Jump to content

Welcome to FTB Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

BuildCraft version in article title?


20 replies to this topic

#1
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

So far we've been including BuildCraft's major version in its article title. Now BuildCraft 4 is out, and there are no major changes in any way. So I'd suggest moving BuildCraft 3 to BuildCraft and creating appropriate redirects, because unlike all other mods where we include the version number in the title (TC3/4, EE3, IC2, etc.) there have been no substantial changes in mechanics that would require a differentiation between versions. Of course there are naming changes and new blocks, but it could just be noted in the article that they only exist since BuildCraft 4 or that their name changed. Oh, and if that's fine I'd move the pipes to their new names (Waterproof -> Fluid, Conductive -> Kinesis).


  • ViperSRT3g likes this

#2
felinoel

felinoel

    Steampunk Alchemist

  • Administrators
  • 3860 posts
  • Location:Somewhere, possibly?
  • IGN:felinoel
  • Modpack:FTB Mage Quest
If there is no real changes, then yes just change the 3 to a 4.
Watch all of my different Let's Play series, Minecraft and more!
player.me/felinoel


We need to make default article pages! Discuss their designs here!

#3
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

If there is no real changes, then yes just change the 3 to a 4.

That's not what I meant. My suggestion was to move the article to "BuildCraft" without any version number, as there is no real difference between the two.



#4
felinoel

felinoel

    Steampunk Alchemist

  • Administrators
  • 3860 posts
  • Location:Somewhere, possibly?
  • IGN:felinoel
  • Modpack:FTB Mage Quest

That's not what I meant. My suggestion was to move the article to "BuildCraft" without any version number, as there is no real difference between the two.

I am against that.
BC5 might be different, as might 2 and 1.
Watch all of my different Let's Play series, Minecraft and more!
player.me/felinoel


We need to make default article pages! Discuss their designs here!

#5
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1980 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

I would make separate navs for the mods and then make separate pages for the items that are different in each mod. As not to confuse the end-user if they are using older packs.



#6
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2
Separate navboxes may be good, but how should we do that for things that exist in both 3 and 4? Having two navboxes for almost the same mod on one page probably won't look great.

#7
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1980 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

Separate navboxes may be good, but how should we do that for things that exist in both 3 and 4? Having two navboxes for almost the same mod on one page probably won't look great.

Either separate pages or modify the BC3 navbox for both mods and make the distinction in there.



#8
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

Separate pages are completely pointless for some things, e. g. the Quarry has not changed at all, the pipes only have a new name. The only new blocks are the Flood Gate, Filtered Buffer and a few pipes.

In my opinion it would be easier to just update the existing navbox, and to make further updates easier, remove the version number. We don't differentiate between the versions of most other mods either, such as GregTech, so I don't really see why we should do so with BuildCraft.



#9
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1980 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

Separate pages are completely pointless for some things, e. g. the Quarry has not changed at all, the pipes only have a new name. The only new blocks are the Flood Gate, Filtered Buffer and a few pipes.

In my opinion it would be easier to just update the existing navbox, and to make further updates easier, remove the version number. We don't differentiate between the versions of most other mods either, such as GregTech, so I don't really see why we should do so with BuildCraft.

Well, GregTech are always minor version changes. This is a complicated issue though. I do think we should somehow think of a clear way of making clear to users which features are available in which version. I've recently been thinking about the possibility of adding a system to the wiki to allow us to display content for specific versions, possibly even filter by modpack. Then use javascript to hide/show information as it's needed.


  • hannoman likes this

#10
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

Well, GregTech are always minor version changes. This is a complicated issue though. I do think we should somehow think of a clear way of making clear to users which features are available in which version. I've recently been thinking about the possibility of adding a system to the wiki to allow us to display content for specific versions, possibly even filter by modpack. Then use javascript to hide/show information as it's needed.

I was about to suggest that kind of system. If you could implement such a thing that would be awesome.

The changes from BuildCraft 3 -> 4 are not really major either, as far as I understand it two new blocks, a few new pipes, and some name changes. That's about as much as happens in any other regular mod update ;)



#11
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1980 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

I was about to suggest that kind of system. If you could implement such a thing that would be awesome.

The changes from BuildCraft 3 -> 4 are not really major either, as far as I understand it two new blocks, a few new pipes, and some name changes. That's about as much as happens in any other regular mod update ;)

Another advantage to said system would be to allow the user to filter information of ore dictionary items, based on the mod. Seeing as I don't 100% agree on the merging of said pages, but then again don't really have a better solution.



#12
hannoman

hannoman

    Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Modpack:FTB Unleashed

Well, GregTech are always minor version changes. This is a complicated issue though. I do think we should somehow think of a clear way of making clear to users which features are available in which version. I've recently been thinking about the possibility of adding a system to the wiki to allow us to display content for specific versions, possibly even filter by modpack. Then use javascript to hide/show information as it's needed.

 

I totally endorse this! I actually have been wondering for quite some time, how your approach to handling "outdated/old information" - or better: information about "old" mods, as the information stays totally valid and useful - would be.

For me this wiki is _the_ address to get information about anything in the covered mods, most of the time being even more informative than a dedicated documentation for a single mod. And the great thing about it is, that it's all in a single place! One doesn't have search through ugly or ill-maintained individual mod wikis - cause of that i'd love to see it stay that way.

And having a way of parameterizing the information by version or modpack would even allow for storage of more special information! Like e.g. bugs/strange behavior, which are relevant to one modpack, but might get fixed with a minor update of the containing mod. Or only appear through the interaction of multiple mods in their respective versions, which so happen to be together in one modpack (e.g. http://ftbwiki.org/RE-Battery#Bugs). This would be information that you don't want to have a main article cluttered with, as it doesnt give a general description of the item, but would be totally good to have too.

 

So that's my 2 cents, didnt mention to hijack the admin discussion though. ;)


  • ZL123 likes this

#13
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

This is not an "admin discussion", everybody is allowed (and encouraged) to participate in these discussions here.

Handling old information is something that's been discussed multiple times so far, such as here, and there hasn't been any real consensus yet. Having such a system would definetely be good though. There probably is a MediaWiki plugin for it already, we just have to find it :P



#14
felinoel

felinoel

    Steampunk Alchemist

  • Administrators
  • 3860 posts
  • Location:Somewhere, possibly?
  • IGN:felinoel
  • Modpack:FTB Mage Quest

Separate pages are completely pointless for some things, e. g. the Quarry has not changed at all, the pipes only have a new name. The only new blocks are the Flood Gate, Filtered Buffer and a few pipes.
In my opinion it would be easier to just update the existing navbox, and to make further updates easier, remove the version number. We don't differentiate between the versions of most other mods either, such as GregTech, so I don't really see why we should do so with BuildCraft.

Wait... so there IS a difference between BC3 and 4?
Then just renamed ONLY the articles of things that are different to Article Name (BC3) and update the old navbox and make a new one.

Well, GregTech are always minor version changes. This is a complicated issue though. I do think we should somehow think of a clear way of making clear to users which features are available in which version. I've recently been thinking about the possibility of adding a system to the wiki to allow us to display content for specific versions, possibly even filter by modpack. Then use javascript to hide/show information as it's needed.

Well... there IS always my suggestion...
http://ftbforums.org...gs-for-recipes/
Not only that, but ANOTHER wiki has started using those spoiler hiding tabbers.
http://harvestmoon.w...A_New_Beginning

This is not an "admin discussion", everybody is allowed (and encouraged) to participate in these discussions here.

Indeed, the admin discussions are handled... elsewhere.

Handling old information is something that's been discussed multiple times so far, such as here, and there hasn't been any real consensus yet.

I am still completely against hosting old and outdated information on top of new and current information's articles.

Having such a system would definetely be good though. There probably is a MediaWiki plugin for it already, we just have to find it :P

Like the spoiler hiding tabbers?
Watch all of my different Let's Play series, Minecraft and more!
player.me/felinoel


We need to make default article pages! Discuss their designs here!

#15
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

Wait... so there IS a difference between BC3 and 4?
Then just renamed ONLY the articles of things that are different to Article Name (BC3) and update the old navbox and make a new one.

Opposite. There are no differences requiring disambigs - two new machines, a few new pipes, different naming for most pipes. In my opinion that's not an amount of changes that requires complete separation of the two versions. We could redirect the old pipe names to the new ones, add a short note to the lead ("The pipe (previously known as RandomPipe) ...") and that's it. The new blocks just get their article, where we state that they exist only since BuildCraft 4.

 

 

Well... there IS always my suggestion...
http://ftbforums.org...gs-for-recipes/
Not only that, but ANOTHER wiki has started using those spoiler hiding tabbers.
http://harvestmoon.w...A_New_Beginning

That's not quite what RZR0 meant... I think. What I understood was a system that lets you choose your pack/mod/Minecraft version somewhere, and certain information on the page changes according to that. Which includes, but isn't limited to, recipes. It could also be used for things like bugs or general behavior.

 

 

I am still completely against hosting old and outdated information on top of new and current information's articles.

And I am still completely against removing or hiding information on older mods or packs.



#16
RZR0

RZR0

    Administrator

  • Operator
  • 1980 posts
  • IGN:RZR0
  • Modpack:Private Pack

That's not quite what RZR0 meant... I think. What I understood was a system that lets you choose your pack/mod/Minecraft version somewhere, and certain information on the page changes according to that. Which includes, but isn't limited to, recipes. It could also be used for things like bugs or general behavior.

Indeed

 

And I am still completely against removing or hiding information on older mods or packs.

Seconded



#17
felinoel

felinoel

    Steampunk Alchemist

  • Administrators
  • 3860 posts
  • Location:Somewhere, possibly?
  • IGN:felinoel
  • Modpack:FTB Mage Quest

Opposite. There are no differences requiring disambigs - two new machines, a few new pipes, different naming for most pipes. In my opinion that's not an amount of changes that requires complete separation of the two versions. We could redirect the old pipe names to the new ones, add a short note to the lead ("The pipe (previously known as RandomPipe) ...") and that's it. The new blocks just get their article, where we state that they exist only since BuildCraft 4.

No... I am suggesting that we duplicate the few items that changed and split them from there, and ONLY those few that changed.

That's not quite what RZR0 meant... I think. What I understood was a system that lets you choose your pack/mod/Minecraft version somewhere, and certain information on the page changes according to that. Which includes, but isn't limited to, recipes. It could also be used for things like bugs or general behavior.

I know it isn't, just is my suggestion.
 

And I am still completely against removing or hiding information on older mods or packs.

Which won't make any sense a year from now.
Watch all of my different Let's Play series, Minecraft and more!
player.me/felinoel


We need to make default article pages! Discuss their designs here!

#18
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

No... I am suggesting that we duplicate the few items that changed and split them from there, and ONLY those few that changed.

But why would you create separate pages if only an item's name changed? Unless I'm missing something everything works exactly like it did before.



#19
felinoel

felinoel

    Steampunk Alchemist

  • Administrators
  • 3860 posts
  • Location:Somewhere, possibly?
  • IGN:felinoel
  • Modpack:FTB Mage Quest

But why would you create separate pages if only an item's name changed? Unless I'm missing something everything works exactly like it did before.

If an item's name is the ONLY thing that changed, then just make a redirect, like with the sterling engine, but it was my understanding that something more than just the name was changed, was I misunderstanding?
Watch all of my different Let's Play series, Minecraft and more!
player.me/felinoel


We need to make default article pages! Discuss their designs here!

#20
dgelessus

dgelessus

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1424 posts
  • IGN:dgelessus
  • Modpack:FTB Tech World 2

If an item's name is the ONLY thing that changed, then just make a redirect, like with the sterling engine, but it was my understanding that something more than just the name was changed, was I misunderstanding?

That's what I was going to do anyway, move the pages and leave redirects. There might be something that I missed, but I'm still quite certain that none of the older blocks changed in any way, besides naming. There are two new blocks though, which I suggest we just add to the navbox. After all, it's not that strange that newer items are not in older mod versions, that's what happens with most semi-major mod updates.





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users