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 "Masterwork Talk:Main Page"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Should articles in this namespace be rated? I don't see any reason not to (except that the overall percentages might not be accurate), but it looks like the [[:Category:Masterwork:Tattered Quality Articles|categories]] were [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Category%3AMasterwork%3ATattered_Quality_Articles&year=&month=-1 deleted]. Thoughts? --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 20:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | Should articles in this namespace be rated? I don't see any reason not to (except that the overall percentages might not be accurate), but it looks like the [[:Category:Masterwork:Tattered Quality Articles|categories]] were [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Category%3AMasterwork%3ATattered_Quality_Articles&year=&month=-1 deleted]. Thoughts? --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 20:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | : I nuked the categories after creating them because I did something wrong when trying to extend the quality template. I think it's worthwhile, it just may need someone who can decipher that template and fix it >.> --[[User:Briess|Briess]] ([[User talk:Briess|talk]]) 05:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Pretentious == | == Pretentious == | ||
Revision as of 05:04, 19 April 2013
Created --Briess (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Quality
Should articles in this namespace be rated? I don't see any reason not to (except that the overall percentages might not be accurate), but it looks like the categories were deleted. Thoughts? --Lethosor (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I nuked the categories after creating them because I did something wrong when trying to extend the quality template. I think it's worthwhile, it just may need someone who can decipher that template and fix it >.> --Briess (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Pretentious
Since when did the "masterwork" mod become important important enough to deserve incorporation into the wiki? Does this mean that we can other mods' content to the wiki? There is a risk that "vanilla" articles will become contaminated with MW links, in the sense that a noob user could go to a MW page without knowing that it was an unofficial mod. --UristDaVinci (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's an experiment I authorized. There are enough Masterwork Mod users that a wiki would help them greatly, and considering it's the same game, it seems an appropriate place to store content. We already allow mod information on the wiki (we even have an entire namespace for it, and have had it since before we even did versioning on this wiki), so this is not really that much different. There is little risk that vanilla articles would be contaminated with MW links, as you put it, because frankly it doesn't make sense to do it. We're also experimenting with templates to make it obvious that this is mod content as well. I think calling this pretentious is pretentious in its own right. --Briess (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)