Difference between revisions of "Talk:CFG File Documentation"

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Suggested change to Outdated tag)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This is really in need of a .18+ update.
+
Removed old comments.  Page is now updated to 0.90 standards, with some work still needing to be done to clean things up --[[User:Joshuadery|Joshuadery]] ([[User talk:Joshuadery|talk]]) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (CST)
  
−
seconded [[User:Medavox|Medavox]] ([[User talk:Medavox|talk]]) 19:41, 25 June 2013 (CDT)
+
Just dropping in to say how much I appreciate this documentation.  I could have really used this a long time ago, but it's still useful now.  THANKS!  --[[User:Ezriilc|Ezriilc]] ([[User talk:Ezriilc|talk]]) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  
−
== Suggested change to Outdated tag ==
+
As of 1.0.2 the varible "part" is very much required, or the part will not load. [[User:TG626|TG626]] ([[User talk:TG626|talk]]) 22:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  
−
{{Outdated|
+
Thanks for all the hard work! Bad documentation is IMO one of the biggest wastes of programmer time, so I'm grateful you saved us from some of that. --[[User:Bebop|Bebop]]
−
{{Box|type=error|Large portions of this page are originally incorrect or so outdated that they are no longer useable.}}
 
−
{{Box|type=warning|Large portions of this page describe legacy mode options and deprecated concepts that are against current best practices}}
 
−
{{Box|type=warning|This document does not contain settings, structures, and methods implemented after roughly KSP 0.15.0 (current version: 0.21.1)}}
 
−
{{Box|type=warning|The information on this page is no longer sufficient to create a part, except through legacy modes}}
 
−
}}
 
  
−
This will help readers to understand the problems with the document until the page is properly updated
+
Man, this page is quite old. Edited it to fix some missing examples and clarify some unknowns. Let's slowly make it 1.0.x standards. --[[User:Xcvk_122|xcvk_122]] 11:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  
−
--[[User:Greys|Greys]] ([[User talk:Greys|talk]]) 12:21, 6 September 2013 (CDT)
+
Just stopped by to say thanks. I'll add things as I discover them and am reasonably sure they make sense. --[[User:Blackhuey|Blackhuey]] ([[User talk:Blackhuey|talk]]) 02:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
−
:Although I agree with the general notion of this suggestion, I would say this is overkill. Especially the last three boxes say the same. Something like this:
 
−
{{Box|type=error|Large portions of this page are originally incorrect or so outdated that they are no longer useable.}}
 
−
{{Outdated|Large portions of this page describe legacy mode options and deprecated concepts (roughly KSP 0.15.0) that are against current best practices. This page is no longer sufficient to create a part.
 
  
−
There is currently an updated version in development created by Greys on his userpage: [[User:Greys]]
+
Thank you very much for this work.  I am just fixing a borked save (lost a Kerbal and associated vessel on a rescue contract when a part was inadvertently deleted) but desperately need this information to prevent a more catastrophic editing failure and another career save start. --[[User:Brigadier|Brigadier]] ([[User talk:Brigadier|talk]]) 00:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
−
}}
 
−
:It also adds a note to your page, in case somebody want to help improve it (all edits going on this page are basically “lost”, unless somebody manually merge/add them to your version). — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 14:30, 6 September 2013 (CDT)
 
  
 +
Yo, I'm here and I appreciate.  I'm working on a serialization/deserialization module for Python, and your effort is going to help a ton. Thanks! --[[User:Hovis|Hovis]] ([[User talk:Hovis|talk]]) 01:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  
−
 
+
Should we really have modules listed longhand on TWO pages?  Would it not be better to link from here to the http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Module page? Should we have MOD modules listed at all? --[[User:TG626|TG626]] ([[User talk:TG626|talk]]) 7:04 AM, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
−
::I can understand that, and it's why I posted here instead of editing the thread directly, I'm pretty new to this wiki stuff but this page has irritated me to no end.
 
−
::This might not be the best place to discuss it but Outdated really irritates me, by having comment: at the end of the line it creates this big pile of text falling over what Outdated adds to the box, or if it's a small comment, it just disappears at the end following a big stretch of what readers consider ignorable fluff. If comment was on it's own line, maybe with a line break, the whole thing would be better
 
−
 
 
−
{{Box|'''This page is in need of being brought up to date.''' Please help Kerbal Space Program Wiki by fixing inaccurate or outdated information.
 
−
* Large portions of this page describe legacy mode options and deprecated concepts (roughly KSP 0.15.0) that are against current best practices. <br />
 
−
* This page is no longer sufficient to create a part.}}
 
−
 
 
−
::I think bullet lists look good for multiple items; I imagine most pages won't have multiple items but the bullet makes a good replacement for <newline>Comment:
 
−
::Multiple boxes definitely wasn't needed and I agree with the condensed text, but my revision is very early and scattered, featuring it prominently at this point could be damaging to people who don't already know these topics, maybe a link at the bottom of the page instead?<br />--[[User:Greys|Greys]] ([[User talk:Greys|talk]]) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (CDT)
 
−
:::I have to look which pages use {{Tl|Outdated}} but I guess you are right that it is not very helpful having the comment at the end of the text. But it is already possible to have a bullet list, of course then with a preceding “Comment:”.
 
−
{{Outdated|
 
−
* Large portions of this page describe legacy mode options and deprecated concepts (roughly KSP 0.15.0) that are against current best practices.
 
−
* This page is no longer sufficient to create a part.
 
−
 
 
−
Currently there is a incomplete version in development at [[User:Greys]]. It isn't finished yet but most likely will replace the content here. So changes to the page here will be replaced most likely.}}
 
−
:::About linking to your version: This is mostly to warn others that they shouldn't edit/update this page but instead either help with your page or wait until you think you version is fine. I tried to make it clear in the last sentence in the box. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 04:42, 7 September 2013 (CDT)
 

Latest revision as of 07:07, 7 December 2016

Removed old comments. Page is now updated to 0.90 standards, with some work still needing to be done to clean things up --Joshuadery (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (CST)

Just dropping in to say how much I appreciate this documentation. I could have really used this a long time ago, but it's still useful now. THANKS! --Ezriilc (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As of 1.0.2 the varible "part" is very much required, or the part will not load. TG626 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work! Bad documentation is IMO one of the biggest wastes of programmer time, so I'm grateful you saved us from some of that. --Bebop

Man, this page is quite old. Edited it to fix some missing examples and clarify some unknowns. Let's slowly make it 1.0.x standards. --xcvk_122 11:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just stopped by to say thanks. I'll add things as I discover them and am reasonably sure they make sense. --Blackhuey (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this work. I am just fixing a borked save (lost a Kerbal and associated vessel on a rescue contract when a part was inadvertently deleted) but desperately need this information to prevent a more catastrophic editing failure and another career save start. --Brigadier (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yo, I'm here and I appreciate. I'm working on a serialization/deserialization module for Python, and your effort is going to help a ton. Thanks! --Hovis (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we really have modules listed longhand on TWO pages? Would it not be better to link from here to the http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Module page? Should we have MOD modules listed at all? --TG626 (talk) 7:04 AM, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?title=Talk:CFG_File_Documentation&oldid=75823"