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)
- Why not have this page including a list of commands and short examples.... and then have longer ones that require with their own pages... Like Border and Goto would be fairly obvious so wouldn't require it, but some of the others could have longer articles. C2r 21:47, 26 February 2007 (CET)
- Well, it goes without saying that this would be the ultimate guide to Basic. A new article for some of the commands that will expand on their use with examples and tweaks... Unfortunately my Basic is VERY rusty, I wouldn't trust myself to write anything :( Gryzor
- Hehe, mine too. Something which might be an idea is to move the Basic commands reference from this page to another, e.g. List of Locomotive BASIC commands, and link to that page from the main Locomotive Basic page. This would separate those people wanting information about basic including the history and general information from the people using the page as a reference with examples etc. All the pages could be grouped together via a Category:Basic, for example. just some thoughts....! C2r 22:25, 1 March 2007 (CET)
- Well, I don't know, because just a list of the commands sounds like pointless... It would only be of use if complimented by something more detailed, not by itself?? Gryzor 09:25, 2 March 2007 (CET)
- Perhaps list of commands for the title of the page doesn't quite sell the idea... What I mean is to move the existing command list from the Locomotive Basic Page to a new one, with the new page containing the information about the names of the commands, their use, and short examples, with links to more detailed individual pages with longer examples and uses only for those that require it. C2r 12:41, 2 March 2007 (CET)
- I completly agree.. This way one could compare the workings of different dialects of basic side by side ... Eg. Locomotive Basic vs. BBC Basic!
- This doesn't seem to have been discussed for a while. Let me offer my thoughts as an experienced wiki user but a newcomer to CPCWiki. The article Locomotive BASIC should be limited to an historical perspective without trying to explain every command. The list of commands should be split off with a link, I would be in favour of a single page with all of the commands and examples listed. If each command has its own page then as C2r said, you would end up with a lot of very small articles. I would be opposed to separate articles for each command. The only commands complex enough to justify this would be
PRINT,SOUND,ENTandENVas far as I can tell. My Locomotive BASIC is still very good, I don't mind writing example code to include. CJ Dennis 02:24, 27 January 2008 (CET)
- This doesn't seem to have been discussed for a while. Let me offer my thoughts as an experienced wiki user but a newcomer to CPCWiki. The article Locomotive BASIC should be limited to an historical perspective without trying to explain every command. The list of commands should be split off with a link, I would be in favour of a single page with all of the commands and examples listed. If each command has its own page then as C2r said, you would end up with a lot of very small articles. I would be opposed to separate articles for each command. The only commands complex enough to justify this would be
- I don't think a BASIC article should be confined to its historical view only. That said, splitting it into several, small articles would not be practical either. Maybe it should stay as it is with a 'commandname_deep' article following those commands that need more explanation? In any case, you're really more than welcome to give a hand... MORE than welcome :) Gryzor 08:13, 3 February 2008 (CET)
- I am stil in favor of a seperate article for evere command! Just like on the C64 wiki! :-) Ygdrazil