Ffur2007slx2 5 – User talk
(→See Also ArmA:_Actions: new section) |
m (RE: Strangepete (Thank you for reminding me, links removed, could you please check it?)) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I think you should consider changing, or removing the direct See Also to ArmA:_Actions#USEWEAPON, only because if you go to Category:Actions youll see there are 3 different versions of that document, ArmA:_Actions being the eldest...not sure if it would be wise to send all referrals there instead of the Category page where the reader can choose their game version, or maybe it would be better as a note or other mention (instead of trying to cram 3 see also links). | I think you should consider changing, or removing the direct See Also to ArmA:_Actions#USEWEAPON, only because if you go to Category:Actions youll see there are 3 different versions of that document, ArmA:_Actions being the eldest...not sure if it would be wise to send all referrals there instead of the Category page where the reader can choose their game version, or maybe it would be better as a note or other mention (instead of trying to cram 3 see also links). | ||
--[[User:Strangepete|Strangepete]] ([[User talk:Strangepete|talk]]) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (CEST) | --[[User:Strangepete|Strangepete]] ([[User talk:Strangepete|talk]]) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (CEST) | ||
Thank you for reminding me, links removed, could you please check it? --[[User:ffur2007slx2_5|ffur2007slx25]] ([[User talk:ffur2007slx2_5|talk]]) 17:37, 9 Apr 2014 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 10:36, 9 April 2014
Hi, regarding your comment in isClass - BIS_fnc_getCfgIsClass is a function created specifically for A3 campaign and is in no way intended as a replacement for isClass command. Could you please modify your comment? ++Str (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2014 (CEST)
Thanks Karel, modified, could you please check it? ++ffur2007slx2_5 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2014 (CEST)
Edit Summaries
Hi Ffur. Although this is arguably not of great importance, could I ask that you add a concise edit summary (e.g. "Added note", "Fixed spelling" or "Linked <code>" etc.) for your edits? It helps current and future editors understand a page's history and RecentChanges is far more useful with edit summaries. I would agree that the content is far more important than the circumstances, but we're building documentation, and the documentation about how we're doing it has its own value. Docuception! ;-) -- Fred Gandt (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (CEST)
Oh sorry Fred Gandt, I’ll add edit summaries from then on. And I’ll be appreciate if you can point out some mistakes I might make, thanks. ++ffur2007slx2_5 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2014 (CEST)
- There's certainly no need for "sorry" and mistakes can only be made if there's a right way. Wikis are perhaps the collaborative epitome of the wisdom of crowds, and for guidence, Wikipedia is perhaps the epitome of wikis, and as such can be used as a yardstick. But in the end, whatever we do is right. Thanks :-) -- Fred Gandt (talk/contribs) 08:13, 3 April 2014 (CEST)
See Also ArmA:_Actions
I think you should consider changing, or removing the direct See Also to ArmA:_Actions#USEWEAPON, only because if you go to Category:Actions youll see there are 3 different versions of that document, ArmA:_Actions being the eldest...not sure if it would be wise to send all referrals there instead of the Category page where the reader can choose their game version, or maybe it would be better as a note or other mention (instead of trying to cram 3 see also links). --Strangepete (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (CEST)
Thank you for reminding me, links removed, could you please check it? --ffur2007slx25 (talk) 17:37, 9 Apr 2014 (CEST)