Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Function Types"
my thoughts
imported>SnakeChomp (Re:) |
imported>Qazaaq (my thoughts) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
::::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. | ::::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. | ||
::::--[[User:SnakeChomp|SnakeChomp]] 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | ::::--[[User:SnakeChomp|SnakeChomp]] 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::You definitely have a point with the [[Say]] example, but incompleteness of the categories also counts if everything is listed on a single page. Then you'd have different headers instead of categories, but you still can't be sure the functions are categorized correctly. One page listing all function sounds useful, but I expect it to be quite long if we also include the FOSE functions. | |||
:::::I'm not opposed to more function categories. They won't be in our way when making a single page with all functions. | |||
:::::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 20:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC) | |||