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.

Archives

Archive 1

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 onown, 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)

I think your quantum dump page has been reincarnated at dwarven physics?

OK I think I see these points:

1. there is no clear guideline how much spoiling "is alowed"
2. there is no clear guideline on how specific an article can get (scope vs depth)
3. there is no clear guideline on when a "spoiler alert" should be given.

I think that guidelines are good, in general. The rules are a bit flexible as most of us expect given this is a game-wiki not an encyclopedia. I know you do a lot more admin-editing than anyone else put together so you (Savok) probably have a better 1,000 ft view of the size of this problem than everyone else. Having said that... I would err greatly on allowing pages which are "game-world correct" to remain, allowing pages which don't have (dreadful) spoilers in the lead section to not have "ugly" spoiler warnings, and if we can have articles on computing and Glowing pit then pretty much there is no aspect of the game which is off-limits to being exposed by spoilers.

I'm also agreeing with Njero, that if I hadn't found this wiki as quickly as I did, with detailed (and spoilerific) content of things from "how to dig" to "how to fight" and "what's hard to fight"... I would probably have deleted the game within 2 days of downloading it. Some of us don't find the forum that helpful!Garrie 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

+1 what GI said. I read the wiki before starting - I, personally, hate the whole "trial and errour" thing from scratch, especially in a game where the wrong little mistake can mean GAME OVER. I'm average-bright, and I still found that a lot of the "detail" was lost on me, at least until I had experienced it (or nearly so.) HFS? Still haven't breached one yet (slow computer, and in no rush) - so I can parrot a lot about that, but really have no personal feel for it and still look forward to that experience (even if now I won't walk in blind to that particular practical joke). If I'd wanted a surprise, I'd have not read those articles (and would be someone else).

That said, I do find that many mid-experience and advanced articles do repeat basic concepts too much - the "how to dig a channel" for a quantum dump example, above. And over-link, etc. However, if a newb were to stumble on that page, altho' they aren't ready for the advanced stuff, they may wonder what the basic stuff is - and follow those links. So... I don't think it's over-detailed for anyone except those who know the game (i.e. "us"). For the newb, stumbling about on the wiki, they either want to read about it, or need to, or both. Less detail is fewer links, and less overall usefulness to the (self-filtering) target audience.--Albedo 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not detail pointlessly. More spoiler warnings? Why not. The collapsibles might be a nice solution in many places. But no limits to the completeness of the wiki please. It's hard to figure out quite a bit of the more complex, and interesting, stuff like machinery on your own and quite a bit is counterintuitive too, like how levers work. It may be really neat if you think up using channels as moats yourself, but it still took me several tries to get a nice and working setup. Oh and bridges.. I still made so many mistakes after reading up on things. And as far as strategy goes, I have my own opinion on quite a few things said in the wiki, as do others, and often it's just those views that are put in the articles. Like I think its's fine to have your woodcutter not trained because an axe as such is a fine defense already. And knowing that, on some maps, with some effort, you can have an UG tree farm improves the fun (no, not fun, fun). It's still hard and rewarding to actually do it.

Information may be a bit (over-!)redundant here and there, yes, but I am confident this will clear out on itself by and by when articles are better organized to be read "in a row". Lastly, what we write here, especially the strategy bits, will be found just as readily in the forums. --Birthright 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Woodcutters are working outdoors where they are in constant danger of being ambushed by invaders or attacked by wild animals"

You want to delete that? Savok, You are a cruel man.

"(unless, of course, you are the proud owner of an underground tree farm),"

I'd really like to know how the first player figured tower caps out on his own. Mayor kudos to him, if, but i rather suspect toady dropped a hint. So do we.

"but they are also one of the few civilian professions which carry weapons with them."

Well, it should be obvious that the axe still works as weapon, too...hm...but it isn't. So we say it.

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."

Okay this part could be reworded like you suggest: Woodcutting does not improve goblincutting. But wouldn't the information be the same? --Höhlenschreck 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A for Anonymity?

On at least one page, the concept of "non-ownership" of wiki contributions has been agreed upon, that designs should not have User's names attached, and phrases like "I like to..." be changed to "Some users like to..." . Currently, the letter "A" is for "Alphabet" - hardly enlightening. I wouldn't mind seeing this slot used for a more formalized policy in this direction, to avoid repeating this discussion. (Or is the alphabet thing now sacrosanct as is?)
The applications of such "catch-all" pages are endless, especially as mod's become more and more prevalent both in-game and on this site.--Albedo 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh. For some things, we obviously want to give credit - tilesets, for example. Personally, I would say that this bedroom design probably should be credited to Marble Dice. I don't think a policy that putting data here automatically makes ownership of it go to the wiki (and the wiki will make it anonymous) is a very useful one... --Savok 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so much ownership - certainly not a release of rights to intellectual property in any legal sense - but more a de-emphasis of personal credit over contribution for contribution's sake. My name would be all over these pages, as would many others' - that would get old fast, and (possibly) encourage competition and possessiveness, rather than collaboration and contribution. But, as you say... eh. Just thought I'd ask.--Albedo 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me here is, it looks to me as though some of the designs (the fractals etc) have not been put here by the person who designed them. They were designed, discussed on a forum, then someone else thought they looked good and put them here.

Even if that isn't right - the rest of the bedroom article reads as though that is how it happened. Until you get to the final entry - which in the original form looked very "owned".

If you want to own something put it in user space. If you put it in article space expect it to get edited.

I think that is the rule that needs to exist "somewhere", by nature wiki contributions aren't anonymous. Garrie 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Category titles (capitalization)

Reviving this section from the archive, you'll see that our categories page (also, Category:Templates) has so many capitalization inconsistencies it'll make your head spin. I propose Category:Formatting Templates as preferable to Category:Formatting templates though the existence of both shows that this needs to be addressed.
Also, how do you wikilink to those catagory pages? Is it possible?--Rowenlemmings 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First I agree there should be a rule for naming categories, and as per "the" wiki, it should be "first letter of first word only capitalised unless there's a really good reason" (eg: where the name of the category is a proper noun / "real name" ).

Secondly - Categories are "just" normal article pages with some magic behind them, link to them the same as any article. [[Category:Wiki]] ->.

Garrie 03:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bottom or Top

Not a big thing, but it seems we should have a rule whether new edits/sections in any non-article space should go at top or bottom of the page. Might also be added to the newbie welcome template. --Höhlenschreck 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if a rule is needed, most ppl quickly work out that the default action of the "+" magic button is to add a new section at the bottom of the page so this is how you "should" do it manually.Garrie 03:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)