- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion/0.42-micro template"
Doorkeeper (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Regardless of whether they're removed or replaced, a bot is required to make the changes because [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:New in v0.42|more than a hundred articles]] in the DF2014 namespace contain this template and manually editing each of them would be difficult. And while we're at this topic, it would also be great to make a consensus on whether current and future version disclaimers (e.g. <nowiki>{{new in|0.44.01}}</nowiki>) should over time be phased out from articles too and when. I suggest >2 years (like the current case) after the release, or whenever the wiki undergoes namespace change after a major update. – [[User:Doorkeeper|Doorkeeper]] 23:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC) | Regardless of whether they're removed or replaced, a bot is required to make the changes because [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:New in v0.42|more than a hundred articles]] in the DF2014 namespace contain this template and manually editing each of them would be difficult. And while we're at this topic, it would also be great to make a consensus on whether current and future version disclaimers (e.g. <nowiki>{{new in|0.44.01}}</nowiki>) should over time be phased out from articles too and when. I suggest >2 years (like the current case) after the release, or whenever the wiki undergoes namespace change after a major update. – [[User:Doorkeeper|Doorkeeper]] 23:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | :I'm not in favor of removing accurate information just because the majority doesn't find it useful. Those templates are a relatively simple way to mark major content changes during the development cycle. If we had split v0.42.01 into a new namespace, would you now be suggesting the v0.40.24 namespace be removed as "outdated"?--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:18, 5 February 2018
Please mark all v0.42-specific content with .
How should we deal with minor additions within a page or paragraph? For example, different tile uses in the Tileset page? Adding that banner isn't a practical solution obviously. For now I added a superscript "new in 0.42", and I suppose I can add the new professions on the graphic set page table in a new category. I'm almost inclined to not mention it at all. the hauling changes were added in 34.07 or something IIRC, and I never saw much differentiation, if any at all. Especially not on the tileset page.
Opinions? Suggestions? CLA (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- {{version|0.42.01}} might work - it produces something like v0.42.01, but with links (I stripped out the links there with another template so this page doesn't get categorized). —Lethosor (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Should v0.42 disclaimers be phased out now?
I already made a few points in the forums. I recently created {{new in}}, which already replaced {{new in 0.44}} (now marked for deletion). It would make sense for {{new in v0.42}} be replaced as well, but instead of replacing them with the new template, I'm more towards removing 0.42 disclaimers from articles since the notice is very outdated; DF 0.42.01 was released more than two years ago, and it's safe to say that the majority of the player base aren't playing DF 0.40.x anymore, and if there are, they are in the extreme minority to where the necessity of 0.42 disclaimers is low.
Regardless of whether they're removed or replaced, a bot is required to make the changes because more than a hundred articles in the DF2014 namespace contain this template and manually editing each of them would be difficult. And while we're at this topic, it would also be great to make a consensus on whether current and future version disclaimers (e.g. {{new in|0.44.01}}) should over time be phased out from articles too and when. I suggest >2 years (like the current case) after the release, or whenever the wiki undergoes namespace change after a major update. – Doorkeeper 23:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of removing accurate information just because the majority doesn't find it useful. Those templates are a relatively simple way to mark major content changes during the development cycle. If we had split v0.42.01 into a new namespace, would you now be suggesting the v0.40.24 namespace be removed as "outdated"?--Loci (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)