Category talk:Inventory Functions

This Category is Stupid

OK, I doubt I'll get a lot of feedback on this, but... this category is really stupid. Not so bad with the CS, really, but with OBSE... far too many things have been shoved into this category when they really don't belong here - or they belong in other places also. For example, SetName - that's an actor function or an inventory function or a... anything that has a name function. The OBSE command docs have a far saner system of categorizing, but... changing things is labor-intensive, even with CSbot. I don't see myself doing it alone.

Does anyone have any ideas, thoughts, suggestions, or what have you?
Dragoon Wraith TALK 23:49, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, you're right. Most of those OBSE functions can't be categorized in only one category. More and more OBSE functions are being created. So... we really need to find a solution because if this problem isn't solved in the near future... these categories could become a total chaos. I know these things are labor-intensive and tedious but I want to help anyway. Maybe you should consider re-categorizing all OBSE functions first... (but this might actually take far longer than your idea).

Darkness X ^Talk 04:09, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Agreed. The way it is bloated, it is of no use. Better use the List of Functions. I only see a meaning for this category if it covers only functions designed to work exclusively on inventories and inventory items, like the vanilla GetContainer and inventory-walk OBSE functions. QQuix 09:18, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I agree. I'm working on preparing a document that will allow CSbot to create all of the missing OBSE functions from the OBSE docs, but categorizing is an issue. Currently, I'm planning on just having the bot create the pages with the OBSE documentation, and mostly just put into the categories we currently have. I'm then going to create pages for the categorizations that OBSE uses (the Qualities and such), and see what we can do there, and have CSbot do a second pass then. Two passes are necessary because the first pass will be instructed to ignore any already-existing pages, and I think it's easier to add pages that fit into the existing scheme and then edit them as I edit all of the existing pages, then it is to attempt to add them according to some new scheme and then try to get the old pages to match the new one.

The new function pages are going to use the {{Function}} template that I totally stole from the GECK Wiki (well, sort of stole - I did help write the think to begin with), but I'm going to leave the categories outside the template as I think the CategoryList parameter is rather pointless right now. It'll create the pages for the main functions, with any aliases or alternate versions available on the same page (e.g. GetMagicEffectBaseCost would, if created this way, include syntax for GetMEBaseCost, GetMagicEffectBaseCostC, and GetMEBaseCostC), and those aliases and alternates will be redirected to the page. I've been fussing with Notepad++'s RegEx Search and Replace as well as some extensive Excel wizardry to get this formatted correctly, and expect to begin uploading them today.

Dragoon Wraith TALK 13:53, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

This is great news if all those things you've mentioned are going to be realised. From what I've understood there isn't anything I can do about the CSbot but I can help you out with matching the old pages to the new ones. Since the function template is a WIP I might as well help you by trying to improving it. Maybe we could integrate the Function template into the vanilla CS functions too. (but this isn't as urgent as the problem we have with those OBSE categories, so this could be done later.)

Darkness X ^Talk 18:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)