v0.34 Talk:Miner

Timelessness

My understanding of Rule T seems to correspond more with HiEv than Timrem. HiEv removed a reference to 34.08 when the current version became 34.09, but Timrem reverted that change, stating that DF2012 needs to cover 34.01 through the present release, which trumps timelessness. Is this the general consensus? I thought that whenever a new version came out, whether it be major or minor, references to previous versions should be removed or updated. The article version template states which version the page refers to, so users have an indicator that changes may have occurred if they are playing an older version, while the release information page contains the changelogs. I just think that we should be striving to keep the wiki as up-to-date as possible and not have to worry about making distinctions between various versions. --Cali 02:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. If I'm wrong, that's cool. I look at pages such as v0.31:Irrigation though, where there was a major change during that development period, and it notes how things were both before and after the change, and feel like that's the right way to do things. Rule T, to me, says "keep each namespace relevant only to itself", as in, "don't talk about how things were in 23a if the article is about v0.34". If something changed in v0.34.08 from v0.34.07, though, I don't think timelessness trumps the need to document both versions. People do still play v0.34.07, and the wiki shouldn't just ignore that their experience will be different from those who always keep up-to-date on versions. --timrem 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC) edit to add: "references to differences from or similarities to old versions of DF should be reduced and eliminated, and put in the appropriate version page"; imo, this is "the appropriate version page" to be talking about both versions of mining. --timrem 02:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in either case, the removal of my edit left the text as a mish-mash between the two different versions, and also removed two of my other unrelated fixes. I've tried to fix all that, but I wouldn't mind clarification on Rule T myself. -- HiEv 05:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, HiEv, that a Rule T clarification would be helpful. Timrem, I would argue that the page you cite is due to an oversight and not as an example of Rule T compliance; the Rules page hasn't always been linked on the Navigation sidebar and is still not as well-known as it should be. Although, to be fair, the title "Community portal" doesn't make it clear that it contains rules. A while ago, I suggested that an editing guide be created and linked on the main page, but it didn't get much of a response. I don't think I know enough about wiki-editing in general and the quirks of this wiki in particular to generate such a guide myself, but something like that would definitely be nice to help clarify situations like these.