Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draco18s]

I'm all for information about the real world on the wiki, provided its short and to the point.  Image of the real stone would also go a long way.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm fine with a link to the wikipedia page, but why do we have to duplicate that information on the DF wiki?  That stuff takes server resources, and it has almost nothing to do with actually playing the game.

[G-Flex]

A few lines of text in a few articles don't really take significant server resources, and a small snippet of real-world information tends to be a lot more accessible/convenient than a wikipedia article.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I'm fine with a link to the wikipedia page, but why do we have to duplicate that information on the DF wiki?  That stuff takes server resources, and it has almost nothing to do with actually playing the game.

Well, the other wiki is not really within our control. It contains information that is really not interesting for players, even those who want the flavor, while information we will find very interesting may be hard to notice.
Secondly, you can add information as to "this is hinted at in the game by xxx" thus pointing out weak connections between game features and real life aspects. For instance, the relationship between DF iron, DF steel, real life iron and real life steel is actually real life information (you don't need how real life steel works to use DF steel), which can be highly informative for you and which is not found in this format in the other wiki.
Third, some of that information can also help with the suggestion/discussion threads here. Take the steel example above - placing DF iron and steel into the correct relation to real life iron and steel (and also real life bronze) can inform people about things they should consider before discussing the traits of iron, steel, and maybe bronze in the game.

As for the elf/human/dwarf quality system, I consider it a really stupid idea, especially as it endorses one particular way of viewing and playing the game, which is not the only way to enjoy the game.

Deathworks

[G-Flex]

As for the elf/human/dwarf quality system, I consider it a really stupid idea, especially as it endorses one particular way of viewing and playing the game, which is not the only way to enjoy the game.

Yeah, and it's self-reinforcing. I don't like that we (the community) encourage new players to act like stereotypes. That's how we get posts full of "USE MAGMA" and "DROWN THE ELVES". DF is an extremely open-ended game by design, so it's a bit sad that the gameplay gets pigeonholed like that, and it's worse when it's implicitly encouraged by the source of the game's documentation.

[Draco18s]

As for the elf/human/dwarf quality system, I consider it a really stupid idea, especially as it endorses one particular way of viewing and playing the game, which is not the only way to enjoy the game.

Think we could get it changed to {{bronze}}, {{iron}}, and {{steel}}?

I know I had to look up WTF that was when I saw it.  A material relationship would at least have some semblance of being objectively true.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Think we could get it changed to {{bronze}}, {{iron}}, and {{steel}}?

I know I had to look up WTF that was when I saw it.  A material relationship would at least have some semblance of being objectively true.

While I think that would be an improvement, iron and bronze are highly problematic, as actually bronze is more valuable in the game (better for weapons etc.) and also more complicated to gain than iron, so to be true to the game, it would be steel > bronze > iron. However, most new players would believe it ought to be steel > iron > bronze.

Well, I am rather tired at the moment, so I will leave it at that, hoping someone else has a good idea.

Deathworks

[Draco18s]

Hi!

Think we could get it changed to {{bronze}}, {{iron}}, and {{steel}}?

I know I had to look up WTF that was when I saw it.  A material relationship would at least have some semblance of being objectively true.

While I think that would be an improvement, iron and bronze are highly problematic, as actually bronze is more valuable in the game (better for weapons etc.) and also more complicated to gain than iron, so to be true to the game, it would be steel > bronze > iron. However, most new players would believe it ought to be steel > iron > bronze.

Could do iron < steel < adamantine, but that'd be a bit spoilery.  Iron < pig iron < steel?  Except that pig iron is kinda useless.

silver < iron < steel?  Except silver is worth a lot.

copper < iron < steel?  That seems workable.

[Lemunde]

I think this is fine in moderation.  A quick blurb about what this stuff is, what it looks like and what it's used for in real life.  I think the atomic/molecular symbols may be crossing the line.  But adding a couple of pictures of what this stuff really looks like is a good idea in my book.

[Squirrelloid]

... isn't it obvious?

Bronze < Silver < Gold.  I mean, there's only been organizations awarding medals in those gradations for well over 100 years.

[Jude]

I wouldn't mind having a blurb about "this mineral in real life" at the bottom of mineral pages, and other stuff like that, but really it's not relevant at all. Anybody can just pop over to wikipedia if they want to know.

[Draco18s]

... isn't it obvious?

Bronze < Silver < Gold.  I mean, there's only been organizations awarding medals in those gradations for well over 100 years.

While true, I think we'd rather have something a bit more dwarven than this idea that gold is the ultimate metal.  E.g. look at Dragonlance: Weis and Hickman didn't like the fact that gold was the defacto standard of currency.  Gold only had value in the real world because of its use in jewelry.  But steel, there was a currency you could use (literally: melt it down and forge it into a sword).

[G-Flex]

"A currency you can use" is not a very good currency. A good thing to barter/sell/buy, maybe, but not a good currency. The entire point of using gold as currency in real life is that it's not useful or common. Gold is inert, useless, and rare, meaning its supply and demand don't change much compared to other things. That's another discussion, though.


The problem with making the wiki more "dwarven" is that you have to be wary about including anything that comes from the sort of stereotyping/pigeonholing/fan-mythology that I was just complaining about. "Copper < Iron < Steel" isn't bad about this (although it might confuse people new to the wiki; quite frankly, the default bronze, silver, and good seem plenty good enough to me), but "elven < human < dwarven" is about as bad as it gets.

[Draco18s]

"A currency you can use" is not a very good currency. A good thing to barter/sell/buy, maybe, but not a good currency.

Just stating why Dragonlance had a steel currency, not trying to defend it as rational.

The problem with making the wiki more "dwarven" is that you have to be wary about including anything that comes from the sort of stereotyping/pigeonholing/fan-mythology that I was just complaining about.

Point taken.

[Toksyuryel]

I would be in favor of the follow five-tier quality scale:

Copper < Silver < Gold < Platinum < Armok

EDIT: Alternatively, articles could be graded using the game's quality scale.