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.
Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion/SkillsLaborProfessions
< Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 21:02, 11 February 2023 by Alpacalypse (talk | contribs)
I am a little confused about the use of some terms on the wiki.
(A) The Skill articles utilize an infobox with terms 'Labor', 'Job Title', and 'Profession'.
- With 'Job title' referring to the in-game 'profession' name. Regarded as profession title in profession->labor entry, which make the point of distinguishing it from Jobs.
- while 'Profession' refer to the in-game color coding. Regarded as professional category in Skill#Professions.
- This is a bit confusing, maybe a (1) different terminology should be employed in the infobox, or (2) a tooptip or link to relevant article should be added to the infobox. (3) possibly try for a clearer explanation of the basic terminology in labor.
(B) The lead of Skill articles is all over the place. Some articles focus on:
- the skill - "Miner is the skill", "The bowyer skill is used to"..
- Others focus on:
- the 'Job title' - "A Cook is a dwarf whose highest skill is in cooking."
- the 'Job title' using the term 'profession' - "A gem cutter is the profession of a dwarf whose"
- the person doing the associated labor e.g. Brewer: "Brewers brew .." "Butchers do the dirty job of killing.."
- Some use all the above but doesn't link to mining labor nor explain what associated profession is.
- Miner is the skill associated with both the mining labor and its associated profession.
- I think it might be best to (4) improve interlinking of all relevant article, making the treasure trove of information on the wiki more accessible, (5) figure out a more consistent lead based on input from experienced users here.
Any thougts? --Jan (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Only comment from a year ago, but in current discussions, so: I noticed some of the inconsistencies too. Seems to me that these categories could definitely do with some style/editing guidelines. It is understandable why it is easy to confuse/mix up the various references to these concepts. I suppose there needs to be some sort of consensus on what those guidelines should be. IMO, conformity of style seems quite valuable to something like this. Without a clear pattern of application of terms, it is needlessly confusing. Alpacalypse (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)