Difference between revisions of "GECK:Community Portal"

← Older edit

GECK:Community Portal (edit)

Revision as of 22:33, 19 July 2009

3,391 bytes removed , 22:33, 19 July 2009

m

GECK:Community P moved to GECK:Community Portal: Fixing vandalism.

Anonymous user

imported>Rhavlovick

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is the primary discussion forum for the GECK 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 [[Help: Welcome to Wiki Syntax|Welcome to Wiki Syntax]] guide.
+{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="100%" style="text-align:center;"
+|-
+!style="background:#7b806d;color:#ece3cd;border-bottom:1px solid #7b806d;" colspan="2"| <big>GECK Wiki Community Portal</big>
+|-
+|style="background:transparent;width:100%;" colspan=2 |This is the primary discussion forum for the GECK 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 [[Help: Welcome to Wiki Syntax|Welcome to Wiki Syntax]] guide.
-== Bylines ==
+|-
+| class=header colspan=2 | Discussion Subsections:
-Oh boy.
+|-
+|style="background:transparent;border-right:1px solid #7b806d;width:50%;" | [[GECK:Community Portal/Features|Features]]
-So, on the CS Wiki, we had a rather serious problem with bylines on tutorials - it prevented them from being edited, updated, improved, and when we asked that bylines no longer be used, it sparked a large-ish controversy spanning several pages and a 200 post thread on the CS forums.
+|style="background:transparent;width:50%;" | [[GECK:Community Portal/Organization|Organization]]
+|-
-Now we have "bylines", of sorts, in the Talk pages of the Bethesda-written tutorials. Well, OK, clearly they're special for that reason, but are we to take it that those are not to be changed? I'm concerned that they set a bad precedent, and I'm worried about what people will think of them.
+|style="background:transparent;border-right:1px solid #7b806d;width:50%;" | [[GECK:Community Portal/Policy|Policy]]
+|style="background:transparent;width:50%;" | [[GECK:Community Portal/Misc|Misc]]
-Regardless, you guys should add <nowiki>{{Break}}</nowiki> to the end of your userpages, so when you transclude them like that the floated image doesn't mess things up that come after. We could add the template to each of the pages that you've transcluded into, but it makes more sense for it to be done on your end since it will update all of those pages simultaneously.<br />
+|}
-[[User:DragoonWraith|DragoonWraith]] &middot; [[User talk:DragoonWraith|talk]] &middot; 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
-:According to a forum post they definitely are okay with tutorials being edited.  Maybe bylines were for internal... accountability?
-:Anyway, this wiki is chock full of info... so much to learn :(
-:--[[User:Quetzilla|Quetzilla]] 02:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
-::Just two more comments:
-::#Adding a byline doesn't directly prevent anyone from editing the page, however it does ''discourage'' people from editing the page. The byline implies ownership and, as such, that you need permission to change it.
-::#If you want to sign your tutorial, there are places to upload it: the [http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=46 Bethesda Softworks forums] or [http://www.fallout3nexus.com/articles/ the Fallout3Nexus Article Database].
-::--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 02:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
-::I'll confess ignorance here - I'm responsible for the appearance/formatting of the tutorials and BGS user pages.  I wasn't privy to the Byline debates on the CS wiki, so I'm not really sure what the issue is.  I don't see any reason the official tutorials shouldn't cooperate with community standards, though.
-::Maybe somebody could summarize the concerns and proposed solution?
-::--[[User:JBurgess|Joel Burgess]] 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
-==Function links to CS wiki==
-...
-<br>...
-<br>Really?
-<br>It's hard to say how this will work out. On the one hand, if someone finds a bug or trick with Fallout 3 and it works with Oblivion, then by all means they should be on the same page. On the other hand, would it be exactly the same (i.e., are there [http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/Activate books and scrolls] lying around Fallout)?
-<br>I bring this up to stir conversation, let people keep it in mind, and encourage feedback on how this works out. If it works out then that saves a lot of work, if not then maybe we could make a bot to copy the information over?
-<br>--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
-:I think it's a matter of functional laziness -- both we and BGS have better things to do than c/p a hundred some functions to this wiki.  Moreover, when something here would be changed it wouldn't be changed there, even if the info was useful to both.  This way we can add F3 pertinent info to the page here and Ob info to the original page, while keeping common data centralized.  Trust me, even if we did decide it was better to dupe it all, no one would actually get around to it :P.
-:edit: actually there ARE books in F3 that can be activated.
-:--[[User:Quetzilla|Quetzilla]] 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
-::Are people really going to test something twice, once for Fallout and then for Oblivion? I'd say copy them over, but leave the link on the page.
-::I'll reveal my further plans for the scripting section right away: I'm going to make a template for the function pages. That will include the syntax, example and categories. That would require going through all functions at once, but changes should be fairly easy after that.
-::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 10:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)