- 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 "Category talk:Obsolete"
(Created page with 'I'm possibly overstepping my station here, but I added some text because the category showed up as a redlink, which was pretty confusing. If I F'd up, please fix it. --~~~~') |
m |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm possibly overstepping my station here, but I added some text because the category showed up as a redlink, which was pretty confusing. If I F'd up, please fix it. --[[User:Mr Frog|Mr Frog]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | I'm possibly overstepping my station here, but I added some text because the category showed up as a redlink, which was pretty confusing. If I F'd up, please fix it. --[[User:Mr Frog|Mr Frog]] 02:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is this category really necessary? Whether or not content is "current" or "obsolete" can be (and currently '''is''') determined based on its namespace, so I don't see why we need a separate category that serves no purpose other than to contain every article not related to the current version... --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 17:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | A lot of articles are about something that's not obsolete but contain obsolete content anyway--based on how bars/blocks/stone used to be, for example, or even based on preconceptions held over from before version 40a. Could that be what this is for? --[[User:Namaphry|Namaphry]] 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Strictly speaking, articles in the v0.31/40d/23a namespace are only "obsolete" if you're playing the latest version - if you're playing 40d, then 40d articles aren't obsolete (and the v0.34 articles wouldn't be "current" either). --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:12, 5 November 2012
I'm possibly overstepping my station here, but I added some text because the category showed up as a redlink, which was pretty confusing. If I F'd up, please fix it. --Mr Frog 02:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this category really necessary? Whether or not content is "current" or "obsolete" can be (and currently is) determined based on its namespace, so I don't see why we need a separate category that serves no purpose other than to contain every article not related to the current version... --Quietust 17:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of articles are about something that's not obsolete but contain obsolete content anyway--based on how bars/blocks/stone used to be, for example, or even based on preconceptions held over from before version 40a. Could that be what this is for? --Namaphry 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, articles in the v0.31/40d/23a namespace are only "obsolete" if you're playing the latest version - if you're playing 40d, then 40d articles aren't obsolete (and the v0.34 articles wouldn't be "current" either). --Quietust 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)