> we don't want one doc for "bpy.ops.texture.slot_move", better glob > "bpy.ops.texture.slot_*", or "bpy.ops.texture.*" and then link to a > page explaining about blender texture system.
I'd say we do. And I'd say that trying to figure out whether to use "bpy.ops.texture.slot_*", or "bpy.ops.texture.*" shows just how arbitrary it can be to try to group these things. So don't try. Sure, that one page would just be about slot_move, but then some industrious soul would add links to a page on texture slots AND another link to a page on texturing in general. In the text of this page someone could add a hyperlink to a page about slot_copy. And anywhere that mentions moving texture slots could be hyper-linked to this page. This type of thing can only be done well when the atoms of information are small and predictable. Imagine writing in the wiki and wondering whether you can make something a hyperlink. Making the pages this specific means that you can easily guess what you can link to and also guess the target address, so you can do so without pausing to look anything up. If you have to stop and check to see whether a target document exists you might not even make the link. If you instead make larger pages that contain multiple items then you can get stuck when trying to maintain it. Say the page gets too long and complicated because people are adding too much useful information. If you were to break the page up into smaller logical parts you would then have to FIX most of the links that go to the page from elsewhere. So I guess my biggest point is that you can have lots of internal links in the wiki, like wikipedia, if the target pages are very specific and predictable. But you will get very few internal links if the pages are based instead on unpredictable arbitrary groupings. Harley _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
