Category talk:Scripting Topics
What happened to all the information that used to be in the Scripting Topics page?
Planck 20:50, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- It's still there, just check it. Your SB links to [[Scripting Topics]], not to Category:Scripting Topics. --raedor 20:56, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
You misunderstand.........there was a lot of information in the original Scripting Topics that is not present in the Category Scripting Topics.
If you look in the present category you will find that it used to refer to Scripting Topics, this information is now redundant and the information it ised to contain is now gone
Planck 21:00, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- The page "Scripting Topics" never existed (I can't find it here...). Possibly you mean the page "Scripting", but the whole content of this page was copied here. You can check it in the history of the page Scripting. --raedor 21:06, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
I know it existed because I bviewed it many times
In fact either I or bedges included it from the original comref.
Planck 21:09, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- Probably you're mixing up something. I can't find the page in any of the Logs... :( What did it contain, can you remember certain (special) things? --raedor 21:13, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- Maybe you mean that one: Script syntax? Found it on the "What links here" page of Scripting.--raedor 21:15, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
The page Scripting Topics did exist......there was even a link to it on scripting which was changed from a link to emboldened text.
Never mind, althought the information is still there, the blurb on the Scripting Topics category page will no need to be changed.
It reads:.......A good place to start would be the Scripting Topics section, link can be found below.
When in fact there is no link to be found below.
The Link that used to be found below is now just emboldened text and will also need to be removed as it is no longer a link to the Scripting Topics page.
Planck 21:24, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- Okay, I'll remove that sentence. But the "link below" was linking to Category:Scripting Topics since the third revision, before it did not exist. Go and check it here. --raedor 21:36, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
- Done. --raedor 21:38, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
I removed the emboldened link as well....all looks peachy now :P
Good to see we solved that whole issue w/o major losses ;) Fine. :) --raedor 21:42, 30 July 2006 (CEST)
Str, why are you breaking down the Array operand types for commands into their constituent parts.
lbAdd [idc, text]
The comref says 1 (One) operand which is the Array [idc, text]
You are breaking down the Array into its 2 parts and saying the command now has 2 operands. The command only has one operand of the Array type. The only makes it all the more confusing in my opinion.
You have altered a great number of commands in this way and now they no longer agree with the comref.
Planck 13:34, 15 September 2006 (CEST)
- Isn't it more important what is content of array than array itself? --Str 13:58, 15 September 2006 (CEST)
In most cases the format of any array is described in the Description.
Planck 01:52, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
Str, you are simply wrong. The command, by definition, has one operand. That operand may have several components which themselves may be arrays. These arrays may have variable numbers of components depending on the circumstances. Your system is inaccurate, unhelpful, confusing and incorrect. Please correct your mistaken changes. Thank you.
Macguba 14:38, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
All should be ok now. Sorry for that. --Str 15:54, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
Tks m8! :-)
Macguba 23:41, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
Where can I find concrete information regarding Armed Assault fired object's maximum lifetime (bullets, missiles, LGBs, etc.)?
--Havoc 19:02, 5 January 2007 (CET)