Talk:Extreme Tux Racer

Oops
I thought it was called ppracer. I didn't realise it had changed name, I did do research, I have the version from 6 months ago though, and thats what I searched :(.--John 20:56, 18 October 2007 (CEST)

Huh?
Why did you revert my changes to ppracer kiba? --RB0 22:28, 18 October 2007 (CEST)
 * hmm, ok, I see why, wikipedia says it is the same project, actually though I'm pretty sure "reliable" sources say otherwise ;) --RB0 22:33, 18 October 2007 (CEST)

It would be useful if information was shown explaining:
Why it got renamed as Etremem Tux Racer, I myself thought that it was PPRacer, and I can't find any reason explaining why it changed.--John 16:37, 14 November 2007 (CET)

On the Version History List
I just felt like discussing this before I or anyone else might attempt any sort of edits to the Version History list. The most recent revision of the list contains 0.8.2 on the list, but the previous release, 0.8.1, was never included (even during the time it was said to be the latest version.) Historically, for the most part at least, the list only contained 0.x versions and not 0.x.x versions (for instance, version 0.7.5 was never included), so it's odd that 0.8.2 is shown as some sort of exception to that rule. Another exception to this on the list is "0.5 beta", which appears between 0.4 and 0.6 while any official 0.5 release is never mentioned on the list at all. To me, this list probably needs to be made more consistent (whether I do that or someone else does), but I wanted to just make a statement about the situation first in case someone wants to mention a particular reason the list is the way it is, even though I'm not sure there really is one. LibreJacket (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2022 (CEST)
 * My opinion has always been that the article page is the wrong place for a version list. Much like version info in the opening paragraph, it tends to be neglected during updates. It also makes the page needlessly long and IMO less appealing. As concise a summary as possible is better. Version history is important where there were major changes in the project direction, platform, etc. which may be of interest to the reader and the rest I'd prefer to leave out or put it in a dedicated history page if that's your hobby. Maybe that's just me. FacelessLinuxUser (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2022 (CEST)
 * That's an interesting view of things. There used to be version info in the opening paragraph for this page, but it was removed somewhat recently due to redundancy. I'm still debating what, if anything, I should do regarding the list, but no doubt someone has to do something because, in my opinion, it's looking somewhat sloppy. Maybe, at the end of the day, a link to an external changelog or something would be better, but on the other hand, I'm unsure how a massive removal of Version History lists across the wiki would be received by the community, particularly when it comes to ones that seem to get more effort put into them, such as the 0 A.D. list. However, even that list has problems, since as of today it doesn't list either Alpha 25 or Alpha 25b. Something has to be done about all this, although I'm not sure what. LibreJacket (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2022 (CEST)
 * Agreed. Something like "==See also== *ProjectName_Changelog Changelog" would seem tidier. Modanung (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2022 (CEST)