Template talk:Command

From Bohemia Interactive Community
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template Format

I think this (examples in command article, not in template table) is much better solution. --Djura 20:44, 31 July 2006 (CEST)

One small bug - Wiki links in <pre> tags are not longer availible (example). For unformated text with links are better leading spaces.

--Str 22:47, 1 August 2006 (CEST)

Leading spaces are great, but I guess somehow they don't work in the template . . . --hardrock 11:02, 2 August 2006 (CEST)
Isn't this a showstopper? Or have we decided that we don't want links in examples? Removing that for some silly new layout change is stupid. It's the information that matters not how it's presented. --Salisan 19:50, 2 August 2006 (CEST)
I don't think its a case of not wanting the links in the examples, however in the conversion some of the examples seem to have gone missing, Generally this is becuase of the {} brackets. If this is the case I've found that using the nowiki tag fixes these examples. We are slowly fixing them up, and by all means feel free to fix any you come across. hoz 19:58, 2 August 2006 (CEST)
I'm sure you know that long examples fall out of the bounding box, hardrock (e.g. the format command)? --Kronzky 23:17, 2 August 2006 (CEST)
Yes, but how can we fix it? The only fix for it would be not to use <pre>-tags, but that would also mean that code wouldn't be very well recognizable . . . I think it's good like that, and for the few pages where they fall out, who cares? What do you think? --hardrock 12:40, 3 August 2006 (CEST)
Yeah, that's a tough one. We could allow auto-wrap in <pre> sections via CSS, but then again, we don't really want a line of code split at random positions... Perhaps we'll have to make the box size flexible, to adjust to the example length. Or perhaps we just have to keep our examples really brief (wouldn't be a bad idea anyway)...;) --Kronzky 18:10, 3 August 2006 (CEST)
Well, I have introduced something new now. You can either use <pre> or <code> tags for code sections now. The first one will allow you to enter the code just as you want, while you have to care about line breaks (<br/>), but may post links in the <code> tags. Please use them, visually they don't make any difference --hardrock 20:29, 3 August 2006 (CEST)

About notes

Could be note text (Please post only discovered facts ... + Add Note ... Use the Template:Note to post notes.) placed under the notes itselves? Now it's bit confusing and some shorter notes are hardly visible between Nots title and Category list (example: hintC or accTime) Str 13:55, 18 August 2006 (CEST)

I've been trying to simplify your notes section, but your template is so complex that you seem to be the only one able to edit it...
So - if you could please change it so the sequence is:
1. ===Notes===
2. this is note #1
3. this is note #2
4. etc.
5. "click here to leave another note"
6. (notice about where to discuss commands)
And we should definitely get rid of the Notes template, since nobody understands that concept anyway. (As you can see by the few notes that have been left by the few people that aren't sysops here: NOBODY used the template...)
Thanks, Kronzky 17:50, 27 December 2006 (CET)
Ok. I'll see about it tomorrow. --hardrock 22:39, 27 December 2006 (CET)

Work in progress?

I do not understand what the red section "Work in progress" is for. Everything in the Wiki is work in progress and the part "feel free to remove any errors" is again a common thing on Wiki. I suggest this note to be removed. --Suma 10:13, 2 August 2006 (CEST)

It was mainly meant for the time when we were converting the old command descriptions to the new ones, so people don't start posting notes about naturally buggy things. The note will be removed as soon as the obvious mistakes in the description (resulting from an automatic command converter) are fixed. --hardrock 10:52, 2 August 2006 (CEST)