v0.34 Talk:Skyfort

Why does this page exist? --Quietust (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Eh, why not? It is an interesting quirk, and it should probably be on the wiki somewhere. Why not here?--Loci (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it isn't something that's actually part of the game, just something that players have decided to do. If we're going to have an article for this, then we would also have to have an article on making fortresses underwater, in the magma sea, and in Hell, and that's a bit of a slippery slope that can lead to quite a bit of clutter. --Quietust (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Quietust said, I'm concerned about the lack of clear guidelines on which megaprojects deserve their own page. This page clearly has some useful content in addition to being a megaproject, so it's fine with me, but some (like Santa Claus) obviously shouldn't have their own page. (Organization is also a little unclear – I added {{Category|Physics}}, but if there are other similar pages a separate category or infobox/navbox would be useful).

Regarding underwater forts (and building forts in any location): that kind of information would be useful to some players, and there isn't exactly a comprehensive source of information on the wiki, but I agree that the place of an article like "Building forts underwater" is debatable. In my opinion, we could use a "Tutorial" namespace, or tutorials/advice like this could be placed in a subpage of, say, design strategies or megaprojects. (That leads to versioning issues, though, although something like {{mwv}} could help resolve them) --Lethosor (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to do an article on sky support physics, which would naturally address the skyfort project, as well as the "power mining" trick. --Itg (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, megaprojects, stupid dwarf tricks, style projects, dwarven atom smashers, magma pistons, tree farming, obsidian casting, the entire science of dwarfputing, and the extensive masterwork mod weren't "actually part of the game" either. There are dozens if not hundreds of forum threads with information that should be somewhere here on the wiki... but few ever get added (possibly because of responses like "Why does this page exist?"). If users are willing to volunteer their time to make these articles, I would hope we are gracious enough to accept them. It is trivial for you to ignore the pages you consider to be "clutter", but I personally do not share your opinion; I would gladly slide down that slippery slope until all aspects of Dwarf Fortress are covered by the Dwarf Fortress Wiki.--Loci (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the connection between those examples and this page - dwarven atom smashers, magma pistons, tree farming, and obsidian casting are widely recognized techniques that provide a clear benefit in gameplay (efficiently eliminating items/creatures, quickly moving magma upwards, creating a safe and efficient wood supply, and creating large above-ground structures that can be engraved), while megaprojects, stupid dwarf tricks, and style projects are collections of smaller ideas that range from beneficial to cosmetic to pointless to outright detrimental. In fact, a stupid dwarf trick is explicitly described as a "project that requires a large amount of time and effort - often for little or no practical benefit" which "exists primarily as a challenge for experienced players" - I don't know about you, but this "skyfort" concept fits that description almost perfectly. --Quietust (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this article does fit the description of a "stupid dwarf trick", and the fact that there probably isn't that much to add to the current article (besides additional advice, which is mostly in the forum thread), I think this would probably fit better as a section of one of those project-related articles that you mentioned. However, there's still the issue of what to do with the factual content – few (if any) megaprojects list much factual content. In fact, those that have related, informative content refer to a separate article. I would be inclined to put this on physics, but it's a "D for dwarf" page. Are there any other articles where things like this could go that I'm missing? --Lethosor (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The connection is that all of those pages aren't "actually part of the game, just something that players have decided to do", so your argument that there are no skyforts in the game is specious at best. While some of those examples are more useful than a skyfort, dwarfputing is arguable less useful and it has an entire series of articles on the wiki.

Sure, I'll add skyforts to stupid dwarf trick. But being included in that list does not preclude having a separate article--see waterfall, dam, danger room, drowning chamber, dwarfputing, mass pitting, etc. Some of those designs are more valuable than a skyfort, while others are less valuable. The question I asked, though, was "why not?", and I still haven't heard a reasonable answer beyond your opinion that it's "clutter". This page exists because somebody thought it was worth adding to the wiki. Just because you don't find a page useful or interesting is no reason to suggest that the page shouldn't exist.--Loci (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I've found, it appears that skyforts are a fairly new technique. I'm reluctant to agree to remove the page at this point just because its usefulness is debated. I still think mentioning it on project-related pages is a good idea, but it's fine with me if this is kept as a separate article for now (I also haven't found a suitable page to merge it with). I'm sure more uses and information will turn up that warrant a separate article – there's plenty of information in the forum thread that could be copied over, which would make it at least as useful as early revisions of Danger room, Reservoir, and certainly Minecart logic. The point Quietust made about fortress-building articles is still valid, though – it's hard to decide the place in the wiki of articles about unusual fort-building methods. One reason I feel this article is different is because of how much factual content there is behind sky forts – while there is factual information regarding "building forts underwater", an article with that title would arguably end up being more of a tutorial. If this were clearly a tutorial I'd probably be more inclined to move it, but since it has some factual, potentially useful information I feel that leaving it where it is for now is a better option. --Lethosor (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)