Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

-

-

[lethosor]

As with the 0.34 release, we plan on creating a new namespace for the upcoming release. The poll results are:

• New namespace: DF2014
• DF2012 -> v0.34

We also need to determine how to handle fact-checking of migrated information (we plan on copying over DF2012 articles to avoid writing DF2014 articles from scratch). Some possibilities:

• Flagging all migrated articles with a template to help editors locate unchecked articles. Once updated, these templates can be removed. (We can also create a template for marking individual sections, particularly for long articles where checking the entire article isn't feasible.)
  Example
• Adding references (e.g. to talk pages/forum threads where research has taken place). I've created some basic templates to do this, essentially simplified versions of Wikipedia's citation templates. These are not strictly enforced, unlike on Wikipedia, but will hopefully cut down on the "perpetual verification" cycle common during releases (where information is constantly flagged for verification and re-checked).
  Example (first paragraph)

[indyofcomo]

I think it's confusing if we're using different naming standards, either way. DF2012 and v0.31 as simultaneous patterns are confusing; it requires I have an idea what year versions were released. At first I didn't know that DF2012 articles were relevant to me, since I was playing with v0.34. So just adopt a uniform naming convention either way. If you're concerned Tarn will put out more than one version per year, than just go with version numbers.

[lethosor]

The problem with using version numbers for the current version is that namespaces can apply to multiple (save-compatible) versions - for example, the 23a namespace applies to 0.21, 0.22, and 0.23, while the 40d namespace applies to 0.27 and 0.28. A save-compatible update with a different version number would require a change to the namespace name, as well as updating all of the pages that refer to it. "DF2014" has the advantage of being consistent and easy to distinguish - if we used "v0.xx" for the namespace instead, it would be hard to distinguish between references to the namespace and references to the version number if a change to "v0.yy" is necessary.
Edit: Actually, we could set up an alias from 0.xx to 0.yy fairly easily - this would cut down on the need to update everything that refers to the namespace name (i.e. only templates would need to be updated). I'll add "0.xx" as an option to the poll.

[Locriani]

I think we should use DF2014 and v0.34 for the names, since it's consistent with what we've done in the past. That way, we don't pin down DF2014's version number until we have to (i.e., when we have to create the next version namespace).

[Emi]

What about "Current"? I think it might avoid some of the problems with the DF201X naming scheme. Mainly the fact that DF2012 is relevant to the current version in 2014 is not obvious to new players.

I know we have the "CV" alias to the current version, which would seem redundant if we named the new namespace "Current", though it'd still provide the same function as before. Allowing us to link to current version pages without worrying about those links breaking on the next version namespace rename fiasco.

[lethosor]

We're renaming DF2012 to v0.34, since that's what most people seem to prefer (and it's consistent with v0.31).
Although it's not a bad idea, there are a couple potential problems with using "Current", namely:
* Templates that redirect to other templates based on the current version's namespace (e.g. {{CreatureLookup}}, {{version switch}}) would run into problems if the "current" namespace suddenly points to another version
* Migrating would be more confusing - either we'd rename the "Current" namespace and then copy over everything to a new "Current" namespace (which is confusing) or copy everything from "Current" to a new namespace for the old version (which destroys the history on the page for the old version, which is inaccurate and inconsistent with what we've done in the past).
Anyway, the "cv" alias will remain usable, and the {{av}} template should (hopefully) settle the "is this the current version?" confusion.

[Emi]

Yeah.

Anyway, we've made the initial DF2012 -> v0.34 change already so we don't do everything at once and have things break. There's still aliases, so everything should continue to be working.

[Nahno]

I think we should use DF2014 and v0.34 for the names, since it's consistent with what we've done in the past. That way, we don't pin down DF2014's version number until we have to (i.e., when we have to create the next version namespace).

I agree. I like the intuitiveness of "Current", but I don't think the relative benefits over "DF2014" justifies the 'cost', described by lethosor above.

[lethosor]

DF2014 has around a 75% majority, so it looks like we're going with that. If there is a new, save-incompatible version released in 2014, or if this release extends into 2015 without breaking compatibility, we will open another discussion. Thanks for your input!
Now, to discuss the actual migration. The current plan is:
* Copy over all v0.34 articles to the DF2014 namespace and prepend {{migrated article}} to each, which categorizes articles so they can be easily found and reviewed (I believe they'll end up at Category:DF2014:Migrated articles needing review, which hasn't been created yet).
* For long articles, {{migrated section}} can be used on a per-section basis if checking the entire article at once isn't feasible.
* Depending on what raws have remained unchanged, some pages (like stones and metals) may have the templates removed automatically (or not added at all, depending on when we start the migration).
Any thoughts/suggestions?

[greycat]

Redirects that don't have a specific namespace behave in a way that I don't understand.  (Or maybe v0.34 is just the default namespace.)  For example, right now bug has the content

Code: [Select]

#REDIRECT [[Known_bugs_and_issues]]
but if you just type "bug" in the search box, you get the v0.34:Known bugs and issues page.

[lethosor]

That redirect is cached (and also incorrectly-formed) - accessing http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Known_bugs_and_issues redirects to the correct page. If you make a null edit to "Bug", it might work.

[greycat]

Well... I tried changing the bug page to:

Code: [Select]

#REDIRECT [[Known bugs and issues]]

and then when I type 'bug' in the search box, it takes me to the "This is a redirect, and here is where the redirect points" page, instead of just taking me to DF2014:Known bugs and issues.

So then I changed it to:

Code: [Select]

#REDIRECT [[DF2014:Known bugs and issues]]

and that works as expected.  But is this how every redirect is supposed to be done now -- using an explicit namespace?  "Bug" was just one example.  Other examples include "death" (which takes me to v0.34:Coffin), "FPS" (which takes me to v0.34:Frames per second), and probably dozens more.

[lethosor]

http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF:REDIR explains how redirects work on the wiki - in this case, "DF2014:Bug" should redirect to "DF2014:Known bugs and issues", and "Bug" will automatically redirect to "DF2014:Bug". I sent around a bot to delete most of the mainspace redirects, but some that didn't follow the original redirect policy (like this) weren't deleted.