Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Redundancy"

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
: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.--[[User:Aescula|Aescula]] 20:45, 25 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.--[[User:Aescula|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 [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 16:20, 26 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 [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 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)  --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:00, 28 April 2010

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)