Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • AndalayBay

      Orphan Attachments   07/31/2018

      I have been doing some housekeeping lately and I've noticed that I had a lot of orphaned attachments. Attachments get orphaned when the PM or post is deleted without removing the attachment first. Deleting a PM or post does not delete the attachment and the file or image remain on the server. I'd like to ask all members to go through their attachments and delete any attachments you don't need anymore or those that have been orphaned. Where can I get a list of my attachments? Click on your display name in the upper right corner of the forums and pick "My Attachments" from the drop-down list. How can I tell an attachment is orphaned? If the PM has been deleted, you'll see a message like this in your attachment list: Unfortunately there is no message if the post has been deleted, so please check your old posts. We do purge old birthday threads every once in a while. Also some hosted projects have been shut down, so you may have orphaned attachments on one of those locations. Thanks!
Sign in to follow this  
Schtearn

Wikipedia Mess

Recommended Posts

If you're complaining about another site, that goes in the Central Plexus. Augmentation and Assembly is our tutorial forum.

 

VM, please move this thread to the Central Plexus. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Wikipedia in part but the CS page as a whole shouldn't redirect to Morrowind. The base CS page should probably go to a disambiguation page and then the two CS pages should go to either Oblivion or Morrowind.

 

I feel the redirect is correct because the programs come as part of the games and are not released separately, so should probably be part of the game's article as a separate heading around the development heading.

 

Of course, I don't have a Wikipedia account and don't hold any clout over there but that's how I'd do it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They certainly have the right idea, but the execution is flawed. The #Modification specification in the redirect link seems to have been added without consideration for the fact that the segment in question only alludes to the CS, it neither explains what it is nor links to a page of its own. The related citation does not direct one to the Construction Set either, making the redirection pointless until and unless a standalone article or appropriate edit is added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think a merge of all editors into "Bethesda Game Editors" is a better idea.

Each section is a precis or overview of a game editor with links to the official wikis and related games.

And the game wikis in turn linking back to the appropriate Bethesda Game Editor section.

That way it'll be easily setup for new Bethesda Game Eds in the future. There's bound to be, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the redirect is correct because the programs come as part of the games and are not released separately, so should probably be part of the game's article as a separate heading around the development heading.

I agree, I got the same impression too and I think the redirection is likely meant for certain key word(s) when searching within Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's true- but doing it that way there's going to have to be a CS section for Morrowind and for Oblivion, GECK sections for Fallout 3 and Fallout NV, Creation Kit sections for Skyrim and Fallout 4. And so it continues. Might be duplication and the info in the pages might not be in synch.

Either way, there doesn't appear to be many wanting to step up to the plate, but I'll nominate Leo if he is so desirous. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can relate to that. :)

Another headache is that there's already a page for the Creation Kit

That will have to be merged into both the Skyrim and Fallout game pages to be consistent with plan B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, why are you debating about what the article should be and just fix it? Modify the page so it has links to all the various CS and CK wikis. It's a wiki - anybody can fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like Oblivion has a section on modifications like Morrowind does. Reading it, though, it sounds like the section in the Morrowind article is out of scope and goes into a bit too much detail regarding specific mods instead of describing the actual capabilities.

 

What do you think? Does it sound like a bit of a rewrite is in order?

Edited by Visceral Moonlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there should be some criteria for consistency for all the game pages.

The Skyrim page has an engine section which seems to complement info on the Creation Engine page. Do you think this should be merged in the main article as well?

Albeit a fair bit of work in it. If you'd like to use this thread as a "proofing" sandbox, I'm sure there'll be many wanting to chime in with helpful hints a-plenty. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine section and page look like they need work. The engine page shouldn't include the information on the Creation Kit, that probably belongs to the game's page as the editor is specific to each game.

 

There are other things on that page that could use a "Citation Needed" marker.

 

The engine section looks like it's needless duplication and probably should be removed after being merged with the other sections and the page on the engine. A lot of it sounds like it needs to be in a section regarding the development history of the game itself. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon it's a good idea to boil off a lot of the excess info and provide links to the real game wikis where all that stuff is covered in detail already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry the creation kit and construction set wikis.

Ideally all the Wikipedia references to game creation should be a brief precis: what -when -how -why and then the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance:

"Howard provided an example where the player can stare at a small object such as a fork in detail, and then look up at a mountain and run to the top of it"

The link "22" is now a redirect. Wonder if it is still there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea. It looks like Games Radar bought that outfit since the article was written and may have shut them down, absorbing the brand. The Wikipedia link needs a supplemental link to the Internet Archive version: https://web.archive.org/web/20131002030940/http://www.oxm.co.uk/26155/bethesdas-todd-howard-on-elder-scrolls-5-skyrim/

 

I'm not sure of their exact format (Wikipedia may have a template for handling it) but they like to list both the dead link and the link to the archived version.

 

Unfortunately, Archive.org wasn't able to grab the images in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×