Difference between revisions of "User talk:Edsrzf"
(→no longer obsolete monster files?!: new section) |
(→thanx!) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== no longer obsolete monster files?! == | == no longer obsolete monster files?! == | ||
| − | Hi Edsrzf<br> | + | Hi Edsrzf,<br> |
you are very busy in automatizing the monster info files by transforming them into template-driven tables. For the moment this works nicely, giving the most recent parameters by interpreting the newest code. But even if we should praise your diligence there are problems to be considered. Will there be no longer obsolete monster files? How should they be constructed when there is no table body left? The templates will always show only the newest code version. I've encountered the same problem with spell set tables for spell books. It was very tedious to reconstruct the necessary obsolete files (which are necessary to play/understand any of the older versions!!) by searching for the wiki version history. Well, but your change will make even that path impossible: there will be no longer version history data produced once the monster info template is set up working. Please tell me and the others what solution you propose to avoid that. -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 15:25, 12 December 2015 (CET) | you are very busy in automatizing the monster info files by transforming them into template-driven tables. For the moment this works nicely, giving the most recent parameters by interpreting the newest code. But even if we should praise your diligence there are problems to be considered. Will there be no longer obsolete monster files? How should they be constructed when there is no table body left? The templates will always show only the newest code version. I've encountered the same problem with spell set tables for spell books. It was very tedious to reconstruct the necessary obsolete files (which are necessary to play/understand any of the older versions!!) by searching for the wiki version history. Well, but your change will make even that path impossible: there will be no longer version history data produced once the monster info template is set up working. Please tell me and the others what solution you propose to avoid that. -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 15:25, 12 December 2015 (CET) | ||
| + | :I'll crystalize monsters that were removed in [[0.17]] when I update their articles, and I'm happy to do the same before I update [[Module:Table of monsters]] for [[0.18]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :In my opinion the preservation of obsolete information is a bigger problem across all types of pages in the wiki. If you really want to be able to play old versions of the game using the wiki, there needs to be a version of the wiki for every version of the game. There are not only obsolete things to consider, but things that have changed greatly. For example, [[death cob]]s in [[0.17]] are quite different from death cobs in [[0.16]]. (And there are even bigger differences than that between versions.) And why should we only preserve obsolete pages as they most recently existed? | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Don't get me wrong, I can see the value in preserving obsolete information, but I think the way we do it now doesn't make much sense and actually creates clutter in categories and pages. -- [[User:Edsrzf|Edsrzf]] ([[User talk:Edsrzf|talk]]) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Thank you for answering. I agree that it is a bigger problem as at first sight. I don't consent to your approach that the wiki would need seperate wikis for any new version of the game. I'd like to assure you that *we* (the few really active contributors of this wiki) succeeded quite well to handle and embed the occuring version changes. I've been around here since version 0.10. Cheers to Moogle Dan and the other veterans which disappeared somehow after version 0.16 came up. It seems that there are nearly no willing successors for small wiki team work in these 'head down to your tablet/smartphone' times. -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 14:33, 20 December 2015 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == thanx! == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thank you for cleaning up [[teleportation]]. The version 0.13 it had been in is embarassing and only due to the small volunteer manpower we have nowadays in this wiki. -- [[User:Bwijn|Bwijn]] ([[User talk:Bwijn|talk]]) 21:24, 23 May 2016 (CEST) | ||
| + | :Glad you noticed! I'm trying to slowly work through some of the articles that haven't been updated in a long time, starting with [[:Category:0.13 articles]]. - [[User:Edsrzf|Edsrzf]] ([[User talk:Edsrzf|talk]]) 00:26, 25 May 2016 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:26, 24 May 2016
You might be interested in knowing about this based on your record keeping.
no longer obsolete monster files?!
Hi Edsrzf,
you are very busy in automatizing the monster info files by transforming them into template-driven tables. For the moment this works nicely, giving the most recent parameters by interpreting the newest code. But even if we should praise your diligence there are problems to be considered. Will there be no longer obsolete monster files? How should they be constructed when there is no table body left? The templates will always show only the newest code version. I've encountered the same problem with spell set tables for spell books. It was very tedious to reconstruct the necessary obsolete files (which are necessary to play/understand any of the older versions!!) by searching for the wiki version history. Well, but your change will make even that path impossible: there will be no longer version history data produced once the monster info template is set up working. Please tell me and the others what solution you propose to avoid that. -- Bwijn (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2015 (CET)
- I'll crystalize monsters that were removed in 0.17 when I update their articles, and I'm happy to do the same before I update Module:Table of monsters for 0.18.
- In my opinion the preservation of obsolete information is a bigger problem across all types of pages in the wiki. If you really want to be able to play old versions of the game using the wiki, there needs to be a version of the wiki for every version of the game. There are not only obsolete things to consider, but things that have changed greatly. For example, death cobs in 0.17 are quite different from death cobs in 0.16. (And there are even bigger differences than that between versions.) And why should we only preserve obsolete pages as they most recently existed?
- Don't get me wrong, I can see the value in preserving obsolete information, but I think the way we do it now doesn't make much sense and actually creates clutter in categories and pages. -- Edsrzf (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (CET)
- Thank you for answering. I agree that it is a bigger problem as at first sight. I don't consent to your approach that the wiki would need seperate wikis for any new version of the game. I'd like to assure you that *we* (the few really active contributors of this wiki) succeeded quite well to handle and embed the occuring version changes. I've been around here since version 0.10. Cheers to Moogle Dan and the other veterans which disappeared somehow after version 0.16 came up. It seems that there are nearly no willing successors for small wiki team work in these 'head down to your tablet/smartphone' times. -- Bwijn (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2015 (CET)
thanx!
Thank you for cleaning up teleportation. The version 0.13 it had been in is embarassing and only due to the small volunteer manpower we have nowadays in this wiki. -- Bwijn (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2016 (CEST)
- Glad you noticed! I'm trying to slowly work through some of the articles that haven't been updated in a long time, starting with Category:0.13 articles. - Edsrzf (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2016 (CEST)
