Editing Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Versions

Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{archive|
+== What about <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:version|version]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>? ==
-# [[DF Talk:Versions/Archive 1|Page 1]]}}
-== Version 0.31.19 starts a new DF generation? ==
+Did you have something like this in mind? [[:category:version]] [[template:version]] (: [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
-My reading of Toady's comments on the release of 0.31.19 is that it came out basically because he felt it would take too long to get DF all the way to 0.32.  With the ore changes, the sitefinder changes, the addition of grazing and several different industries, there's a lot of changes between 31.18 and 31.19.  So I'm thinking it might be a good idea to call it the first release of DF2011 - and what we refer to as "DF2010" would then become 0.31.18.
+: I did see that before and I think that's awesome as notes about particular items in an article, but it doesn't quite bring us to the two goals I hoped for [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Versions|here]].  It informs users about a statement but because of the difficulty (and undesirability) of labeling every statement in an article I think a single template per article can bring something different to the table.  [[User:Mason11987|Mason11987]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
-Thoughts? --[[User:DeMatt|DeMatt]] 07:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
+::[[Template:old]] is the same functionality but with a box. Is this what you need, or did you have something else in mind? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
-==Revisiting Redirects==
+:::Much closer, I think a box for an article (maybe shifted to the top-right) is necessary for this, in order to provide the benefit of information for the user.  A difference is I'd like this box to be on every article so that not only are articles labeled as out of date, but also as up to date.  Most importantly I'm more about discussing the conceptual idea of this kind of organization, then we can devise an appropriate implementation. [[User:Mason11987|Mason11987]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 21:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
-I wasn't around when the redirect policy was created, and I'm having trouble understanding the rationale. The example claims that linking [[Main:Cheese]] to [[cv:Cheese maker]] is problematic...but mainspace only ever redirects to the current version. If the best target in the current version is cheese maker, why not link to it directly? (It's not, at least for Cheese, since [[DF2012:Cheese]] exists now.) The explanation seems to be claiming that 40d articles that link to Cheese will follow the Mainspace link--but that hasn't been the case for a long while now. Articles in 40d automatically link against other articles in 40d, so that version remains internally consistent no matter where mainspace links to in the current version. For a current example, what do we gain by linking [[Main:Mead]] to [[cv:Mead]] and linking [[DF2012:Mead]] to [[DF2012:Alcohol]]?
-If this really is just an outdated procedure, I recommend we drop the mummery and allow mainspace to link to cv:(best target). Double redirects ''may'' work (sometimes, but [[Main:Mead]] demonstrates a common problem where automatic redirection fails), but if they are unnecessary I think they should be avoided, partly because of problems like [[Main:Mead]] and partly because of the effort required to protect double redirects from users who believe they are problematic.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 20:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
+::From what I've seen so far, it looks like what you want is a trivial step away from the things already in place. Is putting the box in the top right corner and putting one on every article the only difference? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
+:::Oh I'm not saying it's a fundemental change, but it's implementation will allow for the large project of updating after this big update of DF.  There are some details I think should be part of this change:
-:I was just thinking that. I'm currently attempting to write a basic extension to eliminate the need for mainspace redirects entirely, although Mediawiki's class structure may make this more difficult than I had hoped (the only method I've found for resolving redirects takes the ''article text'' instead of a title, e.g. "#REDIRECT ..."). I do agree that the current situation with redirects isn't ideal, so I'm hoping this will work better (once I get it to work).  --[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
+:::*A box on every article stating if the article is up to date or not.  If it's not, also stating up to what version it is up to date.
+:::*A categorization scheme that follows like so:
+:::**If it's up to date, put in two categories: something like "up to date", and something like "version ______"
+:::**If it's not up to date, put it in two categories: something like "obsolete", and something like "version _____"
-Okay, that wasn't quite as clear as I meant it to be. In general, I think this is a tricky situation. Mediawiki wasn't designed to have five content namespaces, and certainly not chains of redirects between them. The problem that was pointed out in the [[DF:REDIR|policy]] is the fact that with:
+:::Each page should be able to just list the version it's updated as of, the template should determine whether "<nowiki>{{Version|40d}}</nowiki>" should end up in category "up to date" or category "obsolete".  This should be done in such a way that when a new version comes out we can make a small change to the template and EVERY article will become "obsolete" and users can over time go through them and confirm that they are still up-to-date by changing the template to refer to the new version.  ''I think this is the major aspect I'm proposing that isn't a trivial difference from the current method of organization and upkeep here''.  Do you get what I'm suggesting?  If I thought it was a trival difference I would have just implemented it and asked what people thought, but this could be a very big deal if we go through with it.  [[User:Mason11987|Mason11987]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Main:Foo -> cv:Bar
-pages in the cv: namespace can't use [[<nowiki/>foo]], since the namespace links modification causes it to be treated as [[<nowiki/>cv:foo]] instead, which doesn't exist. The current suggested solution is this:
- Main:Foo -> cv:Foo -> cv:Bar
-This fixes the problem of [[<nowiki/>foo]] not working on cv pages, but creates issues with double redirects not always working. Another solution, which is more intuitive to new editors, is:
- Main:Foo -> cv:Bar
- cv:Foo -> cv:Bar
-Both require creating two redirects. The first method has the advantage of ''ensuring'' that the cv redirect exists (otherwise, main:foo would be a redlink), while the second has the advantage of working more reliably in a couple cases.
-What I'm trying to do is make main:Foo "jump" to cv:Foo when cv:foo exists, ''even if main:foo doesn't exist'' (basically it would treat all mainspace pages as redirects to cv pages, but only if the cv page exists and not the mainspace page). I had main:Bar jumping to cv:Bar fine, but if cv:Foo redirected to cv:Bar, accessing main:Foo would mysteriously stop at cv:Foo even if I increased the redirect limit. What I'm trying to do now is follow the redirects internally, without relying on Mediawiki to do it automatically - unfortunately, that has proved to be harder than I had hoped (and I sent my web server into an infinite loop while trying). I will try to work on this some more when I get a chance, although I'm not sure when that'll be yet :(. For now, feel free to fix broken double mainspace redirects as necessary, as long as redirects in the DF2012 namespace stay pointing to the right page (and new mainspace redirects get added in the DF2012 namespace too). --[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 04:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
+::Take a look at [[template:vcat]]. This is the template currently placed on all of the version category pages. It compares the version the category corresponds to with [[template:current/version]] and displays a message based on whether or not it matches. Is this the type of thing you want? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
+:::This is certainly a useful feature already in place that would likely go on the categories that will be created, or it might just stay as is but the version template will change slightly.  [[User:Mason11987|Mason11987]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-:You're treating cv like a namespace--it's not. It is simply shorthand for "fill in the current version here". [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Briess&diff=182404&oldid=181281 As I discovered a long time ago on a server not far away], linking from Main:Foo to cv:Foo tends to break redirection chains. If, instead of linking to cv:Foo, you link to DF2012:Foo, it might just work. It would, of course, be better if your patch could evaluate cv itself, but even if you have to hardcode the current version it's a single point of maintenance that requires update very infrequently. (For that matter, we could probably dispense with the cv hack entirely and just have a bot update mainspace links from DF2012 to DF201X when we switch to a new version.)--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
+:Perhaps use "New", "Old", and "Obsolete" markers?  DF2010 is "New", 40d is "Old", and pre-40d is "Obsolete"?  I like the idea of a small box up in the corner, and a category to group them. --[[User:Aescula|Aescula]] 23:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
-::I know cv isn't a namespace - I was just trying to avoid future confusion when the DF2012 namespace changes. It's interesting that changing "cv" to "DF2012" fixes some broken redirects, although I've found that simply making an edit to a broken redirect can usually fix it as well. I've actually had the most problems with double redirects when the second one (in the DF2012 namespace) doesn't use the DF2012 prefix (e.g. main:Foo containing <nowiki>[[cv:Foo]] and DF2012:Foo containing [[Bar]]</nowiki>). I'd rather keep the cv alias even if it isn't necessary for mainspace redirects when I get the patch to work, since it makes it easier to refer to the current version of the page (for example, several MDF articles contain links to a vanilla page for things that don't change in the mod).
-::Also, using aliases like "cv" is supported by Mediawiki; in fact, several WMF wikis use them (for example, "[[wikipedia:WP:Redirects|WP:Redirects]]" on Wikipedia). It's quite likely that Mediawiki isn't processing double redirects using aliases correctly, though, since that's uncommon on most wikis. --[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 21:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
-In light of the lack of support for the current redirect policy, I propose we replace the current redirect section with:
+::I would want to make sure we don't get out of hand; new uses will be likely to ignore anything marked "Old" even if it continues to be accurate (nobody had verified it). Perhaps something like "This page is X releases old; some information may be changed" or something. Most releases don't change more than a few major areas (DF2010 is an exception because of the length of release, but even it won't be changing everything). I do think that something like this is VERY important for "tutorial" sections; a single key change could stymie a new user; and we'd lose them forever. --[[User:Bombcar|Bombcar]] 00:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::Well of course and that's a detail on the text in the template.  There are multiple goals to accomplish and realistically I don't think it would take long on a minor to average version to go through and just check each article to make sure it's up to date.  There are a lot but it's not too much, and there a lot of active editors on here who if given a straightforward task of article version checking would be able to accomplish it in the early days of a new version release I'm sure.  I also think the New/Old(Current)/Obsolete(Old) is a great addition.  That way we can do the transition of New to Current for DF2010 after we've done a lot of the work. [[User:Mason11987|Mason11987]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+:The problem with "updating" all the old version's pages is that is based on the premise that a page, as a whole, can both be "updated" and then accurately labeled as such. It can't, not either. Pieces will be updated, subsections, or single elements of subsections, but even then only as accurate as that last editor understood the changes. Think about the changes that the Wound/Healing system will undergo, or Materials/Values, or Weapons/Armor, and all the directly associated pages and concepts, and references and paraphrasing in other articles - could be massive and subtle at the same time. When does a label get changed? If each User only edits a bit at a time (and few of us rewrite entire pages!), how do we know we've filtered out'' all'' the legacy information?  I ''do'' like the idea of beginning new version labels for each version's article on the same subject - altho' that would almost ''require'' different sites to allow for identical article names.  --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+::I don't disagree with your opinion on bit-by-bit changes, it makes sense.  I think your below idea might be the way to go, with articles of the new version labeled with a suffix (DF2010) linking back to the "old" version, which links forward to the 2010 version.  A new site is definitely not needed and would cause a huge amount of problems imo.  I think a simple template on every article (like I described) pointing to a 2010 version can be done by a handful of people with a little time.  Then the 2010 version can start with just that template (which will automatically point backwards).  This will include the separate page like you suggested, but would still accomplish the goals I had hoped to accomplish.  [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::<nods> Those "goals" being:
+:::* Allow users to know an article is up to date
+:::* If an article isn't up to date, allow a user to know exactly how out of date it currently is.
+:::* Allow editors to easily find articles which are out of date and improve them.
+:::It seems no article can ever be confirmed as 100% up to date - new observations and insights make this a very dynamic and wiki-appropriate process. But if we can ''start'' every 2010 article (and every version in the future!) with currently accurate info, even if that's only a fraction of what we "knew" for d40, that's as big a step as we can take in the right direction.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-:Mainspace article pages should use the cv: alias when redirecting to a versioned page, which will automatically update the link when a new version is released. For example, page "Main:Foo" should redirect to page "cv:Bar" (where "Bar" is the page that best describes the topic Foo in the current version).
+== My vision  ==
-:Pages in mainspace should only redirect to an older versioned page if that content no longer exists in the current version of the game (e.g. [[Cave river]], [[Chunk]]). In these cases the cv: alias cannot be used.
+(For what it's worth).  I mentioned a desire to look into the possibility of doing this on my Admin application, in the Q&A process. When I first joined the DF community, we had just(?) undergone a version shift, and the pages here and users on the [[Forums]] here were rife with misinformation and contradictory understandings of the game.  Newbies would look in the wiki and find ancient history mixed side-by-side with recent edits, some stuff that went back to the 2-D version, and that would be presented as gospel and no one knew any different.  The ''very'' recent revelation that workshops do NOT make [[noise]] in d40 is a perfect example.  I'd ''love'' to see this version change-over done differently.
-:Pages inside a versioned namespace should not use the cv: alias. Instead, they should redirect to the best page within that versioned namespace (e.g. [[DF2012:Dodging]], [[v0.31:Drink]]).
+What I had envisioned was a category template, something bold and unmistakable like [[mod]] or [[delete]], that marked a page (or every major subsection?) as "OLD VERSION : d40" (or whatever).  (This would also create a category page where all those could be scanned at a glance.)  Those pages would '''not''' be edited for DF2010 - to do that would invite a piecemeal disaster that would spiral into the same jumbled quagmire ''(or probably worse!)'' that I first stepped into.  As a User wants to address a topic, a new page is started - if that is ''identical'' to the prev info ([[dwarf]], perhaps, etc), then it's mostly just copy/paste - but if not, then it gets edited and updated on the new page.  If only part of it can be verified, then only part of that older page makes the transition at that time.  Thus (in theory*) only material that has been confirmed as "DF2010 accurate" will make it to the "current" wiki, and the rest is clearly marked as legacy but stays intact as that.
-:Due to limitations of the wiki software, double redirects should be avoided if possible. When fixing double redirects in mainspace, please make sure to use the cv: alias as appropriate.
+''(* I have no illusions that users will not find a way to screw this up at times. But it has to be better than opening a long legacy article that has already had a dozen editors shake it up - but it's unclear what has and what has not been addressed. [[Armor]], or [[skill]], for instance.)''
-If no one objects, I will make this change in a few days.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
+The new pages would have a link to the old one(s), so users could see what if any old info is still applicable or unconfirmed, and/or what needs to be translated/updated and added, but the new page will grow the new article from the ground up, rather than pretend a dozen users could patch an accurate final product together from an inaccurate but similar one, one edit at a time.
-:Okay with me. It may be worth mentioning that double redirects only really need to be changed when they don't work (since changing a lot of redirects that work isn't necessary), but I think it's clearer and more relevant than the current policy. &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 00:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
+It's the difference between repairing a totaled car, and using only the good pieces to rebuild a new one.
-Done.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
+I'm not experienced enough in the wiki-code to know if or how the two "versions" would be kept distinct if we stayed on this site - many articles will certainly want the same Name, so... yeah.  That's what I thought the new site/engine would be used for, not simply copy/pasting current articles and being right where we are now, right where we were with the last significant change, right where we don't want to be.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 10:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-I was finally able to get my extension to work after being motivated by one too many malfunctioning redirects. It now causes nonexistent pages in the main namespace to behave exactly like redirects to their DF2012 counterparts (when linked to, accessed directly, and transcluded). Double redirects also work (up to 100, in fact, although that was a temporary safety measure that I'll probably change). This means we'll be able to safely get rid of all mainspace redirects (redirects that redirect to something other than "cv" will still function if not deleted). &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 01:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
+:IMO. Personally you would do this by copying every <nowiki>[[article]]</nowiki> (say, [[Miner]]) to a new namespace. With redirects from main namespace to the version namespace.
-:What about articles which don't exist in the current version but do exist in older versions? Will those still need mainspace redirects, or will your extension be able to automatically redirect them to v0.31/40d/23a? --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] ([[User talk:Quietust|talk]]) 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
+:So <nowiki>[[Miner]]</nowiki> would redirect to <nowiki>[[VerABC:Miner]]</nowiki>. With a simple Page Copy, editors could copy the whole page, and easily update it to DF2010.<font face="FixedSys" color="#00FFFF">[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]]</font>[[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]]
-::It ignores all mainspace pages that actually have content, including redirects, so pages like [[masons guild]] won't be affected (unless deleted). &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 01:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
+::Um, what's the right word?...  NO!!! That is ''exactly'' what I would NOT want to see happen!  And sorry to shout, but that is so far off the mark it frightens me.  That achieves nothing but two legacy sites.  What I would prefer is that the new page is blank, and ''only'' information that has gone thru a user's confirmation process is added to that new article.  Blind, bulk "copy/pasting" is not that.  It's ''much'' easier to read over one section at a time and update that, than to try to weed out legacy information buried in an entire article that has been "mostly edited". For one, how does anyone know what has and has not been checked at least once? Yes, there will be constant updates - but the core information is then at least (in theory) info on 2010, not d40, and any clear d40 legacy material has already been filtered out.  ("Healing and wounds" jumps immediately to mind as a collection of articles that would lead to a disastrous "rewrite" - but snipping bits and pieces, and adding that to the updated system - that gives us better accuracy for the end product.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 10:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+Something like this, [[Template:D40x]]:
+{{D40x}}
-Done and deployed. [[Cat]] is still treated as a redirect, even though I just deleted it (try clicking on the "redirected from" link). Pages that exist are ignored, so [[Masons guild]] and [[History of Dwarf Fortress]] still function normally (as a redirect to a 23a page and a non-redirect, respectively). &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 18:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
+:I like where you're going and I think this could fit nicely with the goals I had in mind when I wrote this.  For each article we could have a box in it.  Saying that this article was updated as of version 40d, for the new version click "here".  Here will link to "''article name'' (DF2010)" or something similar.  That article will have a box saying it was updated as of DF2010, and for the old version click "here", where here will link to "''article name''".  This can easily be done via templates.
+:I understand your concern about updating articles bit-by-bit, and I see a lot of value in your suggestion.  I think at SOME point though after the release of DF2010 we'll need to mass move articles so that the 2010 versions become the ''article name'' verions, and the ''article name'' versions become ''article name'' (40d), and the template placed can have a minor modification to continue functioning after a mass move.
+:Ultimately I think this will require more administrative work (move-over-redirect for example), and perhaps a larger set of work for editors, but it will more likely have a better end-product then a bit-by-bit change, which is really most important.  Organization on something like this is key though, but I like your approach. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+::And I value your experience with what's possible - that could totally work, linking each article to a main (or "best") article in the other version ("best" being relative, depending).  And, yes, the "migration" between naming conventions could be a pain and will have to happen as we phase out d40 (another reason I was thinking 2 sites, but if we don't have to go there then that's better still). I completely re-edited some of the larger clusters left by the previous version changes - the whole Armor/Weapon series, and the various Defense Design/Fortress Design/Fortress Defense/Design a Fortress/Defend your Fortress/Siege Engine/Siege/Design a Defense/Design Theory/Design Theory pages - you get the idea.  That was ugly and took weeks of planning and then editing, and the info was already mostly there and it was largely "one vision", so I could keep track of my own progress - we can't expect that with this shift.  Many of ''groups'' of d40 article will need to be re-conceived 100% ''as well as'' have all new info, rearranged to better fit the 2010 game system and paradigm. "Squads" and "Burrows" will wreck havoc with the current Military and Design concepts, and Wounds/Doctors will most likely call for a new series of articles. It's not going to be a 1:1 translation, and we shouldn't plan on it being so.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 12:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::I get what you're saying about the changes being big enough that "blind copying" d40 info won't work to make accurate DF2010 articles. But I honestly think the use of a seperate name-space for (legacy) version specific information is a tidier way of "quarantining" it than '''Article (Version)'''. The "quarantining" process was more what I was getting at, than the process of getting "accurate DF2010" articles into main-space. <font face="FixedSys" color="#00FFFF">[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]]</font>[[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 12:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+::::I kind of like the namespaced articles idea.  However, don't let what I think will / wont work override every other opinion. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-I'm sending around a bot right now to delete all redirects of the format "foo -> cv:foo" (a surprising number don't fit this format, so I'm leaving them alone for now). &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 20:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
+::: I think the namespace is a good option.  My only worry is problems it could cause to things such as search, which the parenthetical notation wouldn't have those problems.  On the other hand it isn't as easy to separate a page name and the version it applies to if the version is in parentheses, those I suspect the difference may be minimal especially with parser functions.  One thing we don't want is to make navigation more difficult to users.  If they type "weapons" they should arrive at the appropriate article automatically.  Which either means that information has to be on the article [[Weapons]] (without namespace or parentheses) or the article [[Weapons]] has to redirect to the correct version.  I think having [[DF2010:Weapons]] and [[40d:Weapons]] could certainly work, but then when there is a version change all of the articles like [[Weapons]] have to point to the new version.  This isn't a big deal to me though, and is a necessary problem to overcome if we're going to have an article for each topic for each version.  [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+::: I'll update the article page with what I think is the current consensus approach. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-:I'm confused. Do we use double redirects or not? Is there a single place we define our linking policy (including redirects), and is it updated?
+:::::A new namespace would be really good. If we have some large article X that effectively needs to be scrapped, we could move it to Legacy:X and put an appropriate label on it. Then lock it and put a link to it on the new X article. This has the added benefit of disabling all of the [[template:version]] (and maybe [[template:verify]]) tags, which only include pages in a category if they are in the main namespace. So they don't need to be found and removed manually.  [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
-:I had trouble linking to [[Consolidated_development]] in [[v0.34:Dragon]]. It kept pointing to v0.34:Consolidated_development, which does not exist. I ended up linking to Main:Consolidated_development to make it work. --[[User:Nahno|Nahno]] ([[User talk:Nahno|talk]]) 10:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
-::That's a separate problem altogether - links in the versioned namespaces (v0.34, v0.31, 40d, 23a) automatically link to pages within their namespace. I may be able to set up a fallback to mainspace once I'm able to deploy again, but for now the "main:" alias is the intended solution. &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
+== Updated proposal ==
-== Google often directs people to the 0.31 page ==
+I made some changes, hopefully they are clear.  Thoughts? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
-I've noticed a couple of times that finding a wiki page from an external search will often drop me onto a page from an older version.  Is it possible to mitigate this somehow for new players?  I could imagine something like redirecting old:Bar -> cv:Bar unless the user has come from old:Foo; no idea if that would actually work though.  [[User:PeridexisErrant|PeridexisErrant]] ([[User talk:PeridexisErrant|talk]]) 11:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
+: I wonder if what we're doing here would be more suited for a release like DF2010 - a jump from 39d to 40d, say, wouldn't be that much and shouldn't make the whole wiki covered with orange boxes. Perhaps a smaller unverified note unless a manual "this change was major" button is hit somewhere. I like what is there currently, as articles would "rust" just like dwarven skills if not updated. --[[User:Bombcar|Bombcar]] 04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
-:As a temporary solution, I could write a script that displays a banner of some kind if the user came from an external site. I'll ask Briess if he can do anything on the server level to increase the weighting of the current version's pages. (Obviously there are situations where people are looking for old pages, like [[23a:dungeon master]], so we don't want to disable indexing entirely on old pages.) &mdash;[[User:Lethosor|<span style="color:#074">Lethosor</span>]] ([[User talk:Lethosor|<span style="color:#092">talk</span>]]) 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
+:: This was inspired by the DF2010 jump but the goal is to make sure the wiki stays up to date through all future releases.  Though I agree that larger changes require a different approach then small changes.  I'd suggest we worry about small changes when they come afterwords. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
-== DF2014? ==
+:My suggestion would be to use the "main" namespace (ie: no special prefix) for whatever version is current.<font face="FixedSys" color="#00FFFF">[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]]</font>[[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
-As Toady [http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/ draws closer to a new release], it might be worthwhile to discuss the addition of a new version to the wiki. The upcoming release covers two years of changes and introduces a number of new plants, foods, drinks, multi-tile trees, climbing, jumping, etc., so it is likely to have significant changes from the current DF2012. To avoid having people start new pages (and lose all the effort spent refining the prior version's page), I think it would be best to have a bot automatically copy over the DF2012 pages as a starting point for DF2014. I would suggest that these copied pages include a noticebox template mentioning that the content may be outdated, so that we can easily track which pages have been reviewed. I think either the {{tl|version check}} or {{tl|old}} template would work. --[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 19:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
+:: Well that seems obvious, and way simpler lol.  The template could still work just as well that way, since the template will know what version is up to date, if it finds an article that is using it, it will know it's up to date if it's the main namespace article.  This will mean that at some point in the near future we'll have to move all of the articles that are relevant to "40d:Article" then edit the redirect to begin the new page which will be about the article for DF2010.  Thoughts on this? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
+:::It ''seems'' simpler, but is it really, in the long run? (I'm not sure, but I'm just not convinced either way.) The difference is whether we have to update ''every'' "current" page every significant version upgrade. Won't be "every" time, but any time like this one.  That, plus however much hassle and confusion having two (and more later!) parallel sets of articles creates.  While that won't be often, it will be a LOT of pages to reconcile, recreating (and compounding?) the current situation with every major upgrade.  I wish we could somehow create two independent "sites" (with or without a different domain name/etc), but linkable to each other, so that the new one is separate yet still easily self-referential within itself. A new page or internal-link either series is just a new page, [[metal]] or [[stone]], no need for a new template or qualifier to the obvious and appropriate article name.  And any older series of articles don't muddy the water for navigation or a Search, they just become "the old site", similarly separate but nearby.  If there was a way to mass-mark every page on a site, adding a template that refers users to the new "current version", so much the better. I don't know if anything like this is possible, or practical if it is, but it would be a good thing if it were, and solve both problems.--[[