Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Community Portal

Use this discussion page to talk about any issues or ideas you have about the direction of this wiki. The community portal is a hub for directing our conciousness. Read the rules carefully, take them to heart, post here if you have any questions or you think the rules can be improved.

Account Problems

I can't log in, but it says my username is already in use. --64.22.68.4 14:55, 29 October 2007 (EDT) (Peristarkawan)

Are you sure? The new wiki cleaned out all the old accounts so you have to reregister. --Hamelin 15:02, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I was unable to import all the user accounts, please recreate. --Senso 15:22, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

AdBlock

Could you move all the files in the graphics directory with the word "ad" in it? For those using AdBlock or similar add-ons it will block the display of the graphics in those directories. Thanks!!! :) Schm0 10:26, 5 November 2007 (EST)

It doesn't look possible - re-uploading the file keeps putting it in the 'ad' folder and I cannot edit the link in the DB as it is stored inside a BLOB. I suggest you whitelist this site anyways, it's not like you need to block anything here (and blocking /*ad*/ may cause problems elsewhere too). --Senso 10:49, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Well after the fact, I know, but saw a related discussion elsewhere about disabling AdBlock to support fansites worth supporting, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if nearly everything got placed into an as-like folder to encourage whitelisting... but that's me. --Edward 03:59, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Rule discussion

Z is pretty horrible, but not much point taking it out unless its to replace it with something better. (This whole setup is horrible, but that's irrelevant?) --Jackard 21:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)

A

How do we handle several rules that starts with the same character? I see that titles have been moved to page titles because of timelessness. But what about other scenarios that doesnt have an solution as easy? --Mizipzor 07:51, 5 November 2007 (EST)

We can handle them as they come up. In general, I think it's better practice to avoid reusing letters than to have to rename an existing rule.

If we want to just do away with rule A at this point, that would be fine. It was only meant to be a starting point for brainstorming, and the rules haven't changed much lately. --Peristarkawan 11:21, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I Call for Judgment on this statement, this would remove the backbone rule used to define this alphabetical set of rules. We could put it outside of the rules though, like a description. --Senso 12:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Unless we have another rule that must start with A, why not keep it? --Savok 12:28, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I like rule A, it introduces the page, please keep it --Markavian 16:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

B and E

How are B and E rules? --Savok 11:27, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Rules? I thought the alphabet was the guide for the war against entropy VengefulDonut 11:34, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Well, the Alphabet rule does describe them as rules. But I don't really think that B and E seem out of place. --Peristarkawan 11:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)

They will simply be replaced by "real" rules once someone have made them. --Mizipzor 14:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I think of them more as "guidelines" ;) Turgid Bolk 20:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I put strikes through B and E and wrote more helpful ones (along the same lines) --Me

Gravitas was a silly word. What do you think of the new rules? --Markavian

The be bold rule makes it's dramatic return! Victory! VengefulDonut 19:39, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I

Personally, I find that when the default tilesets are stretched (like Image:Qs01.JPG), they become substantially uglier and less easy to follow than many of the user tilesets. Should they be disallowed under Rule I? --Savok 15:59, 16 December 2008 (EST)

If it displays that way on a computer with no alterations of settings, its by definition default. That's exactly the kind of display I see on my computer in fullscreen mode (although I do usually play with the 800x600 in windowed mode, but I wouldn't take a screenshot from that, i'd F11 over to fullscreen - and its aspect ratio is pretty close to my windowed mode ratio). It seems wrong to not allow what the game typically displays.

I'm curious what you think the non-stretched aspect ratio is? I mean, I can't imagine settings which would actually make tiles look square.

--Squirrelloid 16:10, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Non-stretched, the 800x600 tileset is half that size (10x12). Stretched to 800x600, it's 10x24. This is the ratio of the tiles if you actually view the bmp. To put an end to this bickering, how about an "officially approved screenshot tileset" that is *gasp* NOT one of the two default tilesets, but matches their visual style while being less cramped. How about something in a... 10x16? [80x25 = 800x400] Random832 23:47, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I'm against anything that creates unnecessary impediments to uploading useful images. If you use an extremely nonstandard tileset, that'll impair the usefulness of your images. However, as long as someone familiar with the standard tileset can look at an image and understand what is being illustrated, I would suggest the image is acceptable.--Maximus 16:30, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I'm against anything that makes you do extra work to take screenshots. The default appearance on a computer screen should be acceptable. We should not have to write a how-to on how to get DF to display in a way appropriate for screenshots for the wiki. It should be 'take screen shot', 'upload screen shot', 'add screenshot to page'. Done. Bizarre formatting requirements are both a significant barrier to adding content to the wiki and tremendously stupid since screenshots are *advertisements* of the game as well as instructional, and we want people to look at screenshots and be correct in the belief that that is what they'll actually see in game. I don't care what the bmp file says the aspect ratio should be, I care what the game displays that aspect ratio as. --Squirrelloid 16:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Insofar as I can tell, that screenshot is at exactly the same aspect ratio and size as the game window I use. It's the 800x600 tileset, I believe. It's a bit on the tall side, but otherwise I don't see much problem with it, presumably because I see it every time I play the game. I vote letting people make screenshots in whatever shape or form they prefer. Within reason, of course.--Quil 18:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)

How about a wikiproject to improve screenshots, so people who care about these things can clean up screenshots rather than just complaining about them? Random832 14:28, 21 December 2008 (EST)

From what I have seen, on a regular shaped CRT (4:3?) you can simply set the windowed and full screen, they look the same, just different sized, and are fairly clean. For instance, I play with 800x600 resolution, because when I play windowed it is a good window size, but it is also one of the resolutions that most monitors will switch to and from easily under most any OS. Burlingk 22:31, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Serious Rules

Would it be possible for us to come up with some *real* rules that are more ... serious? --Geofferic 08:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The alphabet rules concept is senseless. Maybe remove the fluff? --Jackard 11:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hey now, with a couple of exceptions, the rules are serious. The point of the alphabet framework wasn't random silliness; it was to inspire creativity and make rule-writing fun. It's hard to come up with good rules out of thin air. It's easier to think up a topic of concern that starts with a particular letter and then write a rule about it.

Of course, the rules have been pretty stable for a while now, so rule A hasn't been too useful lately. There was a brief discussion a while back about dropping rule A under DwarfFortressWiki:Community Portal#Rule discussion, and everybody seemed to want to keep it at the time. If you want to reopen that discussion, then I'm okay with either keeping it or dropping it (besides which, I haven't been too active around here lately anyway). --Peristarkawan 11:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I support the Alphabet ruleset, I don't see why it should change. It's clean and clear. --Senso 16:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

It's childish, incomplete, unprofessional and silly. The rules are not grouped logically and there is no table of contents. There's not room for clarification or expounding and little opportunity to expand. It should be scrapped for something that makes sense. --Geofferic 03:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It would be trivial to change it from an unordered list to use section headings, which would allow a table of contents and plenty of room for clarification. I don't think "little opportunity to expand" is valid; there's no reason we can't have multiple rules for the same letter, or rules that fall outside the alphabet rubric entirely.

If you want to improve the organization, then just go for it. Let me suggest that you create the new version on a subpage at first, so that others can view two presentations side by side when discussing it. --Peristarkawan 12:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

While I agree with some of your points, I'd like to say that this is not a "professional" wiki and silliness in general is a good thing. This is a wiki (Internet!) about a game (Haha!) that is pretty silly itself. If you want to create a Whole Complex and Indexed Body of Rules About Everything, go for it and as Peristarkawan said, editors should be able to choose between the two. I just don't see the need. --Senso 14:47, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Ack! The ToC! The ToC with a "1.26"!

...why do we need section headers for each of the rules? --Savok 22:52, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I've fixed the TOC. Random832 17:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiousity - how? --Juckto 08:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Smoke and mirrors: He removed the ToC and created a sim-ToC. --Savok 15:59, 16 December 2008 (EST)

W

Word-of-mouth: If you hear someone saying something new about the game, don't post it without trying it out yourself. You might have misunderstood something or your friend might have expressed him/herself wrongly.
Something like that.--Karppa 10:33, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

That goes in the "Rule discussion" section. *ka-move* Also, remember to not put blank lines in a comment by a single user.</offtopic>

I don't like the rule. It discourages participation in the wiki. If they add something of questionable merit, they're supposed to use the verify template, as stated in rule V. --Savok 11:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Will remember that in the future.

--Karppa 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

W 2

There are no rules about humorous content yet. I notice that references to the Dwarf pensioners club instead of (fortress) Guard have been taken out of "fact-based" articles so maybe rule W could be:

Wit can be hard to recognise once it has been written down. It is best if it is used on clearly humour or story related pages, talk or user pages, but kept to a minimum in fact-based articles like Dwarf or Summer.

This puts it "on the table" that your humour is appreciated in certain places but not in every article you contribute to. I'm not happy with my own wording but I think the intent should be there somewhere.

It could go at Zany instead because Z will be harder letter to use up! (having said all that I personally don't object to "well done" humour even in straight-cut articles like Screw pump - the issue is my humour is incomprehensible to a lot of people and can just sound rude!) GarrieIrons 02:51, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I like it as Wit. --Savok 15:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

With no against comments I put in in there with a reference to {{D for Dwarf}}.GarrieIrons 01:01, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Other letters

Historically English had a number of letters missing from this list, namely edh (Ð/ð), thorn (Þ/þ), and yogh (Ȝ/ȝ). Do we need rules for them?--Gandalf the Dwarf (No, really! Look it up!) 20:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

No. They do NOT exist in today's English, thus they don't belong in the list. --GreyMaria 22:07, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Of course not, that's just silly. We do need one rule for each positive integer in existence, however. --Maximus 23:16, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Enforcing consistency in screenshots?

Can I strongly suggest that all screenshots be taken with the default interface and tileset, for consistency's sake? It seems to me like that would be a good way of keeping the wiki aesthetics constant. EighenIndemnis 11:33, 5 November 2007 (EST)

We can make it a rule, but we shouldn't remove any screenshots for non-conformance (except to replace them with conforming screenshots). --Peristarkawan 11:46, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Yeah, for some tutorials that are written while the user is playing, it would be impossible to anyway. EighenIndemnis 11:47, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I agree that images should use the default tileset for articles, but I disagree for personal pages or bloodline games. --Markavian

The rule as written already exempts bloodline games. The only rule that should apply to personal pages is D. --Peristarkawan 16:05, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Um, I added the rule before noticing the discussion here. Anyway, I added rule I, inspired by the old Water wheel image (Image:PerpetualMotion.JPG), which was incomprehesible to me and unnecessarily large. Like Peristarkawan said, the exemption of user pages is implied, but feel free to make it explicit if you want. --Turgid Bolk 16:13, 5 November 2007 (EST)

How about this?

World creation screenshot.

It's clean, neat and doesn't warp the page. :) The obvious drawback is file size is not monitored. Can't we edit the file upload settings to measure pixels? Nothing over 800x600? Schm0 19:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Redirects and article titles

How do you do that thing that makes a certain term redirect to a different page? Like Elephants redirecting to Elephant, for example. --BahamutZERO 15:20, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

If Elephants already exists, you can move the page to Elephant, and it will create the redirect for you. Otherwise, just edit Elephants to read: #REDIRECT [[Elephant]] --Peristarkawan 15:26, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I see, thanks! --BahamutZERO 15:27, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Just FYI, if at all possible, do not create pages as plurals. Use the following syntax: [[Elephant]]s: example Elephants. --JT 20:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

What about titles that are verbs? Should they be in "base-form"? Or whatever its called (my english on this level isnt the best). Example: should the title be Mine or Mining? --Mizipzor 17:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Based on the Wikipedia style, titles should be nouns. So in your example it should be the gerund Mining, and Mine would be the title for an article about mines. I've updated the rule to reflect this. --Peristarkawan 17:35, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

What about skills and professions? Should we have a Bone carving (labor preference) article and a Bone carver (skill) article, or would this be redundant? I've seen both styles linked to, but tend to think that the -ing form should redirect to the -er form. Opinions? --Mechturk 03:11, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Sounds good to me. --Peristarkawan 11:21, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Btw, shouldnt all these comments be moved into talk? --Mizipzor 17:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Moved the account problem comments to the talk page. The rest are informative. --Turgid Bolk 13:26, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Tutorials

New players are getting bogged down by the complexity at the start of their fortresses, I think we should get some "getting started" or "surviving your first winter" type tutorials up as soon as possible. --BahamutZERO 16:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Your first fortress will do just that. --Savok 11:31, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Categories

I saw that the category category:buildings had been added to category category:world. I started to look for categories without parents and adding them to world to sortof have a list of every category. Is this good thinking? --Mizipzor 19:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

We already have a list of all categories at Special:Categories, although it does include a few categories that aren't directly related to the game.

Based upon the description of Category:World, it seems to me that most of the things that are currently in it don't really belong there. --Peristarkawan 19:27, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Ill remove them from category:world. But how often is Special:Categories updated? I dont see category:furnaces in there. --Mizipzor 20:24, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Special:Categories is automatically updated by the Wiki software as soon as it detects a change. However, MediaWikis aggressively cache pages. It's also possible you're looking a client-side cached page of it. Finally, I don't see any content in that category so it's possible it's being ignored. See Special:Unusedcategories instead. --JT 20:28, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Deletion

We now have a category:deletion, who has the power to delete pages? When are they deleted? Who make the final call? The same person that deletes them? What rules should we make regarding this? --Mizipzor 11:57, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Anyone can mark a page for deletion using the {{del}} tag, however it is usually recommended to get a consensus that it's not worth keeping. Exceptions are things like spam or empty pages. The {{del}} tag just lets the admin know to delete it, ultimately it's his call to do so or not. Just ask around on the talk page first, if no one disagrees, add the tag. (Disclaimer: that's how it worked on the old wiki, the policy may change as this new wiki grows.) --Turgid Bolk 13:02, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Water level style

I think we should have a standard style for talking about water level. We could say it various ways, such as "6/7 water," "water with a depth of 6," "a depth of 6 pool," or "water with a depth of six." It seems using the numeral makes it clear that we mean water depth, without adding the /7. --Turgid Bolk 13:02, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure. The /7 is definately unnessessary and that we should use 6 instead of six, maybe create a template to make the numberal blue/red (water/magma)? If not "Water 6" and "Magma 5" seem short, simple, correct, and understandable.--Draco18s 03:27, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Like 6 / 6 or 6 / 6? --Matryx 05:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Too hard to read against the normal white background I think. But just the coloured number on its own would stand out weirdly. --Shades 06:10, 5 November 2007 (EST)

6 / 6 or not even going so far as to use the tile template? --Matryx 06:16, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I think "depth of 7" works wonders, bold, colored text had a bit high contrast according to my taste. In case there is either magma or water, just state it. And we should also link to a waterdepth article for those that are in need of furher explanation of the concept. Example; "a water wheel needs to be placed in flowing water with a depth of at least 3". --Mizipzor 07:44, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Templates?

Is there a page with a list of all the templates available to us? Are all of the templates migrated from the old wiki? --Felix the Cat 00:51, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

You can find a list at Special:Allpages?namespace=10. --Peristarkawan 01:44, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Forum references

Where there is a bit saying "Toady said this", what is the best way to link to the forum? Currently in magma, I've got a link to http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504 which shows up as [1] (not too bad). Is there a better way of doing it akin to Wikipedia with <ref>something</ref>? Maybe something like Template:version for future (but that doesn't cover the "this is how it works now" type thing. --Shagie 02:17, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

IIRC the <ref> system on Wikipedia requires an extension to be installed. --Rick 17:48, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I know this is late but try this:

[http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504 Caption]

which shows as

Caption

I would use it like this:

"According to a forum post..."

GarrieIrons 02:41, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Links of this form fail - is this forum totally gone/replaced, or can the links somehow be translated to the current forum? Random832 17:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Crops categories

My wiki-fu is weak, but surely there is a better way to present the myriad crops than having a different category for each season and biome? Category:Crops could at least show the seasons grouped seperate from the biomes. Are we going to put each plant in its respective biome and seasons, and in Category:Crops, or is List of crops sufficient? Just seems like there's a lot of potential for a mess here, and we need to standardize the plant pages and various categories.

Personally I like the way the old wiki did it, with some nice templates. Granted there are a lot more plants in this version, but not so much that we need 20 subcategories cluttering up the crops category. See Crops and Plump Helmets; easy to tell what crops belong in what season. --Turgid Bolk 02:52, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Wealth page...

I've been looking for tips on building fortress wealth, and haven't really been able to find anything. Can someone who knows something about it start a Wealth page? I know that mining out areas, making things, and artifacts contribute to wealth, but that's all I know. How much does mining a square contribute? Are there other ways to build wealth? Do mined out areas have to be populated, or can I go mine away a random hill and have it count? What are the best things to make to increase value? Do items have to be placed, or just made? and so on... --Bobson 16:22, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Formatting standards

Category tags

On this wiki, the standard for capitalization in category tags is [[Category:Stub]]. I asked what it should be, and nobody answered for two and a half months, so I feel entitled to decide it. --Savok 12:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Headers

At the current time, the standard for a header is === Headers ===. ===Headers=== is slightly easier to type, is typed more often by newbies, and works just as well, but has less white space. Input?
--Savok 12:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I like === Header === better, because it's easier to read, and the extra whitespace helps call your attention to the name of the section, whereas you might glance over it as an "unrecognized token" if you didn't manage to filter out the immediately surrounding markup. I think the 2 bytes saved on whitespace is negligible and I certainly don't mind correcting them when I find 'em, if necessary. A similar question (if it's not been asked) would be whether or not to include a newline in between a heading and its text. I think for big sections of text, an extra line looks nice, but for multiple, smaller, less important sections, it's easier to manage the headings if there's no blank line separating them from the section they head. --Marble Dice 14:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I always put a blank line above and below a header (unless it's the first line in the page), except in rare situations, like the current List of Twenty-Six Rules. --Savok 16:40, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk pages

The current standard seems to be to never put a blank line in a comment by a single users, except in highly lengthy comments, and to always put exactly one blank line between comments by different users, because that's what I say in Template:Newbie, but is that correct? --Savok 16:40, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Italian Wiki

Hi!
I've just ask to Tarn to open an italian guide on this wiki.. so can i do it? --User:Marte

No, this wiki is english only. You're free, however, to make an Italian DF wiki... I'm not sure how that works, though, so don't ask me. --Savok 22:29, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

i need an answer about this.. who can help me?

Wikprojects

Do we have wikiprojects like Wikipedia? I want to start one on making sure answers to the DF gameplay questions in the forum are in the wiki. DanielLC 15:18, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

footnotes

Before Wikipedia had <ref>, there were some templates they used to get about the same effect with a little more awkwardness - I can find them and get it working here if anyone wants. Random832 13:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Pictures

How about RL pictures of things like minerals, etc, that people may not be able to easily visualize? Random832 00:09, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Can someone edit Template:Stone layer to allow pictures of the actual stone? I'd be happy to contribute pictures after that. I suggest using the pictures on Wikimedia Commons. DanielLC 23:39, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

We already link to the relevant Wikipedia article on all the stone and ore pages (at the bottom of that template). No need to bring all the pictures over here when they're just a click away. --Turgid Bolk 14:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

{{a|anchor|name}}

Can someone make that using my quick mockup of the concept of anchor tags without the anchor tags? I'm busy trying to not get caught using the computer. --GreyMaria 23:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Nevermind, I just did it. :V --GreyMaria 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Worldgen artificial features

I.e. sites, roads, etc.

Right now, we have site which covers pretty much everything about buildings, road which has a section covering roads and bridges, and dwarf/goblin tunnels are briefly mentioned in both.

So, gathering opinions time - do you think we should have one article encompassing everything, one about sites and one about road/bridge/tunnel, or a different article about each map feature. And how do adventure-mode caravans fit in?

Random832 13:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Redirects with potential

I recently saw a link changed on the grounds of "when you can, don't link to a redirect" - I disagree with this - I think that when there is potential for a topic to eventually get an article of its own, links relating to that topic should go to that title so that they don't have to be altered when that article is created. Random832 08:34, 20 November 2008 (EST)

In general I agree with you. I also advocate the use of sensible synonym and alternate word form redirects, such as architect for building designer, or reveal for revealed tile -- this makes it much easier to link things that need linking without having to pipe all the time. (For the uninitiated, a piped link is like so: [[what it points to|what is displayed]].) The cost to the server for handling a redirect is negligible, according to the devs of the MediaWiki software, so we should take advantage of them, where it makes sense to do so.

In the particular case, I didn't contradict the poster because a) the redirect linked to didn't have much potential ("shore", was it?) and b) it was a piped link anyway. By the time you're going to pipe a link, at least use one that makes sense. A subsequent editor addressed that issue.--Maximus 12:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Right, I just meant as a general principle. Random832 16:25, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Creature articles of little significance

I just stumbled on Whale shark - there are numerous articles like this - and while there are plenty of creatures that are "notable" (either due to historical notoriety like the carp or elephant, or due to some unique aspect of their behavior like the rhesus macaque), there's lots that are pretty much just name/tile/stats. Anyone have any thoughts on merging them into sensible categories? Random832 16:25, 24 November 2008 (EST)

An article with just stats is unimpressive, but I'd rather have the stats than not. Merging them would be ugly unless the stats were removed, so I don't think there's any benefit to merging them.--Maximus 20:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

New version approaching

Yes, I know it's likely not coming until april, but the new version will have some significant differences to the current one, particularly where combat is concerned. Shall we make a category and notice template in order to tag places that will likely need revision come april (or whenever it's done) in order to get a head start on organization? Fieari 15:36, 25 December 2008 (EST)

It's hard to correctly anticipate what will need changing. Better to wait until we have it in front of us, I think.--Maximus 16:09, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Thoughts on Rule I - Diagrams

Isn't Template:RT really more complexity than we need? How about this?

╔═══╗
║+++║
║+++┼
║+++║
╚═══╝

Save the complex templates for when you actually need color

You can even drop the complexity further for a nice typewriter character set

#####
#...#
#...+
#...#
#####

(I picked this particular size because it makes ░░░▒▒▒▓▓▓ look right in them, which makes it seem that it's the size the font is designed for. I picked this _font_ because it provides all of the CP437 characters. The actual style tag you see above could be moved to a template so it would look like <pre {{TD}}>)

Random832 20:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Mod content in regular articles

"All mod content, it has been stated, should not appear in the regular articles." --User:Zchris13, at Talk:Sand
If I recall correctly, one guy stated that yesterday. Personally, I find it rather counter-DF:
"In Dwarf Fortress, modding almost is vanilla." --User:Savok, at the forums
Opinions? Beliefs? Comments? Thoughts? Please, answer this, The Community! --Savok 11:24, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm probably the one who you're thinking of who stated it ;)

1. I don't think that modding is ever vanilla, no matter what the game, how mod-friendly the game is, or how many mods exist. Saying that it's incredibly common does not change the definition of the term "unmodded".
2. I think that modding information would be better served by putting it in one place. It's easier to figure out modding and/or find the information you need if it's all on one page (or a small number of pages). And if the information is there, why would you also put it on every single other article in the wiki?
3. Whenever the ways something can be modded changes, every single article about that something would have to be changed. If a new way to mod metals, for example, was added, then every single metal article would have to be changed to reflect this.
4. tl;dr version: I think it would be horrifically redundant even by typical wiki standards and would never be maintained anyways (seriously, there are still pages that haven't been updated since the 2D version). And that's even before you think about whether it should be done at all.

--LegacyCWAL 13:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, couldn't find it in all of yesterday's edits.

1. Yeah, I shouldn't go changing my definitions of words. What I mean is "modding is normal."
2. I agree partially, but, since light modding is normal and mainstream, it should go in normal and mainstream articles.
3. No, every article that mentioned metal-modding. And I don't think that there are too many non-modding articles that do.
4. TL/DR: I think that a little mentioning of modding (for example, stating in Sand that you can mod any soil into sand (although that's a bit obvious)) is fine, although I fully agree that all possible topic-related modding should not be mentioned.

--Savok 18:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I think I can live with that ;). Also, I appreciate the reformatting: I couldn't find the instructions on how to make such a list, though odds are it's right in front of me =( --LegacyCWAL 19:41, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Heading gripe

I'd like to add to H that one shouldn't use heading sections of one = because it results in bad html coding and a title the size of the page name. It's also general practice on wikipedia. Anyways, I thought I'd post something here before I go ahead and change it so I can at least pretend to have discussed it before hand. --Mikaka 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Modding content

Is this, New_Plants, really how we do it? Frankly, i found it a bit confusing at first. At least it should get a better header. --Confused 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

JavaScript seems disabled

The collapsible box doesn't seems collapsible anymore. I don't see the [show]/[hide] anymore either, since the wiki broke. Am I the only one with this trouble ? --Karl 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's fixed now, at least for me. I have found that my browser cache can screw with these things on other wikis so no reason why it wouldn't happen here. Javascript becomes disabled on client web browsers far more often than it does on web hosts/sites which previously allowed it. (Possibly belatedly I know.)Garrie 03:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we detail pointlessly?

As everyone knows, the wiki spoils everything about Dwarf Fortress. We have a spoiler-warning system, but it's quite disused. I think one guy said that it's pointless, because we need to put it on every page, because every page is a spoiler. We have a tendency to detail everything, much of which isn't helpful to newbies but ruins a little the delight a newbie can take in DF that no longer exists for us veterans.

For example, to quote the page woodcutter, "Woodcutters are working outdoors where they are in constant danger of being ambushed by invaders or attacked by wild animals (unless, of course, you are the proud owner of an underground tree farm), but they are also one of the few civilian professions which carry weapons with them. Thus, it can be helpful to teach them how to use their axes to defend themselves (and others) properly by making them spend a few months as axedwarfs in your military."

Here, all that really should be noted is that woodcutting skill does not help in combat. Yes, another problem with the wiki as it is is that we often assume that newbies know a lot of stuff they don't, making even DFwiki have a steep learning curve - a bit ironic. Regardless, pointless detail such as in the above article not only does not help but hurts, making the wiki dry and boring.

I propose that we write into our little constitution a guideline to avoid such detail in addition to removing large amounts from the wiki, fixing the pages. Of course, this is a major undertaking, not to just be done. What do y'all think? Agree? Argue? Please do comment. --Savok 02:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis attract wikignomes who like to tinker and add information to articles until they are "complete". Attempting to define how much information can be added before an article is "over-complete" is pretty difficult.

Is there a policy that this wiki must not spoil the game for new players?

There are a lot of different reasons people read this wiki - it isn't just a hosted version of the wonderful instruction manual that is included with the game. Would computing be possible without collaboration (between players), which is nothing but spoiling?

The answers would lie in either seperate articles, or some kind of template which hides information regarded as a spoiler.

There is this option:

Basic intrduction
Woodcutters cut down trees.

Minor spoiler
They are one of a few civilian trades which involves carrying a weapon. In hostile areas you might want to consider training woodcutters as Axedwarves.

Major spoiler
Another option on some maps is establishing an underground tree farm.

However that requires some knowledge of either wikimarkup or html - tbh I just cookbooked it and it took me a fair bit of messing around before I got it right the first time.

Another option is, linked articles, where you go from Woodcutter (base) to Woodcutter (minor spoiler) to Woodcutter (major spoiler) - it would be easy enough to include (base) in (minor spoiler) and (minor spoiler) in (major spoiler).

I think "enough" readers want the major spoilers that taking them out would "degrade" this wiki.

Garrie 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read woodcutter in full. IMO the article builds nicely from the basic "how to cut trees" to more advanced gameplay strategy, such as "enable woodcutting on every outdoor worker so they all carry weapons". Personally I don't see that as being a good value strategy, for the work involved in equipping that many dwarves with axes you could have a fairly useful (specialised) millitary - but it isn't the first thing a spoiler-adverse reader stumbles over. If it was the first thing in the article it would be a far greater problem.Garrie 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Garrie on this. Counting me, there's at least one person who would not have stuck with DF if he hadn't had access to a thorough DF reference library such as this. When a new player comes to this wiki, odds are they're looking to have something spoiled.

One vote for 'Not Too Spoiled' --Njero 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have apparently been totally unclear... I don't want to take spoilers out! I think that there are a lot of things, like the example from woodcutter, that a player can figure out on his on, which can be a lot more fun than being told all the fine details of fortress 1337. I do think it would be good to separate the spoilers more in some cases, but that's a totally different topic.

For another example, I think we can agree that it is pointless to have a page telling how to dig a 1-tile channel pit and designate it as a Quantum Dump, given that you know how a Quantum Dump works. We used to have (still have? not sure) one of those. --Savok 03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)