DF v0.42 information
  • Saves from v0.40.24 are compatible with v0.42.06! We will not be migrating to a new namespace, although the current "DF2014" namespace may be renamed to "v0.42" in the near future.
  • Please mark all v0.42-specific articles/sections with {{new in v0.42}}. For short v0.42-specific information, you can use {{version|0.42.01}}.
Updated 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC). This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Redundancy

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

My opinion: Articles should repeat tabled info as text, too. I think tables and such are great, but for the most part I completely blank them out. --Birthright 19:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I think tables are highly useful, especially with how MediaWiki lets you rearrange them. I think the text would just take up more space to convey the same information, personally.--Aescula 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Birthright, can you give an example of what you're thinking of? Like pick an article and modify it to have text as well as a table (link here in the edit summary). Thanks Mason (T-C) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the beauty of the electronic age, we can use twice the space without wasting or losing anything like paper or, ultimately, trees. We can present information in 2 ways and serve the preferences of 2 kinds of people. Why, we are even making the elves happy..oh, now I know why you are against it.. I am not proposing to have any information twice, but always consider, this wiki is mostly for beginners. Condensing info is not helpful when it is no longer easily accessible. Tables are probably more used by experienced players. Most articles are written the way i think is good, like DF2010:Carpenter. Actually that one could have a larger table ;). But the current tendency is to delete all the text and fit it in the table, resulting in "empty" articles. (And then the mineralists move in *sigh*). I for one need more time to make sense of the table than the continuous text. Another example DF2010:Aluminum. I can imagine editors arguing that the continuous text is already contained in the table and remove it. Ah - a good example: DF2010:Mechanic's workshop. How is a new player supposed to find out that he needs a table and rope only for a traction bench? Or the other way round: What does a user gain from knowing that a MWS uses Stones, Tables and Ropes? Now, an experienced player will probably recall 'ah, right, need a rope for the traction bench', but for a beginner we should describe in more detail, and text, what the MWS used for what (instead of deleting the redundant text currently there) --Birthright 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay I get what you mean. I definitely think that sort of thing should be in the article. I think that should definitely be there as you described. I would think most editors would see the value in having that as text because it's more detailed then the information in the table. For example I think your approach was taken when making DF2010:Loom. I'd say go for it, and if someone disagrees I think your explanation is good. Mason (T-C) 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, tables are great if you know what you are doing and what the info in a quick and easy manner, but they are useless in helping newcomers actually understand how things work. Both are the best option. --Hostergaard 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
Advertisement