Template talk:Function

General

Looks pretty nice Qazaaq. I've been working on some ideas and placed them on the other wiki's Syntax page. I've gotta' run so I'll look at this some more later.
--Haama 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, got to look at it a bit more.

• For the link to the CS wiki page, should we assume that it has the same name (if there is one)? That would be one less field to worry about.
• We should add a statement about the origin before the syntax, as on the CS wiki.

--Haama 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've divided your answer into sections below with my response. This should be easier to follow.

--Qazaaq 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've created the Sandbox so we can test this out.

--Haama 06:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about individual fields

CS Wiki link

For the link to the CS wiki page, should we assume that it has the same name (if there is one)? That would be one less field to worry about.
--Haama 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There has to be at least one field for CS Wiki link to determine if there has to be one or not. Whether this is a boolean of some sort or the name of the article doesn't matter. Using the article name will allow for more flexibility. When the field is omitted the entire notice is left out.

--Qazaaq 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin

We should add a statement about the origin before the syntax, as on the CS wiki.
--Haama 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already a statement for the origin in there. It's just not showing in the example. It will display an error message if it's omitted, the current GECK should be specified with GECK1, FOSE function will probably have room for a version number and display a notice.

--Qazaaq 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Geck1 option was blank, so I filled it out.

--Haama 06:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ReturnVal

Currently, if the return value is omitted this will show an error. If it's left empty it will show the empty braces () Haama suggested at the CS Wiki, if it's filled in it will obviously be filled in. I've chosen to fill in void in the example because I think that's clearer. Any thoughts?
--Qazaaq 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CategoryList

We need something clever for to handle the categories. I'm open to suggestions.
--Qazaaq 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This refreshed my memory a bit (still looking through it, though) and may be useful for first timers.

--Haama 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dot Syntax and OBSE (expected FOSE) functions

Dot syntax is a weird one. For (99% of?) vanilla functions it is required, but the Self reference is assumed for all object (even those in inventory) and magic effect scripts. To make it even stranger, quite a few OBSE functions treat it as "Either...or" and you would have to place a reference record before the function (dot syntax) or place a base record after the function.

Display suggestions - Required/vanilla dot syntax should look the same as a required field. It's closer to a required field (necessary for Quest scripts) than an optional field, and the dot itself should disambiguate it from other required fields. Either...or syntax should also look required, but both the ref and base parameters should have an asterisk next to them.

Template suggestions - The dot syntax should be explicitly be named as such (DotArg as opposed to Arg0). If I've got this right, there are basically three types of dot syntax - None, Normal, Either...or. These three options should be the template parameter input.
--Haama 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Function Parameter Types

I still prefer show/hide boxes. These would allow new readers to easily find the information (right on the page) and those who want a reminder to glance at it. More importantly, some of the parameter information is rather long and this would allow readers to easily (and by default) see the rest of the page. Do you think we should ask about them again?

As for the template, I think it would be straight-forward. Each function parameter would have an optional template parameter "Sub-Type". If Sub-Type is filled, then show the template {{Sub-Type}}.

Further expanding on this is not so straight forward (especially when I should be asleep :P). I'm thinking the layout should be

==Parameter Info== Show/Hide
#Parameter 1 Name: Parameter information (i.e., ''RunOnActivate'' runs the script)
Parameter 1 Sub-Type Information Template - Show/Hide

--Haama 06:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This worth considering. Most of the functions don't have a lot of parameters, but hiding parts of the syntax information would be very useful for the larger ones.

--Qazaaq 11:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Displaying the whole page, instead of the summary only

I was interested whether we could set up the rest of the page - the Example, Notes, etc. sections. This would help standardization, etc. So, I simply added

...
{{{summary}}}

==Notes==<!--
...

This does display the Notes section correctly on the page (see Sandbox), however when you edit the section you get the rest of the template

==Notes==<!--

categorization code (needs something clever):
-->
{{{CategoryList|}}}</includeonly>

--Haama 06:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The example section shouldn't be a problem. The rest - maybe it's best to leave that of the template. It's simple enough (only two headers), and adding it to the template complicates things unnecessarily. Leaving it out would also allow for additional section if a function requires them.

--Qazaaq 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Is there a way to shove it to the bottom of the page? (I have tried to find one, but never had any luck). As of now, there's no way to put anything between the example and See Also.
--Haama 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. No, I don't believe there is any way to force it to the bottom. Maybe then See Also should not be part of the template then. As it is the Template seems to do more than I would have it do, personally.

DragoonWraith · talk · 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the See Also from the template.

--Qazaaq 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)