Difference between revisions of "Talk:Locomotive BASIC"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Thanx a lot, Zilogmonkey, for your contributions. Hope, we will get the command descriptions finished at one day. -- [[User:Prodatron|Prodatron]] 17:54, 26 February 2007 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
== Splitting article into smaller pieces == | == Splitting article into smaller pieces == | ||
Well, after I added subcategories (which are necessary in my opinion to jump to a command easily and from other articles) you can see that the whole index blowed up :(. I guess that this was the reason in the C64 wiki to add an article for each command and I fear we will end up like they did, because you then have the possibility to add a category and let the wiki create a alphabetical index. Another point is, that if you want to describe a command more in detail you need the space for a short example routine which will make this article very, very big in the future. --[[User:Octoate|Octoate]] 09:46, 14 September 2006 (CEST) | Well, after I added subcategories (which are necessary in my opinion to jump to a command easily and from other articles) you can see that the whole index blowed up :(. I guess that this was the reason in the C64 wiki to add an article for each command and I fear we will end up like they did, because you then have the possibility to add a category and let the wiki create a alphabetical index. Another point is, that if you want to describe a command more in detail you need the space for a short example routine which will make this article very, very big in the future. --[[User:Octoate|Octoate]] 09:46, 14 September 2006 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 11:54, 26 February 2007
Thanx a lot, Zilogmonkey, for your contributions. Hope, we will get the command descriptions finished at one day. -- Prodatron 17:54, 26 February 2007 (CET)
Splitting article into smaller pieces
Well, after I added subcategories (which are necessary in my opinion to jump to a command easily and from other articles) you can see that the whole index blowed up :(. I guess that this was the reason in the C64 wiki to add an article for each command and I fear we will end up like they did, because you then have the possibility to add a category and let the wiki create a alphabetical index. Another point is, that if you want to describe a command more in detail you need the space for a short example routine which will make this article very, very big in the future. --Octoate 09:46, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
- Yes, I agree. I must admit, that it makes much more sense to have one article for each command. -- Prodatron 11:39, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
- Well, imagine that... sucks! Then again, nobody prohibits you from collapsing the contents, no? Gryzor 13:16, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
- Yes, that's right, but I don't want to do something which is cancelled some days later, because this a lot of work to do (I already had the experience). --Octoate 13:36, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
- Yep, that seems reasonable, as the contents table is not usable now... We should only keep list of commands here(with links), and move the explanation, examples of usage and all that to diffrent articles... Only then, I fear that things like article on "BORDER" would be quite short...--Torn 14:22, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
- Yes it would make sense to split this article into articles on each keyword! Maybe we could group the the links in the main article into: Keywords, Functions, Graphics... etc! --Ygdrazil 14:39, 14 September 2006 (CEST)
