Print

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

[Deathworks]

Hi!

The idea of masterful > finely crafted > poorly crafted definitely has my support as it works very well both for experienced players and newbies: The relation to the game is clear to everyone who has played a bit and even people who have never played the game can immediately grasp which is better.

Deathworks

[JudgeBread]

Why not just have a box floating off to the right side of the page that says "Wikipedia has an article on [subject]", similar to the way Wikipedia directs people to wikiquote on biography pages or wikinews on current event pages? Then you don't have to write anything, just slap on the template with a link to Wikipedia. If someone wants to know what we use gypsum for in real life they can click the link.

[Quietust]

Why not just have a box floating off to the right side of the page that says "Wikipedia has an article on [subject]", similar to the way Wikipedia directs people to wikiquote on biography pages or wikinews on current event pages? Then you don't have to write anything, just slap on the template with a link to Wikipedia. If someone wants to know what we use gypsum for in real life they can click the link.

We already have this for creatures, stones, and metals - at the very bottom of the infobox on the right side of the page is a "Wikipedia article" link (which can be selectively suppressed for stuff like cave crocodiles and raw adamantine). It could probably stand to be a bit more visible, but it's definitely there.

[Justyn]

Why not just have a box floating off to the right side of the page that says "Wikipedia has an article on [subject]", similar to the way Wikipedia directs people to wikiquote on biography pages or wikinews on current event pages? Then you don't have to write anything, just slap on the template with a link to Wikipedia. If someone wants to know what we use gypsum for in real life they can click the link.

As I've pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't exactly easy to understand for the uninitiated of the discussed subject matter; they don't make a point of making their articles easy to understand, so this ends up looking like gibberish to someone who don't know how to read the information.

[Footkerchief]

As I've pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't exactly easy to understand for the uninitiated of the discussed subject matter; they don't make a point of making their articles easy to understand, so this ends up looking like gibberish to someone who don't know how to read the information.

Could you point us to a Wikipedia article that illustrates the problem, so that we don't have to talk in generalities?

[Wirevix]

I haven't had occasion to look up geological articles on Wikipedia, but here are two examples of medical articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_stress_reaction  I was looking this one up for a novel I was writing.  Maybe some can grasp the starting paragraph, where they usually "summarize" whatever the article is supposed to be about, but I was hit with a wall of text and sort of faltered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_syndrome  This one I looked up because someone mentioned "crush syndrome" right here on the forums.  The start is better, but when I hit "pathophysiology" I had to start following all the links and try to figure out what they were saying actually caused it.  This is how it usually is for me with wiki articles - in order to understand half of it, you have to open 5 more articles just to understand the terminology.

[Blargityblarg]

Furthermore, it is often not clear where the more 'accessible' information *is* in a Wikipedia article. Some, even many, mineral-related pages have 'Uses' sections, less have 'Occurrence' sections, and those two features would be my most-wanted RL infobites- I don't know about other folks, though. A template could summarise the interesting things about something in a small column, rather than spreading it out over a large article.

[Boingboingsplat]

As I've pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't exactly easy to understand for the uninitiated of the discussed subject matter; they don't make a point of making their articles easy to understand, so this ends up looking like gibberish to someone who don't know how to read the information.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, if regular wikipedia is just too much for you.  Of course it's devoid in anything DF would need to link to.

[Draco18s]

I haven't had occasion to look up geological articles on Wikipedia, but here are two examples of medical articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_stress_reaction

I can do one better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X3d

I know what X3D is, have programmed in it, and still have no idea WTF that article says.  I am told, however, that X3D is fucking awesome, amazing, and the future of 3D content over the web.*

*Which is lies because there isn't even a stable editor for X3D even after 10 years of "active" development.

What about this? http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Template:Factual

That looks pretty nice, actually.  Border, bold header text, offset color.

[G-Flex]

Wikipedia being too dense isn't the only problem. The other issue is that the stuff inside the {{FACTUAL}} template on a DFwiki page can relate that information to Dwarf Fortress, and we can specifically include information that helps in this regard.

For instance, in the page for Flux, the template could mention that all flux stones in Dwarf Fortress happen to be forms of (or containing high amounts of) Calcium Carbonate, which was a common flux in real life. This isn't information that could be easily-accessible otherwise, unless you spend time looking at the Wikipedia articles for every one of DF's flux stones and drawing the conclusion yourself. Also, in the Olivine article, it might be worth noting within the template that Peridot, while gem-quality olivine in real life, is not actually found within olivine in DF, which is at least a little interesting to note.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I'd just like to point out that the recent near-to-total gutting of the DF Wiki section on modding is particularly annoying.

I don't understand why whoever's managing the Wiki couldn't simply replace old section with updated ones, in a piecemeal fashion, instead of simply wiping large portions of (often still very useful, if not always 100% accurate) information, research, and charts--some of which represent years of work and testing.

It actually serves to compound the problem of old information being inaccurate, instead of helping things, because there's no chance to extrapolate from, or compare, new information to the old.

Gibberish, inside jokes, and misleading information, sprinkled on, say, 50-75% accurate, useful data, is infinitely preferrable to blank pages of nothing. It isn't even labled "Under Construction".

If it ever even is updated, I can absolutely guarantee that the timeframe for the update--and the level of accuracy--will both be unnecessarily extended (no data to build on), and compromised (less testers overall, doing superfluous testing), by this strategy.

[Tilla]

I'd just like to point out that the recent near-to-total gutting of the DF Wiki section on modding is particularly annoying.

I don't understand why whoever's managing the Wiki couldn't simply replace old section with updated ones, in a piecemeal fashion, instead of simply wiping large portions of (often still very useful, if not always 100% accurate) information, research, and charts--some of which represent years of work and testing.

It actually serves to compound the problem of old information being inaccurate, instead of helping things, because there's no chance to extrapolate from, or compare, new information to the old.

Gibberish, inside jokes, and misleading information, sprinkled on, say, 50-75% accurate, useful data, is infinitely preferrable to blank pages of nothing. It isn't even labled "Under Construction".

If it ever even is updated, I can absolutely guarantee that the timeframe for the update--and the level of accuracy--will both be unnecessarily extended (no data to build on), and compromised (less testers overall, doing superfluous testing), by this strategy.

Someone doesn't know how to click the clearly marked buttons to view old versions of the articles

[Locriani]

SirHoneyBadger, no information at any point was deleted from the wiki.  Your specific complaints have been addressed MULTIPLE times, and other pages are still remaining.

Check this thread out: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=53484.0

[G-Flex]

I'd just like to point out that the recent near-to-total gutting of the DF Wiki section on modding is particularly annoying.

I don't understand why whoever's managing the Wiki couldn't simply replace old section with updated ones, in a piecemeal fashion, instead of simply wiping large portions of (often still very useful, if not always 100% accurate) information, research, and charts--some of which represent years of work and testing.

• Copying old stuff over to the new wiki results in problems like articles not getting updating (or otherwise retaining erroneous/outdated information) for years. It's not like this wasn't the case for the .40d wiki.
• What that other guy said. The old wiki is still available, and if information from it is verified to still be true, it can be easily copied over. Just make sure it IS verified first instead of assuming so.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I really don't want to bitch about this, because it's a volunteer effort, and I appreciate the work and time that go into maintaining and updating the DF Wiki, so please keep in mind that this is meant to be a helpful criticism and not an attack, but it's obvious from the thread you linked to that, if the old wiki still does exist, I'm not the only one having trouble, firstly determining that it still even exists, and secondly actually locating the old wiki.

Whatever the explanation for why it was done in this manner, which I'm more than willing to accept, it still seems that the process-and it's advertizement of such-are both lacking.

This is compounded by a big red notice on the Wiki main page stating that large portions of the Wiki are missing or empty.

End of statement, basically.

That's pretty misleading, and there's nothing to point us in the right direction. 

A link to the old wiki, in my opinion, would properly be found on the main DF Wiki page, in an easily located and well-documented link, not in an easily missed thread on the Forum.

The fact that there's a big, established thread on this problem, and the wiki still doesn't clearly explain what's going on, further compounds the confusion and frustration.

Which just serves to generate posts like this one.