Category talk:Function Types

should we add more categories? Inventory Functions, Statistics Functions, etc? --Illyism 20 January 2009

I don't think we should have as many categories as we do. I never use them (for functions) myself because I know they may not be complete or accurate and that may cause me to miss the function I was looking for. I know we don't like categories as pages here, but the sentiment for function categories may differ.

What I would like to see is a page for functions like the Settings page which has links to all the functions categorized with section headers or broken off into sub pages. Perhaps also include a brief description of the function on that page, but without duplicating the information on the function page.

--SnakeChomp 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I started to work on a page like that. The ultimate goal was to use those sub-categories as tabs in a show/hide box, but I have to learn some more about the template set ups and bots before I can continue.

--Haama 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I meant, excuse me if I didn't make myself clear; It was just a question if we needed more categories to sort script functions in. For example: Inventory Functions or OBSE Functions

Anyhow, your idea sounds interesting, Haama, But I believe you need the #if extension to use it properly.

--Illyism 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew what you meant, and I don't want to add the new categories you suggest. Instead of adding categories I would like to see a page such as the one Haama showed us. In such a page, the categories are really the section headers, for instance, the Say function would belong to the "Actor/Dialog" category. According to the wiki it wouldn't belong to such a category, but according to people reading the page it does. A page like this is infinitely easier to use than the category page to find related functions.

--SnakeChomp 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)