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)

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)

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)

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)

Handling template breaking of redirects?

How do we want to handle this? For example, Template:L doesn't work; nor does Template:L - you have to use Template:L 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)

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)

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