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 "User talk:Höhlenschreck"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weasel WP:Weasel] for a guide on certain types of phrasing that are better avoided. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weasel WP:Weasel] for a guide on certain types of phrasing that are better avoided. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
:Good style advice in general. However, if this is referring to H's recent edit to [[Giant eagle|skeletal giant eagle]], I think this is one case where the weaseling is not inappropriate. While SGE's may be brutally scary, they may not be a dealbreaker for everyeone - thus "some players" advise quitting then and there, but not all agree, nor should follow that advice. Many such "DO THIS" comments in articles could use such qualifying.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | :Good style advice in general. However, if this is referring to H's recent edit to [[Giant eagle|skeletal giant eagle]], I think this is one case where the weaseling is not inappropriate. While SGE's may be brutally scary, they may not be a dealbreaker for everyeone - thus "some players" advise quitting then and there, but not all agree, nor should follow that advice. Many such "DO THIS" comments in articles could use such qualifying.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::The number of people doing something is never an argument for it's validity. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
:This is not the en WP - they would probably "shut down" this place. (Well, the german WP at least, the english one has been going down the drain so long now..) Only our rules apply (which you should know better than me as a noob). Like OR is okay. And pure opinion - as there was on eagle - should explicitely worded like that, so the player may see that it is NOT facts. A D for dwarf would be okay prob. too, cos it made me at least laugh. --[[User:Höhlenschreck|Höhlenschreck]] 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | :This is not the en WP - they would probably "shut down" this place. (Well, the german WP at least, the english one has been going down the drain so long now..) Only our rules apply (which you should know better than me as a noob). Like OR is okay. And pure opinion - as there was on eagle - should explicitely worded like that, so the player may see that it is NOT facts. A D for dwarf would be okay prob. too, cos it made me at least laugh. --[[User:Höhlenschreck|Höhlenschreck]] 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::If an article has BS in it and you want to let people know that it's BS, putting weasel words into it isn't the best approach. Weasel phrasing is always bad in a factual article. If it seems that such phrasing is appropriate, then the article is not a factual one and shouldn't pretend to be one. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | PS: This is not wikipedia, but some good practices have been borrowed. See {{rule|s}}. | ||
Revision as of 15:58, 29 May 2009
Could that be a bug? It's not that I've never seen it, it's that I've never heard anything remotely like "animals being hidden in cages". (Better to reply on the Gray squirrel page.) --Albedo 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Lake article
Tower-caps will grow in an underground pool, providing a safe wood source.
What exactly do you mean by this? "In" the pool? Perhaps another awkward choice of words. Also, the choice of the word "safe" in the context of an underground pool (and what creatures are usually found there) is arguable.--Albedo 23:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this was precise enough since it is rather common knowledge and given in detail under tower cap, which i linked. I felt it was inappropriate to only talk of the dangers, not the benefits. But feel free to edit, of course.--Höhlenschreck 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is no "common knowledge" in a wiki - that's the point, not to assume that readers know that a TC cannot be grown in water. I will, thanks.--Albedo 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment on style
See WP:Weasel for a guide on certain types of phrasing that are better avoided. VengefulDonut 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good style advice in general. However, if this is referring to H's recent edit to skeletal giant eagle, I think this is one case where the weaseling is not inappropriate. While SGE's may be brutally scary, they may not be a dealbreaker for everyeone - thus "some players" advise quitting then and there, but not all agree, nor should follow that advice. Many such "DO THIS" comments in articles could use such qualifying.--Albedo 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The number of people doing something is never an argument for it's validity. VengefulDonut 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the en WP - they would probably "shut down" this place. (Well, the german WP at least, the english one has been going down the drain so long now..) Only our rules apply (which you should know better than me as a noob). Like OR is okay. And pure opinion - as there was on eagle - should explicitely worded like that, so the player may see that it is NOT facts. A D for dwarf would be okay prob. too, cos it made me at least laugh. --Höhlenschreck 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- If an article has BS in it and you want to let people know that it's BS, putting weasel words into it isn't the best approach. Weasel phrasing is always bad in a factual article. If it seems that such phrasing is appropriate, then the article is not a factual one and shouldn't pretend to be one. VengefulDonut 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: This is not wikipedia, but some good practices have been borrowed. See Rule S.