<![CDATA[Redump Forum — Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> 2025-03-06T04:18:30Z PunBB http://forum.redump.org/topic/55753/small-inconsistency-in-the-dat-files/ <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> I will, thank you Deterous.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63612/ 2025-03-06T04:18:30Z http://forum.redump.org/post/124779/#p124779 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> All discs in redump should now be (Disc 01) if it is from a set of 10 or more discs.
Roman numerals are also no longer used as disc numbers in the datname (this kind of info belongs in comments)
If you spot an inconsistency please let us know.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63557/ 2025-03-04T03:52:31Z http://forum.redump.org/post/124732/#p124732 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> Nemok wrote:

Everything was in the tone, I could have said something like "ok then, never mind". You are feeling offended for no reason.

See, here's the thing - language isn't all in the tone, it's also in the word choice. You're right, you could have said "never mind", but you chose to say "F*** consistency". Whether or not that phrasing is softened with an emote, is hard to read as anything other than offensive and dismissive.

To bring this discussion to a practical close, for what it's worth this is something we've been discussing recently amongst staff and we may have a resolution at some point soon.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63222/ 2024-05-29T14:34:56Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117942/#p117942 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> Everything was in the tone, I could have said something like "ok then, never mind". You are feeling offended for no reason.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63612/ 2024-05-29T13:53:05Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117940/#p117940 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> Nemok wrote:

Alright... f*** consistency then smile

What's with the bad attitude? We have well over 100,000 items in the database, added as part of a project spanning nearly 20 years, with about 1,000 new items a month being added. Of course there are times when there are inconsistencies in the way that information has been or is being added.

Staff work incredibly hard and are constantly discussing ways to improve the quality and consistency of information that we hold, and we're always open to hearing feedback on how it can be improved, but this kind of throwaway comment doesn't exactly motivate anyone. Try and think a bit before posting this kind of thing next time.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63222/ 2024-05-29T08:02:45Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117936/#p117936 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> Alright... f*** consistency then smile

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63612/ 2024-05-29T04:35:00Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117934/#p117934 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> fuzzball wrote:

Why not do so with the disc number?

Some discs do:
http://redump.org/disc/109304/
...
http://redump.org/disc/109315/

---

But some do not:
http://redump.org/disc/115000/
...
http://redump.org/disc/115009/

It may be how they are printed on-disc. I think it is currently inconsistent.
See also: http://redump.org/disc/78652/ which has (Disc X), due to Roman Numerals.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63557/ 2024-05-28T06:05:24Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117917/#p117917 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> Why not do so with the disc number?

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/4225/ 2024-05-28T05:35:12Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117916/#p117916 <![CDATA[Re: Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> (Track 01) occurs for games with 10 or more tracks, to ensure they will be ordered correctly.
For games with fewer than 10 tracks, there is no need for the leading zero.

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63557/ 2024-05-28T05:12:46Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117915/#p117915 <![CDATA[Small inconsistency in the .dat files]]> Hi,

I've noticed that tracks are sometimes named with (Track 1), (Track 2), (Track 3) etc but sometimes it's (Track 01), (Track 02), (Track 03) etc.
Why is that ? Wouldn't it be better to stick with the second naming scheme ?

]]> http://forum.redump.org/user/63612/ 2024-05-28T03:46:27Z http://forum.redump.org/post/117913/#p117913