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:Quality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I see that this was set up with different templates for each quality level. Is that really the best way to go? Couldn't instead of <nowiki> {{elven}} {{dwarven}} {{human}} </nowiki> could we do <nowiki> {{Quality|<low>}} {{Quality|<med>}} {{Quality|<high>}} </nowiki> (for whatever those three are)? Thoughts? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | I see that this was set up with different templates for each quality level. Is that really the best way to go? Couldn't instead of <nowiki> {{elven}} {{dwarven}} {{human}} </nowiki> could we do <nowiki> {{Quality|<low>}} {{Quality|<med>}} {{Quality|<high>}} </nowiki> (for whatever those three are)? Thoughts? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :That seems far more sensible to me. The three tags are now very confusing if you don't happen to have been around while the quality thing's been introduced. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:47, 25 April 2010
who rates those articles
who rates those articles?
- I have been. If I shouldn't be, someone say so now. Also, should ~100% of content articles be rated? --StrongAxe 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- As there isn't much of a vandalism thing going on here, I think it should be the original author of the article who rates it, with some admin verification following--Smd 15:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone and everyone should be rating the articles. Don't agree with an article rating? leave a note why on the talk page and re-rate the page in question. --Briess 01:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- As there isn't much of a vandalism thing going on here, I think it should be the original author of the article who rates it, with some admin verification following--Smd 15:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have been. If I shouldn't be, someone say so now. Also, should ~100% of content articles be rated? --StrongAxe 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody can rate an article, it's a wiki and we're supposed to all work together. Just try to correct or update anything that needs changing. If you spot vandalism, go to the history tab next to the discussion/edit tabs and revert the page to a pre-vandal version. 97.90.193.201 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Changing levels
- There was a discussion on the forums involving changing the quality levels to Fine, Exceptional, and Masterwork. Yes/no?--Draco18s 17:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a great idea. Mason (T-C) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I second. The forum thread linked above garnered broad support for -Fine-, +Exceptional+, *Masterwork* after discussing several options. -Grae
- Indeed, it seems to fit the game better rather than fit with common player perceptions of the races in game.Vattic 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Template/method
I see that this was set up with different templates for each quality level. Is that really the best way to go? Couldn't instead of {{elven}} {{dwarven}} {{human}} could we do {{Quality|<low>}} {{Quality|<med>}} {{Quality|<high>}} (for whatever those three are)? Thoughts? Mason (T-C) 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- That seems far more sensible to me. The three tags are now very confusing if you don't happen to have been around while the quality thing's been introduced. Oddtwang of Dork 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)