User talk:Hardrock/Sandbox

Scripting Command Templates

What do you think of these templates for the scripting commands? I think we need some way to display more information in a standardized way . . . --hardrock 23:33, 26 July 2006 (CEST)

I like it :) --T_D 23:47, 26 July 2006 (CEST)

I like option 1. Not fond of the green tho. But I like how the information is organised and I can see how it would help with consistency. hoz 00:10, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

With 777 commands it will be no easy fate. :) hoz 00:46, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Let's gather ten people, if everyone does one command per day we're done in 77 days... --raedor 00:50, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Definitely Option 1; is it possible to have the "edit"-Links, as in Option 2 for the diverse sections? --Vektorboson 01:06, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Don't know whether that's possible. The good thing about option two is, that it uses Wiki's Default syntax. There's no table and nothing, so you can adapt it easily for special commands, which is not the case with the first one. --hardrock 01:12, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Which special commands won't work in the template? Also I was thinking the top part of the information is likely never to change. Only the comments, examples sections perhaps both of best worlds would work.hoz 01:35, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

I have another idea now. I'll adapt option 2 so that it looks like option 1 :-) At least try it. --hardrock 01:41, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

---

The scripting commands are at the moment in the same basic format as the official comref was presented in, albeit with some small embellishments.

I would hope that the basic information will keep to the same format.

We only have ONE large list of scripting commands, the other 3 lists are built from it, OFP,Elite and Armed Assault (which is still WIP).

Any extra information is welcome I would think, as long as it doesn't cloud the basic information originally presented for each command. ;P

Planck 02:28, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

I don't think that the basic information would be "clouded" as you say. I just think (and know) that many commands are very hard to understand for many new users, if they read one sentence about it. They don't know exactly in what terms they can or cannot use the command. Additionally, I don't know what the purpose of two different lists would be (if you meant that). But my (and not just mine) idea was just to clarify the documentation of the commands, add clear descriptions of what each command does and make this reference a really usable one. --hardrock 03:12, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Additional Information

I don't like the term bugs, or the Attention (not sure what purpose this should server?). If you have the word bugs here, your apt to get people submitting bugs about a command and we definately want to avoid that. The See Also is a good idea, perhaps a Notes: section above that, where MP notes can be presented. Under the dependancies, I'm not sure I like this term, there is no reason really to include the game title, it would also be listed in the categories below. Just some opinions, nice job. hoz

It's just some placeholders. I imagined "Attention" for some stuff where you have to take care about special unexpected command behaviours, but that's easily to change. I reorganized the whole structure now, although it still looks the same. It consists now only of headers and definition-lists, formatted in the central CSS-file. This way it's easy to add or delete rows, and nothing is fixed. Just look at the source.

I agree about the Note section, I guess this one is needed. --hardrock 03:14, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

Yes a section becuase 90% of the edits will be here. hoz

Don't you think rather the Description-text should be adapted when fundamental information about commands has been found? --hardrock 03:24, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

---

I think if you can provide a Description text that is both clearer and more informative than the original, then I would say go ahead and improve it.

Planck 03:34, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

I have once started on a Scripting Reference for OFP which is already half done, but not worked on anymore due to this wiki. You can find many new texts and much additional informations for all OFP commands up to if-then-else there. As for the rest, we can take the BIS explanation for now, until someone finds something better. If the other sysops and especially BIS agree, I think we should improve the structure as much as possible and then, as raedor proposed, try to get a team to convert the existing commands. --hardrock 08:47, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

I really like the format, I'm not crazy about the dependancies and the game title part, since most commands are used across all games titles and this information would be included in the form of categories at the bottom of each page. It might be helpful to convert one command in the scripting reference using this as template so we can get A. an idea of how it looks, and B. how much work it would take. Planck / Raedor can atest to how much work it took to painstakingly make all the commands look the same. I don't think it would be a problem getting the community to help out, lets make sure we know what were getting into though. hoz 19:36, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

It would be nice if the example section also had space to explain what the example actually does.
Would make it a bit more digestable for total newbies.--Kronzky 20:04, 27 July 2006 (CEST)

This is free to the editor. The example section doesn't need to be only code, you can insert anything you want. I will try to create templates the next days so the inclusion of the format is easier and faster. Also, a word of BIS wouldn't be bad I guess. It's their wiki and reference, at last.