Oblivion Mod talk:FCOM

Load Order Guide

I suggest an Expanded Load Order Guide using the BALO rules or similar. Also a Troubleshooting FAQ/guide. Not sure where to put them. --Speedyg869

Hmm.... Good idea. Hold on a bit. --Wrye 22:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

No problem. I have plenty of reading todo.

Sounds good to me!--Dev akm 23:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, as far as Balo goes, I've adding a general overview here: Wrye Bash/Balo. However, the page for suggested groupings is here: Wrye Bash/Balo/Groups. Just follow existing format if you want to add anything. If someone wants to start a non-Balo ordering page, that should go elsewhere (e.g. something like FCOM/Load Ordering.) But that would divide efforts somewhat between Balo and FCOM ordering.

PS, when you add something to the talk page (i.e. here), you shoud sign it. Just put --~~~~ at the end of your comment and it will convert into your login name/date when you save. --Wrye 00:07, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Since FCOM will probably not be adopting BALO as its official load ordering scheme, I agree that it makes most sense to keep the BALO stuff in Wrye Bash/Balo/Groups. I of course have no problem with anyone using BALO if they want and I'm fine with having plenty of FCOM-BALO information on the BALO pages. Thanks, man! --Dev akm 13:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Main Page

I'm not seeing how Tes4Mod:FCOM is linked to the parent Tes4Mod page.Speedyg869 13:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

It's the Trail tag at the start of the page. I added one for FCOM on the FAQ page already (if that's what you're looking for)--Dev akm 13:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Kvatch Aftermath

Let's please try to avoid making an issue out of the Kvatch Aftermath description, ok? This list is not intended to criticize anyone's work. The goal is only to provide accurate compatibility information. Thanks! --Dev akm 17:17, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Wrye Bash Tagging

Since so many fixes involve tagging with Wrye Bash, and explaining that process every time would waste space and be redundant, you should say something like "tag with {{BASH:NpcFaces}} and use Import Npc Faces in the Bashed Patch". The tag should link to the Tagging section at the bottom of the page, and the sample tag should be wrapped in nowiki tags to prevent it from being interpreted as a template reference. See any of the existing Bash tag mentions for example text. --Wrye 19:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

FCOM/FAQ page

Currently, there is no link to the FCOM/FAQ page. Not really sure where it should go, but I'm going to add one to the FCOM page.--Speedyg869 21:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Mod Attributions

I've removed non-essential mod attributions from the page. (I.e. I've trimmed entries like "Awesome Mod by GodModder49" to just "Awesome Mod".) Attribution is cool, us modders love it, but... Wikis are supposed to be encyclopedic, and the attributions were non-essential info for readers (especially since many of the mentioned mods also have direct links to download pages which will have author names and much more.

So, rules:

• Unless the attribution is essential to discussion then it should not be included on the page.
  • If author's name is part of mod name, and the name is not commonly abbreviated to exclude the authors name, then the author gets included. E.g. (sort of) Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul, Francesco's Creature Mod.
  • If author's name is required to distinguish between different versions of a mod, or between different mods which otherwise have the same name. E.g. Real Hunger may fall into this category.
• It would however, be a good idea to include links to download pages for all listed mods. This is present for most mods, but it would be nice to finish the job.

--Wrye 22:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Seems to me like this is a silly and detrimental rule. The "attributions" are not there to bolster anyone's ego -- they just make the info more complete. Would an encyclopedia of literature omit the author names? Removing info about the creator also does remove potentially important information, as in the case of Yorkmaster's Armamentarium adaptation versus CorePC's version -- now that you've removed Yorkmaster's attribution, the comments on CorePC's version don't make much sense anymore. "Armamentarium for NPCs and Yorkmaster's MOBS version are not compatible with each other ..." Also, if the links go bad at some point -- and many probably will -- then we are left with a lot fewer clues to go about finding a good link for that mod. --Dev akm 11:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

To make an analogy:

Moby Dick by Melville has a greater impact on American culture than Great Expectations by Dickens. But The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Conan Doyle has more of a lasting impact on both English and American Cultures. In Contrast The Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald has a negligible impact, and that only in high school.

vs.

Moby Dick has a greater impact on American culture than Great Expectations. But The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes has more of a lasting impact on both English and American Cultures. In Contrast The Great Gatsby has a negligible impact, and that only in high school.

The use of attributions in the first version is unwieldy. It unnecessarily pauses and breaks up the flow of information and thought in the paragraph. This is pretty much an exact metaphor for what we're looking at. If the title of the mod is sufficient to uniquely identify the mod, then there's no need to also include the author and it detracts from the quality of the page.

Re Yorkmaster. I think that you're arguing that Yorkmaster's name is essential to the paragraph. If that's true, it should be re-added.

Note: Part of my concern here is a general stylistic approach for the wiki. We're heading in the direction of adding more documentation for mods. When doing that, there will be a general question of whether to include "by xxx" or not when mentioning a mod. Since editors (quite reasonably) follow precedent, it's wise to address that early and establish the optimum style at the beginning.

--Wrye 16:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand your concern, but I would argue that the author name has enough intrinsic informational value to make it worth retaining. When you're not talking about classics that everyone already knows, it sounds a lot less awkward. Perhaps a better analogy would be:

The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen has a greater impact on American culture than American Gods by Neil Gaiman. But The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood has more of a lasting impact on both English and American Cultures. In Contrast Atonement by Ian McEwan has a negligible impact, and that only in high school.

If you had to try searching for The Corrections or Atonement without the author name, you probably wouldn't have much luck. The author name is valuable when talking about mods.

If you want to enforce a more readable style, that's fine. Just don't sacrifice good information for stylistic grace.

--Dev akm 17:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

But if you're linking to the download site for the mod (which is desirable anyway), then trying to find the mod isn't an issue. Also by doing a quick search, there's not really a problem finding the mods anyway even w/o the authors name. I.e. google for oblivion "pure steel blade" results in the download link at the top of the results page. Similarly for a quick check of most of the other mod names. Even when that fails, going to TesNexus will result in quickly receiving the correct file.

Again, including a link to the download or home page the first time the mod is mentioned seems to be the best solution. Do that, and you get best style and the best access to information. --Wrye 20:10, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree that including links is a great idea, but the point remains: if you look for similar stylistic examples on the web or in print you will always find the author listed. Would you propose similar restrictions on the Nebula Awards list?

You claim that the "use of attributions in the first version is unwieldy", but your examples don't work in this case. The information here is presented in a listing format, not an awkward sentence structure like the examples you gave. You should have more compelling reasons and examples before enforcing arbitrary rules on contributors.

Let's recap:

• Removing the author does not significantly improve readability in a list-style format like this.
• Removing the author causes a loss of relevant information.
• There are no compelling examples of good style to back up this rule, so it seems entirely counter-intuitive and arbitrary.
• Arbitrary rules are extremely annoying and discourage contributors. (I took the trouble to include this useful information, so why should the UESP "style guide" forbid it?)
• Your efforts to improve the page would have been better focused on adding links rather than removing author names.
• Given the above points, this seems less like a valid style issue and more like a misguided extension of the "no bylines" policy. The major difference here is that this rule has no compelling benefit.
• So, the end result is what? The page is worse off than it was before. You've created an arbitrary rule that has questionable value.

As an aside, it seems like you're indirectly encouraging everyone to include their name in the proper name of the mod. Is it just a coincidence that a lot of your mods include "Wrye" in the proper name?

As a former professional copy editor, I am a firm believer in the value of good style guides. This one just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

--Dev akm 12:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Wiki Policy: For those not in the know, dev and I, despite being friends, have clashed strongly in the past over attribution on wikis. CS Wiki ended up hosting attributed articles (including some very good ones by dev) -- I objected strongly to this as contrary to the nature of the wikis. Wiki's are group editing environments where no page is "owned" by anyone (hence there should not be any "this article by xxx" attributions on pages).

Another base rock rule worth recapping is Assume Good Faith, which is in brief: assume the other person was making a good faith effort to improve the page. Part of what follows from that is: don't denigrate another editor's actions as "arbitrary" (especially after they've explained them at length), nor tell them how they can better spend their time.

Wikis are like a three legged races -- a completely unnatural exercise that fails or succeeds depending on whether you can achieve a bizarre state of cooperation. Rules like "Assume Good Faith" and the other rules on Policies and Guidelines, while seeming a bit tedious and annoying, are just the mechanism by which we make this three legged race work.

Back to the Issue:

• The Nebula awards list is specifically about giving credits. So of course, attribution is listed. In that case, attribution is essential to the subject matter.
• A better example for dev's case would be the Cobl/Mods page. Here, authors are listed, IMO in a useful way. But on that page, the point is specifically to list mods, and the mods are listed in a table format. Hence there isn't an issue with authorial attribution breaking up the flow of text. On this page, listing the mods is not the point -- rather the point is to resolve conflicts between mods -- hence the authorial attribution is not essential.
• I've already addressed the question of whether removing the attribution (but linking the first mention of the mod) provides less or more information at length. Yes, it's less immediate, but the linking makes that info and much more readily accessible and so more than offset the small loss.
• Re use of the authors' name in the title. Checking my released mods list (and not counting Cobl or Bash). I have twelve released mods -- of those only three have my name in them. So, same rule applies to me, I would discourage pages here from saying "Salan's Cellar by Wrye". Again, the better rendering is "Salan's Cellar".

Anyway, at this point, we just seem to be butting heads with no one else chiming in. I'll ask some other editors to comment. --Wrye 18:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Personally, as long as the Author's name is on the download page for a certain mod, I think having the same information here is just redundant. I don't see how each individual modder's name is really important to FCOM. That being said, I don't think the Attribution part of the Style Guide applies here. I've always read it to be anti-edit attribution, not totally anti-Attribution. Still, I think the best bet here is just to remove them. They're redundant, and they do have potential to decrease readability, especially if there's a mod with a large number of contributors (those these mainly go under teams anyways). As to why we don't allow edit attributions, we don't want this place to become an e-dick contest with things like "This comma added by Oblivions_Posse_666".--Ratwar 19:37, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

In agreement with Ratwar, I don't think that the style guide's attribution guideline covers this type of attribution. I've always interpreted it as a guideline to prevent authors from claiming ownership of a part of a wiki article, thereby limiting the ability of subsequent editors to improve the article.

As for this situation, both Wrye and Dev akm have valid points, suggesting to me that perhaps an intermediate approach is better than all attributions or no attributions. For example, start with a guideline stating that ideally a mod's name should provide a link to that mod at a widely used download site (e.g., Tesnexus). In keeping with my theme-of-the-day, perhaps we should even create a template to make those links easier, e.g. {{Tesnexus|5570|Book Jackets}} that produces Book Jackets. Such links should not be accompanied by a "by author" tagline, under the assumptions that the information is available at the download site, and that mods hosted by widely used ES download sites are unlikely to get lost or confused. The exceptions stated in Wrye's original post would still apply (author is always provided if part of the mod's name; author is provided when necessary to prevent confusion).

However, when a mod name is not in the recommended link format, then the author's name should be kept (at least until the mod name can be changed into a download link). Several mods listed on this page do not have accompanying links; or, only have links to a bethsoft forum thread which longterm may not be much better than no link (sorry, Ratwar!); or, only have links to personal web sites which may make it difficult to find the mod a year from now. In those cases, the author's name is likely to be useful information if/when the mod needs to be conclusively identified.

In this situation, the result would be that some fraction of the attributions would be restored to the article. If Wrye (or another editor) wants to further cleanup the article by reducing some of those attributions, then it would first be necessary to find good links to the mods. Any chance this approach addresses most of the issues that have been raised? --Nephele^Talk 21:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Works for me. And I've done templates for Tesnexus Book Jackets and PES. If that sorts it for dev too, I'll convert at least some of the document links. (Juggling a couple of other projects today.) --Wrye 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's fine. Works for me. As you say, authorial attribution is not essential here.

However, I will say again that I really don't see how there was any "issue with authorial attribution breaking up the flow of text" here to begin with. It's such a common format that people expect it and skip over the "by" part if they're not interested in it. I guess I had the impression from your earlier comments that you were hoping to establish a precedent here that authorial attribution should never be used when listing mods. Even so, I think you're splitting hairs to say authorial attribution is valid in your Cobl example but not here. On that page, the point is specifically to list mods that use Cobl resources, right? Well, here the point is specifically to list mods that have been patched or need patching to work with FCOM. Why are they so different in your mind? Is it just the lack of a table format here? I don't get it.

--Dev akm 15:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's a perceptual issue as to whether or not the eye/mind skips over it. In the text, mine doesn't -- rather it results in a noticeable pause -- not huge, but noticeable. Perhaps that's not the case for you. Which is why having a couple more opinions helped to clarify.

Re difference. The point of the Cobl page is to list mods. The point of this page is to resolve compatibility issues; the listing of mods is incidental.

Anyway, as promised, I've added links. I didn't find a few others during my quick search. I'll leave those for other editors. --Wrye 00:53, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Article vs. Talk Page

Reminder, do not put "discussion" type comments on the main article page. I.e. no "This didn't work for me." If the entry is in error, correct it. If the there's a dispute over the correction, then discuss it here and sign your comments here. For those new to wikis, you sign your name by 1) getting an acount (and logging in), and 2) typing --~~~~ at the end of your comment -- this sequence will be autoconverted to your login name and date when you save your changes to the page. (Again, such signatures should only be added on this page, not the article page.) --Wrye 22:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This+Supreme Magicka

does it work? ~ 69.149.105.224 17:01, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Broken Links 27/06/2009

These links are broken:

Link Name => Broken URL

• Standalone Knights of the Nine MOBS Rebalance => http://www.4shared.com/file/35260683/1a98599a/MOBS_Knights.html
• Skip Tutorial => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=10663
• Armamentarium for Npcs => http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=814348
• Kingdom of Almar => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=12128 (followed also by the broken link bellow..)
• this patch => http://devnull.sweetdanger.com/mods/KingdomofAlmar_OOO.zip
• KA 6.6 => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=13336
• Kvatch Aftermath 6.3 Cleaned and Fixed => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=15646
• LSTR:SI => http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=819540
• Origin of the Mages Guild => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=13973 (followed also by the broken link bellow..)
• OMG_OOO_Patch => http://devnull.sweetdanger.com/mods/OMG_OOO_Patch.7z
• PowerAttack Voicemod => http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=OblivionMods.Detail&id=2820
• original discussion (next to Pekka's Armored Horses for OOO) => http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=821925&st=140&p=11962493&#entry11962493
• OOO-Compatible Spells No Lighting => http://devnull.sweetdanger.com/mods/OOO_SpellsNoLighting.zip
• Stock Oblivion Clothing Replacer for Exnem Female Body => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=10643
• FCOM patch (Unofficial Lv30 Francesco's Leveled Item) => http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=813053&st=20&p=11818079&#entry11818079
• Cyrodiil Upgrade Overhaul => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=20288 (followed also by the broken link bellow..)
• here => http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=889466
• The Necromancer => http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=15149

Polemarhos 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

New section request

If you agree I would like to add a section in the article named "Miscellaneous Utilities" or something. The purpose of this section is to cover subjects like the "Better Oblivion Sorting Software - BOSS" (used to be called FCOMhelper).

For reference please check these URLs:

• http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=20516
• http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=971771

I will proceed in adding this section within the next few days unless there is a dissagreement in doing so. Polemarhos 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Calipers in lists

Please advise if there's anything can be done to avoid calipers in leveled lists. Was it addressed in any patch? Is it incompatibility or bug? I've got that things repeatedly on NPC and in containers. I'm aware of resetting settings to default in franmenu script but it's kinda awkward as you need to tune all settings anew after that and calipers appear again after 3-4 hours. Oxyk 02:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BC?

Is FCOM compatible with Better Cities? — Unsigned comment by 69.249.101.138 (talk) at 11:11 on June 25, 2011

I recommend that you ask these sorts of questions on a forums, as you are more likely to find those who know. You could try to contact the developers of the mods as well. A good forum to ask is the Bethesda Forums. Good Luck! --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 23:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FCOM Compatibility and updates

Known incompatibilities and patches if applicable for FCOM can be found here http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Tes4Mod:FCOM

I must stress the importance of visiting the latest FCOM thread at the Bethesda Moddding Forums to obtain the latest information and patches before commencing installation.

ShikishimaShikishima 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That page that you linked to is this one, except the actual page instead of its discussion... But otherwise, yeah pretty much. --DKong27 ^{Tk Ctr Em} 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed/Replaced PES links

As part of a thing I'm doing on the wiki, I have removed and/or replaced Planet Elder Scrolls links with TES Nexus links. I don't think Shikishima is active anymore (and even if they were, I doubt they'd object), so I didn't bother asking for permission first.

Replaced: PowerAttack Voicemod; Magic Shields; Loading Screens Themed Replacer; Realswords; Younger Hotter NPCs Removed: New NPC Clothes; Pekka's Armored Horses for OOO

Did not replace New NPC Clothes link because FCOM seems to require version 2.6 and that version may only be available on filefront and megaupload, and I don't believe (though I may be wrong) that it is good housekeeping to link to those here. With Pekka's Armored Horses for OOO, I couldn't find any links at all, so it did not get replaced. I didn't bother leaving the PES links because those are useless now. - Gormadoc (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2014 (GMT)