This page is for discussing various features on 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 ==).
Below are currently active discussions.
Qazaaq pointed me here when I spotted some reverts of translations done in the Beth tutorials, and suggested that the translations could be useful.
Trouble was, the translations that were there, were done in completely the wrong way: replacing the text, rather than being parallel documents. If the facility existed for proper translations, that would be much cooler. So, yeah - suggesting that translation systems be turned on, if that's possible.
My arguments for this (from my talk with Qazaaq): "With translators, getting just one on the job tends to attract an entire country of helpers. They're like helper-magnets! And those helpers don't just focus on the translated pages: as they translate from English, they fix up the English pages too. Much good fan-juice."
I can think of at least one counterargument though: It's hard to police pages in other languages, if the admins don't speak them. DewiMorgan 22:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Usually Wikis do this with Language links - you may have noticed that there is [en.wikipedia.org], [fr.wikipedia.org], [jp.wikipedia.org], etc etc - one for several languages. Then pages have links on the side bar for "This page in other languages". These are standard Wiki features which could be turned on if Bethesda wished to.
- If there is actual interest in translating pages, I'll talk to GStaff about it. Unfortunately, at least thus far, the "translators" have all been vandals more than anything. None of them (and there have been a few) have responded to questions or suggestions, so I don't really know what to say. If anyone posts here with intent to do some translations, though, I'll be happy to ask Gstaff about it.
- DragoonWraith · talk · 23:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm - if it's a common problem, I find it hard to imagine a mind that could think it entertaining to make a translation that they know will be immediately reverted, though. Hrm. I wonder if... maybe there's someone out there making a site for Italians, and publishing the translated page here and copying it is the easiest way for them? Or maybe they are just linking to the pages in the history, and not caring that they are reverted? I can't find anything in Google matching the translated pages, so those are just guesses.
- *I'm* interested. Just not capable :P But while I have effectively zero language skills, I do believe translations are a Good Thing, and I'd be interested in resurrecting any reverted translations I could find onto an "it.*" or "es.*" or whatever domain, if it'd be something that mere users could do. Since the site currently has only 500 pages > 400 bytes, even a half-dozen translated pages are a significant resource, and especially of the main tutorials, would really give non-first-language English speakers a running start with modding.
- Whatever the reasons they're made, it seems the translations are accurately done (though I know only the barest schoolboy Italian), and Beth has rights to use them as they were published on this site. "Interest" doesn't need to be shown, since the pages already exist: just interest on GStaff's part in allowing those pages to be made available without people having to trawl through history logs.
- I suspect it'd also be an amusing way to break whatever the vandal-translators are trying to do, since if they're trying to make a mirror site in another language, having that same stuff on the official site will suck hits from their unofficial mirror, and make all their work in vain. *evil grin* DewiMorgan 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
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 books and scrolls lying around Fallout)?
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?
--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.
- --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.
- --Qazaaq 10:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was primarily responsible for getting the function pages initially created. The links back to the CS wiki were more a matter of convenience than an actual decision -- in general, I left just a link when the function was identical to the Oblivion version (but I can't guarantee that is 100% true). If the function had changed in any way (new parameters or different functionality), I documented it here. There are definitely some functions that are obsolete or just plain broken (i.e. crash the game) -- these I didn't document, although I now realize that you guys already have the full list, so I'll leave it to you whether or not to put in pages for functions that don't actually work just for the sake of completeness.
- --Kkuhlmann 14:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is a case where using a Wiki bot would be ideal. I know how to work one, and Gstaff and TS7 seem to be warming up to the idea, but they still need to get back to me on some specifics.
- Anyway, the lack of guarantee that the two functions are identical sort of kills any rationale for keeping the pages centralized. Cross links (here and on the CS wiki) are a good idea when they are at least supposed to be the same - at the very least, it will provide people with information about what bugs might be worth checking for, if they were in the Oblivion version of the function.
- Maybe just personal preference, but as a new user I find the links very useful indeed, and I suggest (plead?) that they be left in place even once the articles are ported over: I've noticed "ported" pages get "unlinked" :( But then, if I want to see the differences between the two systems, or to make sure there's nothing recently added there that hasn't been added here, or check out their talk pages to see if they've covered some fine point, or etc etc, then I need to go there and search for the page.
- It's a whole lot more convenient to have the link right there, and the clearly-different wiki skins means I'm never confused about which pages I'm looking at. It's great having this whole "other layer" of historical information to explore, mapped onto the current one, but clearly separated by the different sites. I feel CS Wiki links are probably the most relevant external link that could be added to any page. I only wish the links went the other way, too. DewiMorgan 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, I'd like to leave the links to CS Wiki here as well. I didn't notice they were gone on the copied pages, they shouldn't have been. A change like that should have been discussed here. Anyone who removes them in the future should be notified and the missing links should be replaced.
- Putting links on the CS Wiki sounds like a job for the bot, but I don't know if the CAPTCHA protection prevents it from adding external links.
- --Qazaaq 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Below will be a list of older discussions which have been archived. Currently, there are no archived discussions.