Talk:Config Properties Megalist

Redundancy.

Are you aware that most of this information is already on the wiki? I appreciate your effort, but would it perhaps be better to supplement existing pages instead?

CfgVehicles Config Reference
CfgAmmo Config Reference
CfgMagazines Config Reference
CfgWeapons Config Reference
Model Config

Wouldn't it be better to make a page that links to each of these pages, instead of making a massive one with already covered information? --Benargee (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (CEST)

Totally legitimate request. It is a challenge, however. The existing pages are essentially copies from official BI(S) documentation (often VBS). They stand on their own as some kind of resource, just not an ideal one. The descriptions are usually terse, confusing, obsolete, or worse. They are also not sourced/hyperlinked to anything. So my choice is to essentially destroy all that information and replace it with my own "user-friendly" descriptions. Or be less destructive and make a new content--which is what I decided to do by making a separate article. I see this list as more of an unofficial "config values for dummies" or "config values explained". So more of a companion to the pages you mention rather than a replacement. All that said, I concede the point somewhat and I'm open to retrofitting those existing pages once I'm done compiling this one. Then I could delete this one if its redundant. I'm not sure it's the best approach. Do you see my dilemma? At the very least I should link to the pages you list, however.--Olds (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2014 (CST)

Very true. By the way, the work you have been doing is absolutely great! I have wondered what the units were for most of these config values for awhile, already helping me out. --Benargee (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (CEST)

Delighted to hear that Benargee! I hope you will help out with corrections & clarifications if you find problems.Olds (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2014 (CST)

Redundancy pt.2

Why create a new page? Why not update the existing ones? They are better organized and formatted, so you would be just be adding and updating the content. This kind of duplicity will make everything even more confusing. Kinda reminds me of http://xkcd.com/927/ :) --Str (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2014 (CEST)

LOL your xkcd. I don't know what's worse: making duplicate wiki content, or making a duplicate wiki discussion post without reading the same argument in the posts right above yours! ;) Anyway, I'll take that under advisement as another vote to integrate with the existing pages. Olds (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2014 (CST)

Well, again those pages can be modified to add this information. I mean as long as the existing information is relevent, it can be added to. Again, good work so far, your efforts are not for nothing. I think now its just a matter of copy and paste. I dont think it would hurt to continue with your work, but then to move it over when its complete. --Benargee (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2014 (CEST)