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.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Redundancy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Birthright (talk | contribs) |
Hostergaard (talk | contribs) m (I agree with having both) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 19:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) | 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. --[[User:Birthright|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.--[[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) | ||
| + | ::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) | ||
| + | :::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. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 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. --[[User:Hostergaard|Hostergaard]] 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:32, 29 February 2012
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)
- 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)
- 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)