Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion/0.42-micro template

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)

That looks good, thank you.CLA (talk) 22:38, 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replacing them with the new template, I'm more towards removing 0.42 disclaimers from articles since the notice is very outdated; DF 0.42.01 was released more than two years ago, and it's safe to say that the majority of the player base aren't playing DF 0.40.x anymore, and if there are,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)

The templates are useful, but only for the current namespace, so the logical step in my opinion would be leaving them as they are, but remove them in the newer namespace version of pages. It's useful for the v0.40 pages to note how displays cases only showed up in v0.44 onwards, but assuming the wiki had a new namespace starting from version v0.50, the template wouldn't really be needed there, since the article subject was there from the start of the release cycle. Just leaving my 2 cents. By the way, good job with the "new in" template! I made the "new in 0.44" one as sort of a placeholder and I'm glad someone who actually knows how to make proper templates took the chance to make a generalized version of it. OluapPlayer (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late responses everyone... Thanks Oluap for the comments, I really appreciate it. And Loci, I was under the impression that the template was meant to be a short-term notice, because their purpose seemed very similar to Wikipedia's current templates. I didn't know they were used as markers for major content changes. I initially assumed people just forgot to remove them... that's why I made sure to discuss about it before doing anything. Also, I thought a namespace change only occurs when a major release breaks save compatibility, so I'm not sure why anyone would create a new namespace for DF 0.40.24. If a wiki veteran could clarify to me what exactly qualifies for a release to make a new namespace, that would be helpful. Aside from that, I forgot to mention Rule T; I'm unsure if the 0.42 disclaimer breaks this rule, due to the statement: "Specific references to minor versions in the same namespace are acceptable". Does 0.42.01, which introduced major features, include in "Specific references to minor versions"? See also statements in {{Timelessness Notice}} and {{Version}}. – Doorkeeper 10:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)