Talk:World of Warcraft API/Archive 2006 June

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Can someone verify Fantasy55's changes?

I think it's chinese, but I'm not sure. Here are the changes... --Fandyllic 7:36 AM HST 9 May 2006

I ran about 8 of the changes through a Chinese to English translator. They look like they are valid translations of the API function names. Is there any policy on how to handle non-english in WoWWiki? I don't want to get rid of the chinese information but it doesn't look good just tacked onto the end of the line. - ClydeJr 13:29, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Think we could possibly make a separate page like World_of_Warcraft_API_Chinese and basically make it a duplicate of World_of_Warcraft_API except replace the text that was added by Fantasy55? Then if Fantasy55 or anyone else wants to continue translating it they may continue to do so. If translations of this page becomes popular we could link them in a table in World_of_Warcraft_API. --Tarog 15:08, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

I agree with Tarog on this one, copying the English page over and then translate based on that page makes it look a lot better. Personally I find the tacked on text look horrible. If we do this however, it will be very important to make sure both pages stay sync'd as much as possible (mainly by chinese(-speaking/writing) members, since others won't understand anyway). If we do this however, will we also have to copy over all function-definitions? (meaning the pages you get to when clicking a function name), if we do that, we'd get a HUGE amount of double data, without real need for it. Easiest here would be to again, keep the links to the english pages, and change them to new chinese ones once it's translated. Again, it's important to keep synchronising everything here, which won't be easy (mainly due to volume). --Tularis 17:03, 28 May 2006 (EDT) off Lua language functions to another page

Whoa, I almost said "splitting".... whoops, now I said it. Ok, bear with me for a sec :-)


I, like everyone else, definitely want to keep all the API functions on one page. Ctrl+f ftw, indeed. But I was thinking that we could reduce the page size somewhat by moving off the core Lua language functions which aren't really WoW API functions to another page (and link to it, of course.) You learn them in a week and then don't really look at them anymore, so the reference value of them is ... doubtful to me. --Mikk 02:50, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

I've moved all core Lua functions as well as standard Lua library functions off to Lua functions now. There's a well-visible link to them in the World of Warcraft API page (below the link to the Widget API). --Mikk 05:11, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Move them to another page

  1. Move Mikk 02:50, 28 May 2006 (EDT) - (Keeping them on another page makes more sense to me)
  2. Move Kaso 09:12, 28 May 2006 (EDT) - ((I agree, there is luawiki for lua functions, we dont need them)
  3. Move Starlightblunder 13:58, 28 May 2006 (EDT) - ((Agree - page should be about World of Warcraft-specific API, not LUA internal functions)
  4. Move Wickedsick 22:08, 28 May 2006 (EDT) - (Duplicating the Lua manual seems unnecessary and out-of-scope for this wiki. There should be a page for noting discrepancies in Blizzard's deployment, rather than replicating everything that remains consistent with the specification. But if people do insist on keeping general Lua information here, I think it should be contained in a separate section.)
  5. Move Gello 08:07, 30 May 2006 (EDT) - (Fine here with moving the Lua Functions, Math Functions, String Functions and Table Functions to a separate page.)

Noo! Don't!

  1. Stay Loriel 11:06, 28 May 2006 (EDT) - (Some of the base lua functions are disabled; Blizzard is using an old version of lua which might have different functions than actual lua)


  1. NOTE: I never suggested we DELETE the Lua function list. I meant to MOVE it. --Mikk 13:47, 28 May 2006 (EDT)
  2. NOTE: Assuming this vote is being conducted by the Wowpedia:Voting policy process, this vote is pending closure with the Move votes currently winning by a 5-to-1 margin. --Fandyllic 3:18 PM PDT 30 May 2006
  3. NOTE: Be careful to differentiate between lua functions that are documented in the lua 5.0 documentation, and those compatibility functions that are not, but which are still used by quite a few developers including blizzard. I think there's a case to be made for keeping the latter in the documentatio. Flickering 14:46, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Restructuring all development pages under new ("Dev:"?) namespace

Seems a no-go. Look at #Restructuring things without a new namespace below, instead. --Mikk 15:12, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Also see Wowpedia talk:Namespace for setting up the new namespace (right at the bottom).

  • It'd be a logical umbrella for all the development information -- today, there's NO common denominator between "Interface Customization" pages, "Function Libraries", "World of Warcraft API", the XML documentation, etc...
  • No longer having to put "API_" before things makes category sort keys suddenly useful. No more 15 pages of "(A contd..)".
  • If we change names like "API_FontString_GetFont" into "Dev:FontString/GetFont", and hope that pigs start flying and we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.6, we can suddenly do very interesting things with {{BASEPAGENAME}} and {{SUBPAGENAME}} in templates to make navigation much easier.
  • Having a namespace called "Dev:" is different from just sticking "Dev:" in the names. It will suddenly allow us to, among other things, put separate instructions in the edit pages. (I.e. "please use X template, remember to look at Y, etc..."). It also means that {{PAGENAME}} returns "Funcname" rather than "Dev:Funcname" which is good for automatic categorization.

Structurally, what I think would be a good idea, would be something like this:

  • Widgets: "Dev:FontString/SetText"
  • APIs: "Dev:UserIsEnemy"
  • XML info: "Dev:XML/Frame/..."

And, along with this, I think it'd be spiffy to introduce some new categories:

  • Dev/APIs
  • Dev/Widgets
  • Dev/XML
  • Dev/Types
  • Dev/UI Objects - no, there aren't many of these yet
  • Dev/UI Handlers
  • Dev/Events
  • ... I'm probably forgetting some

Of course, all the old page names become automatic redirects for the foreseeable future, so it's not like everyone's bookmarks are going to stop working.

But I'm not going to assume that I alone know best, so ... please, peeps, chime in :-)

(I'm going to update this section as we reach consensus on things, so if comments don't make sense, that's why)

--Mikk 03:03, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Comments on restructuring

  • We could also start using subcategories for APIs; this makes since some functions belong in multiple categories (i.e. something could be a "Toggle" function and "UI" function at the same time (hrm bad category name, really)). We don't really want to reflect that in the API page itself since it'd mean duplicating information and that's kinda bad. --Mikk 03:26, 28 May 2006 (EDT)
  • Or should categories be "Dev:foo" rather than "Dev/foo"? How do categories and namespaces interact? Anyone know? --Mikk 10:57, 28 May 2006 (EDT)
    • I wasn't thinking. Of course it'd have to be "Dev/foo" since the categories live in the "Category:" namespace. --Mikk 16:17, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Widget API, and other things

Moved to User_talk:Mikk

Cleaning out the abandoned split-style pages

I'll shamelessly plug my vote to clear out the abandoned split API pages here. They've been lying around for half a year after they layout got reverted back to the all-in-one list that most developers wanted. Right now, they're only serving to confuse new visitors in my opinion, so... vote please :-) --Mikk 16:12, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Ok, that didn't take long. They're history. Thanks peeps :-)   --Mikk 05:12, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Global Function List boldizing works again

I took it upon myself to do some creative awk scripting, so now the links in Global Function List appear bold when they're not present in World of Warcraft API again. Should make it easier to spot things that need work.

I'll re-run the script approximately whenever I remember to (date of last run appears in the global list page). Poke me on my talk page if I'm forgetting to do it.

--Mikk 15:27, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Careful with the bold-izing

I notice a lot has happened to this page since I last visited it :) Just wanted to say that I'm the one that normally generates the list and uploads it on here. I will continue to do so each time there is a change in the API (e.g. when 1.11 arrives). However, if you can take care of the bold-izing instead of me that's great. I was using a script for this, but I wasn't updating it often enough.

Here is what I propose: when there is a new patch, I will upload the new list on this page, leaving off any bold-izing. So you can then go ahead and run your script to bold-ize.

Lego 14:54, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Aye, I'm using a script too. It adds or removes boldizing in the global function list as required. The reason I did it now is because your script went haywire last time and boldized everything. You can boldize things or not, both work equally well for me. Just trying to lend a helping hand, here! :-)
(Actally, I think I'll just post my little collection of wowwiki awk scripts someplace around here. They've been quite handy for me so far.)
--Mikk 15:10, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Aight. Scripts for boldizing Global Function List, finding mismatching duplicate entries in various API pages, and finding bad entries, are now in User:Mikk/Scripts. --Mikk 06:56, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

Shameless Plug

.. though quite related to the topic at hand: WoWBench, an offline WoW API emulator community project, here at WoWWiki. --Mikk 16:59, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Brilliant! Template idea

I'm quite surprised that no one has had the idea of making a template such as {{api|<name of article>}} to name and call API articles. Anyone want to go for it and make it? Would anyone benefit from this? If not, no need to make it, which is why I'm reluctant to do it myself. Schmidt 02:09, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

*scratches head* ... why? I mean.. it doesn't save on typing (it's exactly the same letter count)... were you thinking that it could contain something other than a link? --Mikk 05:32, 20 June 2006 (EDT)