v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- 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.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Community Portal"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Rules) |
(→Rules) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::::It's childish, incomplete, unprofessional and silly. The rules are not grouped logically and there is no table of contents. There's not room for clarification or expounding and little opportunity to expand. It should be scrapped for something that makes sense. --[[User:Geofferic|Geofferic]] 03:25, 12 December 2007 (EST) | ::::It's childish, incomplete, unprofessional and silly. The rules are not grouped logically and there is no table of contents. There's not room for clarification or expounding and little opportunity to expand. It should be scrapped for something that makes sense. --[[User:Geofferic|Geofferic]] 03:25, 12 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::It would be trivial to change it from an unordered list to use section headings, which would allow a table of contents and plenty of room for clarification. I don't think "little opportunity to expand" is valid; there's no reason we can't have multiple rules for the same letter, or rules that fall outside the alphabet rubric entirely. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::::If you want to improve the organization, then just go for it. Let me suggest that you create the new version on a subpage at first, so that others can view two presentations side by side when discussing it. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 12:06, 12 December 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 17:06, 12 December 2007
Account Problems
I can't log in, but it says my username is already in use. --64.22.68.4 14:55, 29 October 2007 (EDT) (Peristarkawan)
- Are you sure? The new wiki cleaned out all the old accounts so you have to reregister. --Hamelin 15:02, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- Unfortunately, I was unable to import all the user accounts, please recreate. --Senso 15:22, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
AdBlock
Could you move all the files in the graphics directory with the word "ad" in it? For those using AdBlock or similar add-ons it will block the display of the graphics in those directories. Thanks!!! :) Schm0 10:26, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- It doesn't look possible - re-uploading the file keeps putting it in the 'ad' folder and I cannot edit the link in the DB as it is stored inside a BLOB. I suggest you whitelist this site anyways, it's not like you need to block anything here (and blocking /*ad*/ may cause problems elsewhere too). --Senso 10:49, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Rules
Would it be possible for us to come up with some *real* rules that are more ... serious? --Geofferic 08:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)
- The alphabet rules concept is senseless. Maybe remove the fluff? --Jackard 11:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)
- Hey now, with a couple of exceptions, the rules are serious. The point of the alphabet framework wasn't random silliness; it was to inspire creativity and make rule-writing fun. It's hard to come up with good rules out of thin air. It's easier to think up a topic of concern that starts with a particular letter and then write a rule about it.
- Of course, the rules have been pretty stable for a while now, so rule A hasn't been too useful lately. There was a brief discussion a while back about dropping rule A under DwarfFortressWiki:Community Portal#Rule discussion, and everybody seemed to want to keep it at the time. If you want to reopen that discussion, then I'm okay with either keeping it or dropping it (besides which, I haven't been too active around here lately anyway). --Peristarkawan 11:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)
- I support the Alphabet ruleset, I don't see why it should change. It's clean and clear. --Senso 16:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)
- It's childish, incomplete, unprofessional and silly. The rules are not grouped logically and there is no table of contents. There's not room for clarification or expounding and little opportunity to expand. It should be scrapped for something that makes sense. --Geofferic 03:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)
- It would be trivial to change it from an unordered list to use section headings, which would allow a table of contents and plenty of room for clarification. I don't think "little opportunity to expand" is valid; there's no reason we can't have multiple rules for the same letter, or rules that fall outside the alphabet rubric entirely.
- If you want to improve the organization, then just go for it. Let me suggest that you create the new version on a subpage at first, so that others can view two presentations side by side when discussing it. --Peristarkawan 12:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)