Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Manual of Style

Discuss points of style, a few "threads" have been started to hit on some major issues. Please feel free to add new topics.

Links to those threads would be helpful, since you're apparently referring to pre-existing discussions.--Albedo 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Where to link a new page from?

After a forum discussion here: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=84137.0, I decided my idea for a "Style Projects" category/page wasn't completely useless so I made a start of it: Style Project. Any thoughts? Where should it get linked from? I don't think the concept is in any way version specific. How should the page get categorized? Rated? There's a lot I don't know about starting a page. GhostDwemer 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd say link it from DF2010:Design strategies under Aesthetics, and at the top if you want. If it's version independent then just put it in the main namespace and link to it from every version of the design strategies page. Then just look around the wiki and link to it from anywhere that seems appropriate. I don't think anyone cares too much... the only thing some people might care about is whether it needs to be linked from the main page and personally I'd say this is probably too narrow of a subject to be linked directly on the main page. As for categories, I usually look at how other pages are categorized. For example, Look at the Design strategies page and just copy it's category list if you find nothing else.

So basically I'd say... look at the main page to see what articles linked directly from the main page might benefit from a link to your page. Then dig around elsewhere and add links from those pages. Copy the categories from the most applicable page and any other pages that seem like they might have reasonable categories. Basically you want people to find it easily when they're "drilling down" into the appropriate topics. Personally I'd say the more applicable pages you can find to link to it, the better. Like it might be worth linking to it from DF2010:Stupid dwarf trick --Ral 23:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Do we use British or American spellings? Whichever we use, we should at the least be consistent. Emi 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. This is neither a specifically British nor American game, it's an international game and so an international site. The only time such spelling needs be consistent is when it matches (or conflicts with) a game-term, or such that it's consistent within a single page.

I don't feel it's the job of the Admin to tell users to read and write either American or British exclusively, and thus alienate the other to any degree (however unintentionally that may be!). Quite the opposite, we should welcome all - X is for Xeniality! More, it's no editor's job either - as that can lead to cultural edit wars and just plain, dull petty jingoism. I know that color and colour, flavour and flavor, and all the rest are the same - it's a wide, wide web - it's time we all get used to it. ; ) --Albedo 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By consistency, I was referring to how the game uses Armor, thus we probably shouldn't use Armour. Emi [T] 05:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the game says "Armor," then the page and all references to the concept should read "Armor," not "Armour." However, I don't think it's appropriate to get up in arms about "Armour" if it's not referring to the in game concept -- this is a terrible example. Flavour, if it's written somewhere, does not deserve an armed attack on all instances of the word to change it to Flavor, nor vice versa, since they're not arms. Or something. --Briess 19:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing in English is hard enough for me. :) – unsigned comment by Kummahiih

<nods> If the term is found on the armor page, then of course it should all match - as I said above. Likewise something's referring to armor as a game concept, the item "plate armor" for instance. But if a tangential line on the article on beak dogs reads something like "they're dangerous, and can quickly mangle an unarmoured dwarf", there is no need (nor just reason) to change that. It's not referring to the game term, it's not linking to any page, it's simply referring to the abstract strategic concept, which is the same in either spelling. Slavish enforcement of spelling where it makes no diff is not the way to go. This wiki is not that rules-centric, and most users like it that way.--Albedo 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive Intensifiers

Does "very, very yellow" offer any useful information over "very yellow"? Emi 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Does asking this question offer any, any useful information over not asking? A rather specific question for a "Manual of Style", especially without a specific reference or more general point to be made. But I would hazard the guess that that particular editor found that particular phrasing both useful and mildly entertaining in that context - this wiki is not as sterile as some, nor as formal.--Albedo 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

These questions were mainly a starting point, to give people an idea of the sort of things that we mean when we say 'style'. And you're right, it is very specific, but I think it's a decent thing to consider, along with the use of 'literally' as a generic intensifier, etc... Emi [T] 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but to try to regulate such would be a literally endless deathmarch. "Style" is personal, and some works and some doesn't, and some very cludgey stuff works when it shouldn't. I have a very wordy style, others have a very pithy, terse one, and neither is better or more or less "appropriate". Any literally unclear or broken usage will get cleaned up on its own without our enforcement, but very, very personal style should simply be overlooked so long as it works in context. (We have better things to do, really!) ; D --Albedo 06:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, not right now I don't, EmiBot's current tagging job is going to take all night I think. She has to go to each page, load every link until she reaches a no page exception and then tag the page. She'll end up loading lots of pages per each actual page processed. Emi [T] 06:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Humor

Does humor belong in informative articles? Where is humor acceptable? Is humor (or "humorous prose") within an article like 40d:carp useful, or does it only serve to confuse and make solid information harder to find? Emi 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, depending. So long as the humour is either separate or clearly a side-product, it's fine. When a user decides to rewrite an article as their own stand-up routine, that's usually not acceptable. Adding the {{D for Dwarf}} template above a comedic rant is often acceptable, but not if the sole purpose seems to be for the amusement of the editor, rather than the reader, or if it's just not relevant. In the end, it's no diff than any other edit - some efforts are generally appreciated and accepted, and some are just "wrong-o".

In short, you can't define it, you can only know it when you see it. But Carp, in specific, have a long and highly honoured history in DF culture. And cheese. And fire, and magma, and beards, and microcline, and elephants, and cats, and migrants, and nobles, and losing, and... --Albedo 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that all those things have such a history, but if you're a new player reading the article on carp, you are very likely to be confused and come out unsure of what was solid info and what was hyperbole, or comedic. I think in general, the sort of stuff {{D for Dwarf}} describes is what shouldn't be in informative articles, or at least not such a broad marking -- perhaps it would be better used in sections rather than at the top of an article like it often is placed? Emi [T] 05:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the current community standards suggest that "Wit" be kept to a minimum. Missed that.--Albedo 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Having discovered this game only a year ago I'd like to say that every single inside joke on this wiki was both entertaining and part of the game experience. I relied on this wiki so much I even feel stranded a bit. Mark it with D-for Dwarf template for it to be found and I think that everything will be fine. My two cents. 90.191.16.52 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As another person who has recently found Dwarf Fortress and the wiki, I love the D-for Dwarf stuff. It provides a clue to what other players consider interesting or historic for the game, and usually gives some information on how the topic of that article can provide 'fun'.--66.207.88.49 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

When I first picked up DF about two years ago, I distinctly remember actually using the D for Dwarf category as my primary point of navigation through the wiki, and several times lamenting the lack of further pages in that style. Much of the flavor of the game comes from the (frequently absurd) conclusions that the player base draws from observed behavior, quirks and bugs. Generally it is easier to come to grips with the fact that your fortress has crumbled to an end after an out-of-control fire incident when you are able to chuckle to yourself about dwarfs who think there's nothing about a glowing !!sock!! that isn't totally cool and worthy of being stored in their wooden chests. Take that away and (unless our hypothetical new player is able to independently reach the same conclusion) and all you have is yet another reason to be annoyed that the game is still in alpha. --Johntor 19:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to distinguish fact from hyperbole/rant etc. if you use the {{D for Dwarf}} tag correctly though, for example, adding the 'humorous' bit at the bottom of a page, preceded by the tag. If used correctly, I believe it's acceptable. I started playing after the carp days, and still found those types of articles hilarious. --Ramperkash

The occasional humorous bits included in the wiki here have always been one of my favorite things about dwarf fortress. I would be very sad if these were removed from the wiki. Doctorzuber 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think (hope not) that anyone is going to delete "all humour" - that would be lame indeed. But there are recent examples where some self-appointed site Wit has added reams of quips into an article - and that's just not going to work very often. The yardstick, I think, is multifold: 1) will it muddy/confuse the facts to a newbie? And/or is the humour "funny" to the Users as a whole? It's not like the Quotes page where if one person likes it then it's pretty much there to stay. Just as with any style, it's subject to editing.--Albedo 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revise the D for Dwarf template so it boxes in the D for Dwarf material? Such as {{D for Dwarf|My Funny Jokes About Plumbers Here}} -- that way we still have our humor, but we make it significantly obvious what is meant as silliness and what is serious / factual. --Briess 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can get it to work (style-wise) on 40d:carp and 40d:fire, then I think you've got a winner. (Those are two of the more "muddied" articles I can think of.)--Albedo 23:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe humour has it's place on the DF wiki. That place is not everywhere, but it's definitely in the 40d:carp article. I can't think of any hard rules on where humour is appropriate, but I'd say if the subject is a major source of Fun then it's probably okay. A more mundane subject like Well is probably best left completely straight. KFK 14:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The absence of wit/humor in relevant-to-the-game articles would make me sad. There's barely a single feature in this game that can't lead to Fun, and a witty phrase or sentence concerning that outcome (either how to get there, or how to avoid it) is quite effective at conveying the nature of the Fun to be had (or not had, as you choose). --Greycat 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Humor doesn't seem like a problem to me as long as it isn't causing some sort of confusion. For example, sarcasm where the sarcasm may not be apparent. --Ral 01:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Page Format

We should have some sort of general format for pages, so that like-information appears consistently in the same spots on different pages. This might be a little harder to figure out. Emi 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We currently do within like pages. Every creature, every stone, every workshop, every skill... um... pro'ly some other stuff, is parallel. Truly parallel items ( 40d:armor piece, 40d:trade goods ) are grouped under a single umbrella article, and some (like 40d:gem) even listed in a table. If an editor gets excited and confident, they can suggest/establish a format for a new category of page. But a stone and a workshop do not have the same sort of information that needs to be communicated, so trying to establish a single format for all seems counter-productive.

When formating a page, you want:

• A clear Intro (if the article is long).
• Bold key words - anything that redirects to that article should be clearly noticeable early in the article. If in a lower section, mention it and add an internal subsection link.
• Use a Table of Contents if necessary
• Use graphics - tables, images, templates - especially if templates exist for that page type! (spec creatures, workshops, etc.)

--Albedo 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I think it might be good to look at how some of the existing templates are designed. Specifically Template:Buildings, Template:Creatures and Template:Workshops to name a few. Buildings and Creatures are both large (maybe excessively so) and none of them seem to follow the same formatting rules. I would be happy to play around with it, but I'm much more of a 'code' person rather than a 'style' person, so I'm not sure what would be a good way to reformat them. Any thoughts?--Soy 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Creatures", for one, is going to need a work-over, as constants in 40d seem to have become variables in 31.01 - let me cogitate on it, I'll leave this page open and get back to you on it.--Albedo 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused on the "constants in 40d seem to have become variables" comment. Could you clarify please? --Soy 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re creatures? Did you play the prev version? There are only a few "constants" in a creature's template - most answer "what do you get when you butcher one?" Used to be 100% predictable - now it seems highly unpredictable. Meat, fat - even bones. Look at any cv creature page - dragon, for instance - see all those ? marks? That's what I mean.--Albedo 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to clear up: you're talking about Template:CreatureInfo and I'm talking about Template:Creatures. I was thinking it would make sense to break it up into sub-templates for the categories contained in Category:Creatures e.g.: one for humanoids, animals, megabeasts, etc. For Template:CreatureInfo (the one you were considering) it would be an extremely simple process to remove those static links and allow each editor to propagate them with whatever is appropriate, maybe even a range of numbers? I'm not really sure as I wasn't considering that particular area, sorry. --Soy 04:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh - that! Yeah, no doubt - we'll need a new template, since the redirects go to diff creature articles. The style format should relate to how we present diff creature articles - the creature page is not to my satisfaction, and it's all inter-related. "Humanoids"? Aren't some animals half/half? In-game distinctions might be best, sim to how they're listed in the RAW's - "domestic animals" is one from 40d, and so on. Easier to list, too, since only one RAW file needs to be addressed at a time. Other approaches are certainly valid and possible.--Albedo 18:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Image Use

Where should we use images, and how should we include them (where on a page)? Emi 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wherever they are helpful, and however they look best. Again, no single rule fits all. On the right, usually (but not always), and matched up with relevant text as much as possible. Thumbnailed down to a reasonable size (big enough to be visible/useful - if still too big, then that requires either a new pic or a text that encourages the user to "click to expand").

The guidelines for image use are simple:

• Use .PNG format.
• Use one of the default graphics packages, the tileset or ascii. (Note that the Mayday download is NOT one of these!)
• Use the default colour scheme.
• Make it look good.
• No copyrighted material, etc etc.

That's it.--Albedo 05:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No copyrighted material, is a hard thing to do though. Because in theory, any screenshots of the game are considered copyrighted, or are at the very least, in a very gray zone. Emi [T] 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume it means no material that cannot be freely reproduced, i.e, either you own the copyright or it is under a creative commons license, etc. --Bombcar 20:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's please NOT get into an amateur discussion of copyright laws. Put 50 experienced copyright lawyers in a room, and you'll have more than 50 opinions on what the law actually states for any particular situation - and we're amateurs, and from different nations with diff laws, and this is international and national issues. Common practice is that screenshots are kosher on this wiki. And we can leave it at that.--Albedo 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is something we need to discuss. in the US, any images of a copyrighted game are considered copyright by the holder of the game's copyright. All we can claim is fair use, which is fine -- I doubt Toady One is going to sue us for using DF images. The other consideration is that of tilesets: the creators of the tilesets still hold exclusive copyright unless they release it into the public domain or into a free license. This brings up international considerations, however; some countries do not allow a author to release material into the public domain, and others allow third parties to pursue litigation and compensation on behalf of the copyright holder. So, in summary, we can require that images are released into the public domain AND a free license, or just a free license if they are not images of the game itself; otherwise, we have to require that the image is fair use for the topic at hand. Alternatively, we could request that Toady One loosens his license in regards to screenshots of the game. --Briess 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Handling template breaking of redirects?

How do we want to handle this? For example, Furnace Operator doesn't work; nor does pearlash - you have to use pearlash to get it to go to the right place. Note that these examples don't work on this page; see 40d:kiln for examples. --Bombcar 17:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(This is not a style question - reposting on Current Events.)--Albedo 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vanity articles

What to do about pages like this, which have no value to the game or to any other player, only to the one player (or a very few at most)? Almost like a bloodline page. On one hand, not hurting anything, and it's good practice if that editor ever wants to actually contribute something, you know, "useful". But on the other, it is hurting, because it's more bandwidth for the next version change. Meh. Maybe just not worth the trouble to worry about either way, cost/benefit-wise. Thoughts?--Albedo 01:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about this the other day but didn't know where to discuss it. I'm all for a Community Legends category or something similar, as I believe there's a Cacame page, Tholtig, Morul, and I imagine Ironblood or Nist Akath will get their own page sooner or later considering their massive reputation. Obviously we'd have to watch for people arbitrarily adding tons of stuff, but I'm certainly not against it so long as it's patrolled and kept 'rare' so to speak. --Retro 01:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for reference, the Asax page spawned from here. --Retro 01:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This page exists and can exist for the same reason that Boatmurdered can have a page. The community decides that some things are epic - those things become community lore and thus part of the meta-game. This is the kind of thing that the D is for Dwarf tag is for. (Also, no extra bandwidth because he should remain unversioned, and thus never need to be moved). --Squirrelloid 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While there's nothing inherently unacceptable about vanity articles, and the occasional well written vanity article now and then can be a good thing (within reason), well... the Asax article in particular is just not very good. There's nothing there that's extraordinarily interesting, and there's certainly no actual content worthy of including on the wiki. It needs to be either significantly expanded (if there even is any more material to expand it with - I've not yet read the forum thread), or else deleted entirely. And I'm leaning distinctly towards the latter, as it stands. This article feels to me like the aforementioned "arbitrarily adding tons of stuff", and that's certainly not something to be encouraged. --Morlark 09:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems these are natural expansions from the forums - an area that I've largely dropped due to time constraints, and so remain (blissfully?) ignorant of. And even then, some of the subforums were always of far less interest than others for me, or for any reader. Unfortunately, there is no fair-handed way to legislate what is "interesting" and what is not. When planepacked hit the wiki, I was bored beyond description - someone had a glitch in their game (or maybe abused the hell out an exploit for personal bragging rights), so effin what?! But here we are. So, looks like they stay, and the only option is to add {{D for Dwarf}} and/or edit them so they read better. : \ --Albedo 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the solution to this is an umbrella page, to be frank. Not sure what all of your positions are on that, but someone could reasonably go through the D for Dwarf articles and decide which ones could just go in a 'Community Stories' page. Sensei: Last seen somewhere in the Basic Jungle of Terror 00:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really see a reason for having this kind of stuff here. I find it interesting, sure, and I like reading about stories like Asax and some of the other historic figures, but I just don't feel that they have any business being here, on the Wiki.

It's a community subject, rather than a game subject. As such it should be kept within the community (E.G., the Bay12 forum). The same could be said about most of the "D for Dwarf" articles, in my opinion. I don't really think they contribute a whole lot to the ideals behind having a Wiki, and they can actually serve to confuse a point rather than clarify it.

I like having those little fields on the home page for quotes and pictures from the community, but I think that's about as far as the "flavor" really needs to go here. It was my understanding that this was supposed to be a repository for information pertaining to the base game itself, not the community that sprung up around it. --Kagus 00:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing though is that if people hear about something on the forums, or any other DF community that is more about "the DF community" then about DF itself, then there should be someplace where they can learn about it. I think having that sort of thing here serves that good for little to no cost. Just segregate that sort of thing in some way (even a "community" category/box shoudl be sufficient) and then let people have fun. Even better, put it in a separate namespace (with a redirect from mainspace). Zero problems, plenty of value. Mason ^(T-C) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

in-article Capitalization

Articles are all capitalized - but that doesn't mean that they're all Capitalized. In an article, we should refer to a dwarf's armor, not to their Armor. This gets exceptionally annoying in, for example, lists of plants, like Plump helmets and Pig tails, but also when suddenly Gold appears as if it's become some sort of sports team, or perhaps we're referring to someone's lawyer by last name. Even the "see also" at the bottom of a page? Altho' on one level it just doesn't matter, it reinforces that capitalization twitch. For example:

See Also:

• Plaster powder

vs.

See Also:

• plaster powder

I'd rather use the latter. It's not a proper noun (not even as an article name), and we're not speaking German (which does capitalize random nouns).--Albedo 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Links should be capitalized according to standard grammatical practices. So don't link [[Like this]], link [[like this]]. Of course, if the word should be capitalized, like if it's at the start of a sentence, capitalize it. Proper nouns, like Urist or Toady, should of course also be capitalized. Plant names aren't proper, unless it's the plump helmet Vendorblood the Menace of Crafting, and so shouldn't be capitalized.

Since we can't have any simple rules, though, I think your See also example should be the former. Items in a list are treated grammatically like a sentence, and a See also section is a list of other articles to visit, even if it's only one item long. So it should be

• Plaster powder

not

• Plaster Powder

or

• plaster powder

or, god forbid,

• plaster Powder.

Also to further complicate things and draw this conversation into areas it probably shouldn't go, section headers should only have the first word capitalized, so it should be See also, not See Also. This is neither here nor there, however, and is just a rule I picked up from Wikipedia. In general, I defer to Wikipedia practices when editing any wiki, since that's kind of the norm. --Mikaka 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Wikipedia should be a general standard, unless there's a reason to change it, like our version namespaces. --Aescula 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's generally considered correct for bulletted/numbered lists and tabular data to be capitalised. Obviously, if people are capitalising article titles in non-lists, or in in-line lists within a sentence then that isn't correct. But for the specific example you gave, the correct capitalisation would be:

See also:

Plaster powder

--Morlark

Shouldn't the capitalization reflect the capitalization of text in the game when referring directly to the game's interface? I would think the primary point of an article explaining game actions or interface is to make it as simple and clear as possible to the user. For example, the current page for Hot Keys is Hotkeys, when it really should be Hot Keys, since that's how it appears in the game. In some ways it's a proper noun, so any time you refer to the Hot Keys as a game object shouldn't it be capitalized exactly how the game has it?

--Zetim

My opinion is that we should use normal English capitalization, as Mikaka described above. Terms are often capitalized in-game because they appear as standalone words in menus; that doesn't mean that they are proper nouns or that they should be capitalized in sentences. In fact, if you pull up the in-game help pages with ?, they often follow this rule as well. Non-proper nouns like "metal", "profession", and "furnace" are only capitalized in section titles and links in lists, not in the middle of sentences. In essence, when referring to this edit, I would agree with most of Silverwing235's changes. —Lethosor (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Footer

Fixed footer at bottom obstructs found items if you use seach in your broswer. For example, look at [DF2010:Creature_tokens] article in firefox, hit ctrl+f and type "MEGABEAST". String is found, but footer overlays its position, making it look like searching is broken. Suggestion: get rid of fixed position of footer, nothing on it needs to be visible all the time. 85.207.18.54 11:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dwarfs vs. Dwarves

I have seen a bit of a conflict of plurals throughout the wiki. For example on the Military page in the "Current Reported Military-Related Bugs" section both terms are used in separate instances. From a grammatical standpoint both forms are correct plurals, but it seems a bit inconsistent to see them both used within a line or two of each other. Which is correct?

Spellcheck might not think so, but every noun ending in one "f" (calf, leaf, wolf) has it's plural form ending with "ves" (calves, leaves, wolves). I would argue that "dwarves" is the correct way to write it. --dUMBELLS 00:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien wrote it "dwarves" as do most fantasy authors. I don't think I've ever seen "dwarfs" anywhere but this wiki. I've actually been changing it to "dwarves" in any document I do any extensive editing in. Also, it is written "dwarves" in the game. --Ral 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I do believe there is a growing tendency to differentiate between "dwarfs" (people suffering from dwarfism) and "dwarves" (fantasy race group). Even the Great Compendium of All Undisputed Knowledge (aka Wikipedia) mentions this in a footnote.

As Ral mentioned, "[NAME:dwarf:dwarves:dwarven]" - I'd say that's definitive enough. --Quietust 02:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Labor pages side table suggestion

I think it would be immensely helpful to include in the side table on all labor-description pages what the associated skill's level actually affects - whether it is the quality of the resulting item/work, speed of completion, both, or whatnot.

I would gladly do so, but I have just begun playing DF - which is possibly why people longer affiliated with it may not even realize this is quite a big consideration for a potential reader of the wiki pages. Needless to say, but included for the sake of completion, I am not fully certain which labors fall under which aforementioned category.

--Sheepify 01:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Skill pages, since there are no labor pages (aside from Cleaning) for version 0.31.xx or even 40d (23a does have them, though, and I've been planning to create them for the sake of completeness). --Quietust 02:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The page at http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Labor

With

DF2010:Labor

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki

(Redirected from Labor)

in caption.

Decided to make an addition to the discussion, though my suckage at wikiediting is of the highest... Myeah.

--Sheepify 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Hah. Yes. The Skill pages that the Labor page links to. I'm slow, but I get there... occasionally :D

New layout and information included for the Workshop pages

The workshop pages don't include any description of what the orders actually accomplish, or, for that matter, what is required to accomplish a specific task. This is most problematic for the Farmer's Workshop. In order to find out what each of the orders do, you have to click on the related labors listed at the top of the page. There is no indication that those links will tell you what the orders do. I'd like to propose a new layout for the Workshop pages, and then implement that across the board.

There is a workshop template on the right of every page, but it doesn't cover the actions in enough detail for new users. This is acceptable in some workshops, like Carpenter's Workshop, where everything is pretty straight-forward. You don't need a descriptive line of text underneath "Make wooden barrel" saying "This requires one piece of wood and produces a wooden barrel." In Farmer's Workshop, however, you DO need a line under "Process Plants (to barrel)" that tells you that this means you'll be making dwarven syrup, you'll need some sweet pods and an empty barrel. Or for "Process Plants (to bag)," which means that you'll need an empty bag, Quarry Bushes, and end up with Quarry Bush Leaves, a Rock nut, and that the bag will be filled with the Leaves, and can then be stored in a barrel.

So can I whip up a new format (possibly using tables) for the workshops and try it out? Who's in charge around here? ;)

Oh, and what brought me to this conclusion was that I'm relatively new to DF, and the most logical thing for me to do as a new player was to look at all the fun workshops I could make, and see what they did. The Workshop articles had me bouncing around the wiki too much. And my background is in information design and visual communications. So, hello!

Looking forward to input. Darchitect 23:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Darchitect

Suggestion: Add entity raws to civilized creature pages

We already have the creature raws on each page. Why not add the entity raws for the applicable creatures, namely Dwarfs Dwarves Dwarrows, Elves, Humans, Goblins, Kobolds. All animal people civs use the same raws, so for them it may be better to create a seperate Animal Peoples page. Monkeyfetus 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

{{av}} template placement (and general article layout/order)

Not all templates place the {{av}} template at the top of the article, leading to an inconsistent look. Example: DF2012:Ivory vs DF2012:Animal caretaker. Which should we use?

In my opinion, articles look best with the av template above any notice boxes. This also prevents the version box from jumping around if another version didn't have a notice box. My proposal:

1. First, include the quality template (usually automatic). This prevents a layout problem.
2. Include the av template, if applicable. Some pages don't need it.
3. Include any notice boxes, like Template:Image rules notice, Template:buggy, Template:old, etc
4. Include content
5. Categories (probably doesn't matter, since placement is irrelevant)

--Lethosor (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

List of useful templates / new editor help?

Are there such things? As a somewhat experienced wiki editor, I'm mostly interested in the specific templates used around this wiki and their documentation. I already found out about Template:RT and its various subtemplates. Are there any templates for inserting large DF tile maps, formatted simply with <pre> instead of wikitables? Like in DF2012:Exploratory_mining, for example. -91.156.198.36 10:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was looking to correct the formatting on some misaligned text maps (like Workshop_design#3x3_rooms's second example), but it looks like it should be triggering <pre> formatting already because of the leading space. Is there some other magic I should employ?--Subjunctive (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it might be a font issue for the high-ASCII characters on iPhone. That would be annoying!-Subjunctive (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

They look properly-aligned to me (not on mobile), but I'll change them to use diagrams instead. —Lethosor (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, just discovered <diagram>. I'll see about converting all the ones I can find.-Subjunctive (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DF community vernacular (fun): clarity of use?

I was editing an article recently, and there were many repeated references to doing things that were 'fun'. The first reference was linked to the wikipedia article on the community vernacular use of the term, but it was a long article and I would expect many new players looking for information to skip to a later section covering what they were looking for. I assume it is wiki policy not to link every repeated reference in an article. This did leave me wondering if new players might actually think an article might be suggesting a course of action that was litterally fun, in the mainstream sense, rather than a catastrophic, fort-ending decision.

Might it be a good idea to intorduce an editing style that makes it clearer when 'fun' is being used in the traditional sense, or in the DF community sense, as is the case with '!!SCIENCE!!'? E.g. 'FUN' or 'fun!'. Alpacalypse (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it appears that there isn't a clear 'no multiple-linking' editing convention. If so, maybe the simplest approach to this would be just to link 'fun' to that page whenever it is being used in the vernacular sense. Alpacalypse (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For reference: a good example of where this might be misleading to new players is the necromancer page.
There is no link to the "losing is fun" page, despite the word being mention 4 times in three different sections. Although, from context, it might seem obvious that fun means dangerous/challenging; newer players are unlikely to know this DF vernacular. If nothing else, it doesn't seem like best practice stylistically, outside of a D for Dwarf section. Alpacalypse (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)