Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Outdated"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(about this template) |
m (moved Template talk:Obsolete to Template talk:Outdated: "obsolete" is a little harsh, and something can perhaps be considered outdated while still having unique significance) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Had this idea for a while. "Obsolete" sounds a little harsh, but basically, we have lots of pages that describe ideas that end up being half-baked versions of the system they eventually evolve into. When I started Robocoding, I enjoyed going through each of these and building them out and moving onto the next one. But I think it is probably misleading to a newcomer that looks at [[:Category:Statistical Targeting]] and starts building an [[Averaged Bearing Offset Targeting|Averaged Bearing Offset]] gun without realizing that it's basically an inferior version of a [[GuessFactor]] gun. In a Robocode textbook, the former would either be left out or explained as a step on the way to GuessFactors, and I think the wiki pages should organize/link them similarly. Feedback welcome. =) --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 16:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | Had this idea for a while. "Obsolete" sounds a little harsh, but basically, we have lots of pages that describe ideas that end up being half-baked versions of the system they eventually evolve into. When I started Robocoding, I enjoyed going through each of these and building them out and moving onto the next one. But I think it is probably misleading to a newcomer that looks at [[:Category:Statistical Targeting]] and starts building an [[Averaged Bearing Offset Targeting|Averaged Bearing Offset]] gun without realizing that it's basically an inferior version of a [[GuessFactor]] gun. In a Robocode textbook, the former would either be left out or explained as a step on the way to GuessFactors, and I think the wiki pages should organize/link them similarly. Feedback welcome. =) --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 16:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I've always had this nagging feeling that guess factors are an oversimplification. One of the projects gathering dust in my source tree is a NN targeting method that uses actual bearing offsets. Maybe some day a newcomer will arrive and challenge some of the wiki's conventional wisdom? --[[User:Darkcanuck|Darkcanuck]] 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Interesting. Personally, I consider GuessFactors to be quite brilliant, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if [[Play It Forward]] or a form of [[Displacement Vector|Displacement Vectors]] eventually caught up or overtook them. And you make a good point about being too trigger happy about marking anything obsolete. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 02:28, 27 August 2011
Had this idea for a while. "Obsolete" sounds a little harsh, but basically, we have lots of pages that describe ideas that end up being half-baked versions of the system they eventually evolve into. When I started Robocoding, I enjoyed going through each of these and building them out and moving onto the next one. But I think it is probably misleading to a newcomer that looks at Category:Statistical Targeting and starts building an Averaged Bearing Offset gun without realizing that it's basically an inferior version of a GuessFactor gun. In a Robocode textbook, the former would either be left out or explained as a step on the way to GuessFactors, and I think the wiki pages should organize/link them similarly. Feedback welcome. =) --Voidious 16:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've always had this nagging feeling that guess factors are an oversimplification. One of the projects gathering dust in my source tree is a NN targeting method that uses actual bearing offsets. Maybe some day a newcomer will arrive and challenge some of the wiki's conventional wisdom? --Darkcanuck 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Personally, I consider GuessFactors to be quite brilliant, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if Play It Forward or a form of Displacement Vectors eventually caught up or overtook them. And you make a good point about being too trigger happy about marking anything obsolete. --Voidious 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
