Difference between revisions of "Talk:Client cvar list"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I guess someone with too much time on his hands could convert the tables to wiki tables. Descriptions can be shortened immensely with linking. --[[User:Lagger|Lagger]] 21:01, 27 April 2006 (PDT) | I guess someone with too much time on his hands could convert the tables to wiki tables. Descriptions can be shortened immensely with linking. --[[User:Lagger|Lagger]] 21:01, 27 April 2006 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | And of course that someone would be me. Anyways, as a test, I have converted the first table to a wiki table using [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Helferlein/EXCEL_Tabellenumwandlung]. The tradeoff is that it's basically a pain to insert new entries. If it doesn't work out just revert the changes. --[[User:Lagger|Lagger]] 21:43, 27 April 2006 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 04:43, 28 April 2006
Thanks The Birdman for the work one the server and client cvar and command list. They are very helpful. However, it seems like there is a basic problem. The pitatable doesn't allow formatting and linking, and some of these things are complex enough to justify having their own page. Some command/cvars are related, and are described on a single page (e.g. Physics cvars).
Putting each item on it's own page, and using a wiki catagory to generate a bare list of the names (as in Category:ETPro:Client Cvars) isn't a complete solution either. When trying to find a command or cvar, without knowing exactly what it is, you want to look at a list with brief descriptions of each item, and a link to further information where it is available. Suggestions as to how to cleanly achieve this with wiki are requested.
ReyalP 19:29, 20 March 2006 (PST)
I guess someone with too much time on his hands could convert the tables to wiki tables. Descriptions can be shortened immensely with linking. --Lagger 21:01, 27 April 2006 (PDT)
And of course that someone would be me. Anyways, as a test, I have converted the first table to a wiki table using [1]. The tradeoff is that it's basically a pain to insert new entries. If it doesn't work out just revert the changes. --Lagger 21:43, 27 April 2006 (PDT)
