Difference between revisions of "Talk:Version history"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(→Style of the early releases) |
(→Style of the early releases) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Hi, currently all „modern“ releases are unchanged when a new version is released. Now with the additions of the early versions, there is a break in style as they are stated in past tense. Should the early releases be rewritten to make them like the newer entries to remain consistent? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 10:47, 3 March 2014 (CST) | Hi, currently all „modern“ releases are unchanged when a new version is released. Now with the additions of the early versions, there is a break in style as they are stated in past tense. Should the early releases be rewritten to make them like the newer entries to remain consistent? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 10:47, 3 March 2014 (CST) | ||
:I was debating that within myself and decided to go with past tense because the information about pre-release versions is relatively new, they've never been played outside of Squad and can't be played now (my additions to 0.7.3 were made while I had it running) and because it is a handy reminder that one is reading about pre-release versions. I weighed all that against the page's consistency, and present tense lost, though barely because this version history is a story. I tend to write my own stories in present tense, and I'm not really fond of the NASB's stupid asterisk past tense translations. What do you think? Finally, on "familiar" what do you mean by ''*if you insist on it, mark it as not fixed;'' on edit 33009 and what does the tag you added do? [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 18:41, 3 March 2014 (CST) | :I was debating that within myself and decided to go with past tense because the information about pre-release versions is relatively new, they've never been played outside of Squad and can't be played now (my additions to 0.7.3 were made while I had it running) and because it is a handy reminder that one is reading about pre-release versions. I weighed all that against the page's consistency, and present tense lost, though barely because this version history is a story. I tend to write my own stories in present tense, and I'm not really fond of the NASB's stupid asterisk past tense translations. What do you think? Finally, on "familiar" what do you mean by ''*if you insist on it, mark it as not fixed;'' on edit 33009 and what does the tag you added do? [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 18:41, 3 March 2014 (CST) | ||
| + | ::About that familiar: Those statements are problematic (especially if they are very hidden) when it does change. For such statements I'm using {{Tl|Check version}} which automatically shows that it is outdated as soon as a new version is released. Of course everything could be marked, I only try to use it where such statements are problematical (like here where it is not directly obvious). Especially as it will mark those as outdated after every version update. The same problem is with the description about the [[RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster]], as you can't guarantee that it stays similar to it's first release. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 13:49, 4 March 2014 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 19:49, 4 March 2014
Errm, i'm not getting the Ion jets, is this a removal or a one-off glitch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoform (talk • contribs)
All the preceding waypoints, flagpoints, kerbals, etc, on the Mun from the successfully converted previous save are 3-6km under the surface. I was using this to guage a dark-side landing, and crashed because I thought I had another 4k remaining. :(
Style of the early releases
Hi, currently all „modern“ releases are unchanged when a new version is released. Now with the additions of the early versions, there is a break in style as they are stated in past tense. Should the early releases be rewritten to make them like the newer entries to remain consistent? — xZise [talk] 10:47, 3 March 2014 (CST)
- I was debating that within myself and decided to go with past tense because the information about pre-release versions is relatively new, they've never been played outside of Squad and can't be played now (my additions to 0.7.3 were made while I had it running) and because it is a handy reminder that one is reading about pre-release versions. I weighed all that against the page's consistency, and present tense lost, though barely because this version history is a story. I tend to write my own stories in present tense, and I'm not really fond of the NASB's stupid asterisk past tense translations. What do you think? Finally, on "familiar" what do you mean by *if you insist on it, mark it as not fixed; on edit 33009 and what does the tag you added do? Featherwinglove (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2014 (CST)
- About that familiar: Those statements are problematic (especially if they are very hidden) when it does change. For such statements I'm using {{Check version}} which automatically shows that it is outdated as soon as a new version is released. Of course everything could be marked, I only try to use it where such statements are problematical (like here where it is not directly obvious). Especially as it will mark those as outdated after every version update. The same problem is with the description about the RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster, as you can't guarantee that it stays similar to it's first release. — xZise [talk] 13:49, 4 March 2014 (CST)
