Difference between revisions of "User talk:Timrem"
(→Protecting currentversion: reply) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
No we wont be protecting that template, simply substitute it into the main page with <nowiki>{{subst:currentversion}}</nowiki> --[[User:Draygo|Draygo]] ([[User talk:Draygo|talk]]) 12:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) | No we wont be protecting that template, simply substitute it into the main page with <nowiki>{{subst:currentversion}}</nowiki> --[[User:Draygo|Draygo]] ([[User talk:Draygo|talk]]) 12:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
:That... defeats the purpose though, of having the dynamic template on the main page, so you only need to update the version in one location. Using subst: means the template's current version will be place on the main page, and every update will still need to be enacted manually. --[[User:Timrem|timrem]] ([[User talk:Timrem|talk]]) | :That... defeats the purpose though, of having the dynamic template on the main page, so you only need to update the version in one location. Using subst: means the template's current version will be place on the main page, and every update will still need to be enacted manually. --[[User:Timrem|timrem]] ([[User talk:Timrem|talk]]) | ||
| + | :Personally I'm for using the current version template (that's why it was set up in the first place), even leaving it unprotected. I update that page once a week bare minimum anyway, so if it becomes a problem with spammers changing it, we'll know pretty quickly and can go back to the old way, or protect the template page or something. It's a hassle to need to change three different locations once or twice a week for the same info (main page, /editcopy, and current_version), when we could use the template and let changes to the mainpage and /edicopy be actual content changes without mucking up the history. [[User:Ketura|Ketura]] ([[User talk:Ketura|talk]]) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 7 February 2015
Feel free to leave a message below! --timrem 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Organization
Nice work on your blanket changes! A good number of the inconsistencies in naming, etc, that you've been fixing stem from me attempting to standardize things without having a solid idea of what needed to happen, especially the Raw Materials bit which was in a clearly bad place before (which called ores "raw materials" and ingots "crafting materials" when "components" were the things that actually got crafted, etc). I'm glad that someone that has the know-how and the passion for a well-organized wiki finally got their hands on it. Once I've settled in to my new location I'll be helping out with more than just encouragement! Keep up the good work! Ketura (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Protecting currentversion
No we wont be protecting that template, simply substitute it into the main page with {{subst:currentversion}} --Draygo (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- That... defeats the purpose though, of having the dynamic template on the main page, so you only need to update the version in one location. Using subst: means the template's current version will be place on the main page, and every update will still need to be enacted manually. --timrem (talk)
- Personally I'm for using the current version template (that's why it was set up in the first place), even leaving it unprotected. I update that page once a week bare minimum anyway, so if it becomes a problem with spammers changing it, we'll know pretty quickly and can go back to the old way, or protect the template page or something. It's a hassle to need to change three different locations once or twice a week for the same info (main page, /editcopy, and current_version), when we could use the template and let changes to the mainpage and /edicopy be actual content changes without mucking up the history. Ketura (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
