| |
Master of Chaos
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 25 |
Automatic renaming of Database Entries?
Just seen that all entrys with more than one "+" in the name ( i.e. "Fred Feuerstein ++" ) were renamed in "+2" ..
whas this done by an admin or by scripting?
in fact, our original releases were named by "+" for normal cheat mode and "++" if there is more than one option. Could also be 5 or more things to be cheated...
Now, if renaming a "++" release in "+2", this would not exactly express ehat we think it should.
I think, giving a release a name with "+ 37655" is a litte bit like "my cock is half a mm longer than yours" ;-)
but it seems that i have to do so?
chaos
|
|
| |
CenTraX
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 117 |
Here at CSDB we got small standarts:
+2 means ++
[hi] means hiscoresaver and etc ...
|
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
I think OTP got the part about +2 being ++.
The fact is that his group used ++ for everything > +1.
So +5 by CSDB standards would still have been ++ by their standards.
From his perspective, the CSDB is incorrect now, since it says +2 for something that could well be +5.
From CSDB perspective however, it's a correct step, as almost everybody used +{number}.
With large amounts of data, it's obvious you'd have to make choices.
So, mr. Chaos... just rename your stuff again ;-) |
| |
Scout
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 1570 |
Quote:
So, mr. Chaos... just rename your stuff again ;-)
And lock your entries.
---
8Bit Mayhem - The C64 Scenemusic Podcast
http://8bitmayhem.untergrund.net |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11350 |
Quote:
The fact is that his group used ++ for everything > +1.
So +5 by CSDB standards would still have been ++ by their standards.
From his perspective, the CSDB is incorrect now, since it says +2 for something that could well be +5.
From CSDB perspective however, it's a correct step, as almost everybody used +{number}.
thats not quite the truth... back in the early days everyone used "++++", one "+" meaning "something added" - no matter if it was a trainer, bugfix, hiscoresaver or whatever. the "+2hi" etc notation established later (in the mid 90s ?).
speaking of that, it would be much nicer if there were proper flags in the database to indicate that kind of stuff, putting it in the releasename isnt quite right IMHO.
|
| |
Mason
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 461 |
Groepaz are right. There was a simple standard back then. Either you used + for unlimited lives and ++ for level trainer or have a long trainer menu. |
| |
Master of Chaos
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 25 |
i will rename the entries, but will not touch the origininal names.
as mentioned before, we ( or i ) dislike the naming conventions , but i am not the law... ;-) , and if it is standard here, so it is..
by the way, theres nothing about this topic in the FAQs n( or i must be blind.. )
|
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1676 |
I'll try to sum this up.
There is no official CSDb standart for how to name cracks with +'s etc.
Any standart sugested here is "just" what the majority (or the ones who speak loutest ;) ) thinks is right.
For my personal oppinion I must admit that I never was a part of the cracker scene, and therefor really don't have an oppinion. :(
However, for the idea about adding flags etc. to the cracks, to enter the info there sounds like a great idea. This means work for me, and again some help from you guys to figure out which flags to add, and to find a nice way to do it, so there won't be 58 check-boxes on the release-edit page. :) |
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
As stated before,I don´t think exchanging a ++ for +2 is much good.
I´ve changed quite a few manually.
But this point can lead to a big discussion,so I´ll drop it here.
About flags for cracks,I have some ideas.
Atleast have a [pal/ntsc]-tag.
And something to represents [docs].
An Importer-Group would be good aswell.
That´s basically it. |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1787 |
Quote: I'll try to sum this up.
There is no official CSDb standart for how to name cracks with +'s etc.
Any standart sugested here is "just" what the majority (or the ones who speak loutest ;) ) thinks is right.
For my personal oppinion I must admit that I never was a part of the cracker scene, and therefor really don't have an oppinion. :(
However, for the idea about adding flags etc. to the cracks, to enter the info there sounds like a great idea. This means work for me, and again some help from you guys to figure out which flags to add, and to find a nice way to do it, so there won't be 58 check-boxes on the release-edit page. :)
This was discussed before, but there have been at least one standard in use during a period of time, e.g New Int. Standard.
This explains the ++ for many trainers statement earlier in this thread, and is also a good reason for not automatically renaming '++' for '+2'. If it was released as '++', it is '++'.
Like groepaz I'm all for explicitly stating the exact number of trainers in a separate field though.
|
