52, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

That seems appropriate here. It's a message I got from Dragoon Wraith after I made half as much edits as you did today! I haven't left the Wiki alone since. Enough history, on to the questions.

Bolded headers - keep doing what you're doing, as a header they're bolded already, no need to do that twice.
The Godsend category isn't quite the same as What's New. It's subset, not everything that's new is something we needed badly. A new category for this is probably the best option, . If we want to make it a category that is, maybe we should just list everything on the What's new page?
The CS Wiki links in the See Also section makes more sense. This will be difficult for the Template:Function however, adding something to the bottom of the page is impossible. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it will have to be done manually. Again, not sure if a new-in-the-GECK-category is useful.
All TES4CS functions are listed in the Functions (CS) category (two pages!), if it's not in that list, it's not a native TES4CS function. All these are also on the List of Functions.
Sub-heading standards don't exist as far as I'm aware. Sentence case sounds good to me, but See Also is title case, everywhere. I don't feel like changing that, so we'll make it an exception.
I looked up how the reCAPTCHA plugin works. There's a whitelist regex, so it should be fairly easy to whitelist the bethsoft domain. I'll pass the request to Bethsoft along with instructions.
I'd like to get rid of index.php as well, but I have no idea how a mod rewrite works. Is this a possible or a definite fix?

--Qazaaq 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Information Missing from the Wiki
This question is about information which should be on the Wiki, but either is not or is very difficult to find. Please use the Talk page to discuss how to add this information to the rest of the Wiki so this question does not get asked again in the future.

If the mod-rewrite module is enabled in Apache, then a mod-rewrite line will definitely fix it. I'll need to test my above line on my own site before I can say for sure it works though - regexes can be tricksy buggers, and I'm unsure if the regex flavour in mod-rewrite allows negative lookahead assertions (the "(?!=index.php)" that says "if the next bit's not 'index.php'"). If not, it'd need another line above it.

I'll download and install a copy of the wiki software on my own server, to doublecheck. I do have a suspicion there's an easier way ;D

How about a "new functions" section, rather than a "what's new?" - that way we don't need to duplicate everything from the "What's new?" page.
Obviously, I've been procrastinating from real work today. I won't be like this all the time, 'cause normally I don't have deadlines to avoid.
I'm also removing colons from the ends of headings, where I spot 'em (my regex-replace to debold them also does this for me). I've seen both "Examples" and "Examples:", and the former is more consistent with all the other headings I think. I agree that "See Also" should be an exception, and that's how I've been treating it.

Thanks for being there, and for always having lots of good advice and pointers - you're great!

Since I'm going through the function pages manually anyway (I didn't know there was any OTHER way!), sticking stuff at the end isn't a problem. But it might take a while, I'm only up to the C's... :D DewiMorgan 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Organization

So you can change the categories links by editing Template:Categories. I added some of the new pages we've been making up to the list, as well as FOSE. I compiled Mod Tools/Tips and Tricks/Solutions under 'Further Reading', but I didn't actually make a Further Reading Category page as that seemed a bit much. Let's try to keep this thing updated as important new pages get put up so they can be easily accessed from the main page and not lost in the muck
--Quetzilla 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it unprotected for now, but that page is going to be protected eventually. We don't want anyone vandalizing the front page. We'll add a Recent Changes box on the front page like the CS Wiki to list new articles.

--Qazaaq 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Settings

There are currently 2 settings pages: the page and the category. The category is much smaller, and seems to be incomplete. Should we delete it (in accordance with Categories below)? One note if we do - there are a few pages there that aren't mentioned on the Settings page (i.e., iSandboxBreakfastMin).

Minor things - do we want the format from the Oblivion wiki (i.e., iSandboxBreakfastMin) or not (i.e., FMinesDelayMin? Should we standardize with the first letter uncapped or uapped?
--Haama 07:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the format of the CS Wiki, but with different colors. How about a template? That would enforce standards and gives us some time to experiment and discuss the colors and organization. I'll make one right now.

--Qazaaq 11:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Template is done: Template:Setting. The header of the table changes to the page name.

--Qazaaq 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put the description of a setting before its default value? The description seems to be the more important bit of information after all =)

--SnakeChomp 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that using a category page as the main resource to find the game settings is a good idea, as it groups them by name and not by their meaning. Considering settings only start with one of 3 letters, that won't provide useful organization. Is it worth even bothering having a "Settings" category? Tagging settings pages with that category will add them to the settings page but that alone won't help people find the information about the setting. I'll add the settings from the category page onto the settings page for now.

--SnakeChomp 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the Category is a bad idea, as below. I definitely think the first letter should not be capitalized - in fact, since this is a newer version of MediaWiki, we can even do something about the pages' titles to reflect that. The template is a great idea, much agreed there.

DragoonWraith · talk · 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I also agree that description should come before default value.

DragoonWraith · talk · 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that would be troublesome with very long settings pages. But it's easily changed in the template. Just reverse the table rows if you think that's not a problem.

Oh, and cool trick with the pagetitles.

--Qazaaq 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Already ahead of you on that one: I created {{SettingGroup}} for that very purpose. It's still kind of long, but not terribly and the consistency is worth it, IMO.

DragoonWraith · talk · 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It sure is, very nice.

--Qazaaq 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Template usage and documentation organization inconsistencies

I am noticing some inconsistencies developing in the use of the {{SettingGroup}} template to document game settings. The original intent of this template was for pages like fWeaponConditionReloadJamXX, but it is now being used for pages like Gun Spread Settings The gun settings page using this template presents a bit of a quirk in that the page title becomes "gun Spread Settings" (instead of "Gun Spread Settings"). In addition to this template, I have been documenting what game settings are used in certain game formulas: Weapon Damage Formula, Critical Hit Chance Formula and Gun Spread Formula. The first two pages provide links to the settings pages for the game settings. The gun spread formula simply documents the default value right on the settings page, duplicating that information, and does not link to individual settings pages (because they don't exist, there is just the Gun Spread Settings page).

Having done 3 formula pages, with the gun spread formula being the third, I believe that the format of the gun spread formula is ideal for formula pages. Knowing the default values of the variables involved in the formula is important in understanding how each variable affects the formula. Because the formula page describes what each variable does more clearly than the individual settings pages, it makes them pages rather useless, as all they do is provide a default value (duplicated information), provide a vague description and link to the formula page. The gun spread formula page duplicates the default value information found on the gun spread settings page and also provides more information about how the settings affect the end result, so the gun spread settings page became a bit redundant as well.

So, should we remove the individual and group settings pages for variables that have been described in a formula page to remove the redundant information? Or is there some other kind of organization that would work better for this situation? --SnakeChomp 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a new template to use on formula pages to specify the variables? I'll play around with that and see if it is worth while.--SnakeChomp 18:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right that the formula page is taking the place of that settings page and could be linked to directly and the settings page removed. However I think the formula page still needs some work to make it a little more accessible, as the formula itself is a little cryptic-looking still. See my comments on the talk page for that.

--Quetzilla 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tutorials category

Currently all Bethesda's tutorials are in the Solutions category and the Wiki tutorials in the Tutorials category. Tutorials are not solutions, and clogging up the Solutions category with tutorials is not a good idea.
--Qazaaq 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we add the wiki/editing tutorials to the Category:Administrative_Categories or a "Wiki Category" (Editing would be too close to Edit)?

--Haama 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that seems appropriate. Although maybe they don't need to be categorized, just linked to from the Help:Contents page?

DragoonWraith · talk · 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the BGS tutorials to Tutorials and out of Solutions. There were also some misc beth tutorials (Static Collections for example) that weren't categorized as either but are fixed now.

--Quetzilla 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New Solutions Article

I just wrote up an article for a really nifty trick I discovered (and probably others have also). I added it to the Solutions category, but it made me think: Do we want some kind of central page for new content articles to go under? Right now it's hard to find my new article unless you're actually looking for it, and in the case of the article it's really something useful to know ahead of time.
--Quetzilla 01:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We could (probably?) make a "What's New" section on the Main Page, as on the CS wiki. Also, I think it would go best under a "Modding Practices" category - let me see if there's one like that already and if not I'll create it.

This is close enough to the topic that I'll mention it here - To prevent sprawl, I think we should use either the Solutions or Tips and Tricks category, but not both. This problem was rather horrendous on the CS wiki - the answer to a question could have been in one of several places: the Question category, the Answers category, the Solutions category, the Useful Code category, etc.

--Haama 03:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the Tutorials category should be renamed - the tutorials are strictly related to wiki editing. If they were related to modding, then I'd say merge it with Solutions or Tips and Tricks.

--Haama 03:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, they seem like relatively different categories. 1 is to solve problematic situations you would normally encounter, 2 is for neat things you can do that you wouldn't otherwise have thought of. Either way, they both need to feature more prominently on the main page if anyone is going to find them.

--Quetzilla 03:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh - those two were never separate for me. Almost everything I've done required a trick or OBSE. Interested to see others' thoughts. Somewhat random - it might end up that Tips and Tricks becomes a subsection of Solutions.

Anyway, seems like I can't edit the Main Page. That may change (need to check my User Status), but for now remember that Solutions is on the Main Page (... at the very bottom). I've created a Modding Practices page and added your article to it.

--Haama 04:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the distinction between Solutions and Tips and Tricks. On the CS Wiki the solution category was filled with articles, which made it hard to find what you're looking for. Taking all tricks out of the solutions category should help.

--Qazaaq 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for going on a structure-creating rampage, I should've checked here first. I do think Tips and Tricks deserves to be a separate category to Solutions, for the same reasons as Quetzilla- Solutions seem like they should be mini-tutorials as opposed to Tips which should be compact and used to show possibilities.Talkie Toaster 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, no need to check here first. If I/we/anyone thinks there's an issue it will be brought up - Tips got my attention because someone created an article with the same name that day, and because all of the articles in it were also placed in the Solutions category. That's enough call to keep them separated, so Tips stays.

Thinking about it some more, though - articles should be in one category or the other (distinction), and to make it easier to find we make Tips a sub-category of the Solutions category (the articles won't show up in Solutions).
--Haama 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mod Tools

I've created a Mod Tools category to be able to easily point people towards commonly used programs like FOMM and F3Edit. As new tools come out, let's make sure to add pages for them here. Also, I'd like to link to it from somewhere sensible, main page maybe, but I wasn't sure where to stick the link. If anyone can think of a good place, feel free to stick it in.
--Quetzilla 01:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The category has been added to Category:Solutions and the Main Page.

--Haama 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

BSA Problems

There are some problems that the users may experience with the software such as missing or unfindable models. While somee people know how to extract them, some do not, and bits of useful general information like this should be available for those new to modding. Iron Angel 01:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the .bsa files? In general, your best bet is to ask about this on the forums and then update the appropriate page(s) with the answer.

The Community Portal itself is more meant for proposals of an issue to tackle, then a place to find answers.

--Haama 03:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think his point was that it will be common for people to look for the 'missing' files and get confused, yet the wiki here doesn't say anything about how to get access to the files. Probably goes under 'Solutions' :P.

--Quetzilla 04:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A tip in one or more of the starting tutorials is probably the best solution to this.

--Qazaaq 11:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've written up a page on BSA Files that explains the solution to this problem as well as general usage. I've linked to it from the Data Files page, but there are probably other places that should link to it.

--Quetzilla 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Tidbits

The recent page Tips And Tricks (note page, not category) reminded me of the Tidbits category from the CS wiki. That category served as a "staging" area to move information from the threads to the wiki, or at least point to interesting threads and posts in the hopes someone had enough time to wiki-ify it. Should we bring that back?
--Haama 03:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although, I'm afraid that adding a Tidbits category will make people lazy.

--Qazaaq 11:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have two pages that are thread-based and thread-like: Category:FAQ and Tips And Tricks. Both contain information that would be nice to have on the wiki, but the editors have only added them to their own page.

So, I'm putting up the Tidbits page. Guess I'll link to it from the Main Page? Also, I'm going to redirect Tips And Tricks to it (we already have a Category:Tips and Tricks. Category:FAQ would be nice to have (although it might need to be turned into a page) so I'm leaving it around.

--Haama 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on making FAQ a page. I don't understand the difference between Tidbits and Tips and Tricks.

--Quetzilla 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tidbits would be a staging area for the wiki - information that isn't provided in wiki form, or even links to external, interesting information. See the CS wiki's Tidbits for what I mean. The Tips And Tricks page falls under this category - as of now, it's all quotes, some unclear and unverified, and too small for a single page. On the other hand, the Category:Tips and Tricks has pages that are ready for the wiki and pretty much in final form.

There might also be a bit of confusion on my part, as I don't quite see the separation between Solutions, Tips and Tricks and Tutorials. I understand there is a difference between what the articles themselves will be and how they'll read, length, etc. However, I can't imagine someone would decide where to look based on what the article will be. Note, though, that I personally don't differentiate between them - an answer to my question is an answer to my question, and if anyone's seen my work they'll know I don't mind long answers :P

--Haama 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

--Jacob Community Editor 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed some format due to the page being 38 kilobytes long and some browsers may have problems.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 This page is for discussing the general organization of the G.E.C.K. Wiki. Please add new topics of discussion to the top of the page, with its own secondary header (example: == Header ==). This can be done by clicking the + symbol in at the top of the page.
-== Headline text ==
+== Page Edited ==
 --[[User:911911199|Jacob Community Editor]] 00:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed some format due to the page being to long.