v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Editing 40d Talk:Location
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
You are editing a page for an older version of Dwarf Fortress ("Main" is the current version, not "40d"). Please make sure you intend to do this. If you are here by mistake, see the current page instead.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:::::The thing is, I would have said exactly the same thing about the original form, and I do see the current form as being at least as easily misinterpreted as the original form. | :::::The thing is, I would have said exactly the same thing about the original form, and I do see the current form as being at least as easily misinterpreted as the original form. | ||
:::::I suppose I am, at least partly, arguing from a position of "there was nothing wrong with the original so it shouldn't have been changed so we should change it back", which isn't a very defensible position if there's nothing wrong with the current form either. I *do* think that there's more wrong with the current form than was wrong with the original, but I don't have very much to back that up besides the simple fact that I was not tripped up even slightly by the original form whereas I did find the current form to read strangely when it was first changed. | :::::I suppose I am, at least partly, arguing from a position of "there was nothing wrong with the original so it shouldn't have been changed so we should change it back", which isn't a very defensible position if there's nothing wrong with the current form either. I *do* think that there's more wrong with the current form than was wrong with the original, but I don't have very much to back that up besides the simple fact that I was not tripped up even slightly by the original form whereas I did find the current form to read strangely when it was first changed. | ||
| − | + | ::::I quite literally had difficulty figuring out what the commit message was talking about; the only conclusion I could arrive at was that the person who made the edit (you, if I'm not mistaken) had misunderstood the sentence. | |
:::::If the commit message had said e.g. something about a grammatical fix, and had made the exact same edit, I probably wouldn't have said anything. However, since the commit message seemed to be based on the assumption that the original writer had misunderstood the meaning of "invaluable", it seemed obvious to me that the edit had been based on an incorrect premise and therefore was itself incorrect; I therefore reverted it with what seemed to me at the time to be an explanation of (or at least pointer to) the fact that the original form had not involved a misusage of "invaluable" but had simply been using it in a different correct manner. At this point I don't necessarily object so much to the current form (though, as I've said repeatedly, I do think the original was better) as to the notion that the original form was that kind of bad. | :::::If the commit message had said e.g. something about a grammatical fix, and had made the exact same edit, I probably wouldn't have said anything. However, since the commit message seemed to be based on the assumption that the original writer had misunderstood the meaning of "invaluable", it seemed obvious to me that the edit had been based on an incorrect premise and therefore was itself incorrect; I therefore reverted it with what seemed to me at the time to be an explanation of (or at least pointer to) the fact that the original form had not involved a misusage of "invaluable" but had simply been using it in a different correct manner. At this point I don't necessarily object so much to the current form (though, as I've said repeatedly, I do think the original was better) as to the notion that the original form was that kind of bad. | ||
:::::--[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 15:52, 18 January 2009 (EST) | :::::--[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 15:52, 18 January 2009 (EST) | ||