Print

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

[Warlord255]

I really hope Toady doesn't fix carp.

[Flaming Dorf]

I really hope Toady doesn't fix carp.

All we can do, really.

[Footkerchief]

Sorry y'all.  Carp have been dethroned.

And carp are no longer carp -- I set 10 vs 10 bull sharks and had a bloody mess.  I don't remember if they bruised any of the sharks or not.

[Jude]

What are "burrows" anyway? Also, what are some of the changes due in the next version? It should be big, it's been over a year since the last one.

[Footkerchief]

What are "burrows" anyway? Also, what are some of the changes due in the next version? It should be big, it's been over a year since the last one.

Burrows are groups of dwarves, buildings, stockpiles and activity zones that are relatively self-contained.  Dwarves try to stay inside their burrow, and jobs will only use items within the burrow.  They're also a replacement for the "Dwarves stay inside" command and should work much better in that role.

Other changes are mostly in the List of Remaining Items.  The next version also has a new material system (with lots of properties that can be defined for materials in a generalized fashion), highly detailed creature bodies and wounds, and the ability to create custom workshops with their own reactions (jobs).

[Janus]

So about the wiki...
It needs a new favicon!
It had one, but now it's gone again.

The existing one is still there, it just doesn't work apparently due to server misconfiguration. I checked the headers, and it's being sent as this:

Code: [Select]

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8Instead of the proper MIME type (image/x-icon).

[Locriani]

Doh, I didn't set up a mime header for an icon type, so it goes to the default.  I'll fix that here shortly.

[Footkerchief]

Bump.  Any thoughts from Locriani or anyone else on whether the current wiki should be archived when the next version arrives?  I'm unsure whether it would be useful or not.  Since it's such a large update, conceivably there are people who'd want to keep playing the old version and have a wiki available, like happened with 2D.  On the other hand, unlike the 2D-3D transition, there aren't many features getting removed per se.

[smjjames]

Yea, alot of the basic stuff and basic concepts are unchanged. However, while the basic concepts are still there (except for combat related stuff, squads, military, etc), there are alot of changes to various things as well as alot of new stuff. The military info will likely have to be wiped clean for the new stuff, theres the new material stuff, the modding info will likely have to be reorganized and maybe compiled into one category. Theres also alot of other stuff that we don't know about that could have changed.

I guess it could be archived since many pages will still exist, just the details changed.

[bombcar]

Bump.  Any thoughts from Locriani or anyone else on whether the current wiki should be archived when the next version arrives?  I'm unsure whether it would be useful or not.  Since it's such a large update, conceivably there are people who'd want to keep playing the old version and have a wiki available, like happened with 2D.  On the other hand, unlike the 2D-3D transition, there aren't many features getting removed per se.

I'd say not archive it, because almost all of it will still be current and correct.

However, people should keep an eye out for things that will have changed. If the whole wiki is archived, it will end up being very empty until people mass cut+paste it over.

At most, certain articles dealing with the upgraded features could be marked as "outdated".

[Footkerchief]

However, people should keep an eye out for things that will have changed. If the whole wiki is archived, it will end up being very empty until people mass cut+paste it over.

Oh, "archive" doesn't mean "throw everything out."  It just means to preserve a coherent snapshot.  The pages would still be intact.

[Flaede]

However, people should keep an eye out for things that will have changed. If the whole wiki is archived, it will end up being very empty until people mass cut+paste it over.

Oh, "archive" doesn't mean "throw everything out."  It just means to preserve a coherent snapshot.  The pages would still be intact.

Honestly, I would suggest archiving it, with a note on the frontpage "if you can't find anything in the new section on a particular topic, the old archives are here and may be accurate". Then everyone can sloowly migrate information into the new sections as the bits are vetted. That way inacurate bits from the old system don't hide in plain sight.

Also, that way the modding section can be completely redone. Like it will almost certainly have to be.

That's my 0.02$, but I have barely posted anything to the Wiki. It's rather daunting, actually.

[Quatch]

I'm definitely in favour of archiving a good final 40d snapshot. I was very sad the 2D one wasn't available anymore when I went to give a go with the game from before when I started playing.

Is it possible to apply an outdated tag to all articles/sections, then let people manually remove them as information is checked?

[Footkerchief]

Is it possible to apply an outdated tag to all articles/sections, then let people manually remove them as information is checked?

It's definitely possible, and that might be the best way of preventing the hiding-in-plain-sight problem that Flaede mentioned.

[Draco18s]

Is it possible to apply an outdated tag to all articles/sections, then let people manually remove them as information is checked?

It's definitely possible, and that might be the best way of preventing the hiding-in-plain-sight problem that Flaede mentioned.

I'd do a hybrid.  Make a snapshot archive (so there's a wiki for the "old" version, available for those playing it) and make the "new" one have outdated tags so things can be properly updated while retaining old information for sections that haven't been explored.