The wiki is for the game itself- it can exist fine without real world info copy and pasted from Wikipedia. You could even link to the wiki article at the bottom.
The wiki is for the game itself- it can exist fine without real world info copy and pasted from Wikipedia. You could even link to the wiki article at the bottom.
Though I pretty much stopped reading the wiki when everyone decided adding stupid jokes to every page was a good way to move forward.
It's not like the rock articles are excessively long at present...
Though I pretty much stopped reading the wiki when everyone decided adding stupid jokes to every page was a good way to move forward.
Edit: AND... God forbid Toady ever makes poisonous stones actually poisonous. Remember, he based his stone off of real world information, and toxicity is one bit of real world information that can, plausibly, make it into the game. Just ask the new HFS.
Personally, I think that adding real life information to many articles would be useful, but you may wish to have a fixed format (like a light red background box) so that people can see immediately that this is additional flavor/explanatory information.I think this may be the appropriate route to take. In the morrow (I'm exhausted right now) I'll play around with a "factual" template or something, if there are no objections.
Simply put, information that is not part of game does not belong there. Wiki is about current game and future enchancements will get documented as new versions get released (I encourage you to do that!).
The wiki should have information for the game. Giving information that is not game related, like explaining animal behavior that does not happen in the game can be misleading. Going overboard on 'hilarious' flavor text, like describing the elephant's blood gleaming with red blood and that they were named the king of beasts is also misleading. While there is room for humor and flavor text, if the base article itself doesn't have any useful information, it's worthless.Indeed, going overboard is bad. That's so obvious as to not really require stating.
As always, contributing to the wiki in meaningful ways is a great community service.
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Carp
But old and misleading information based on previous versions is fine?
My apologies, rephrase that as 'information that could otherwise be found on Wikipedia'.
For example, player can read on wiki that Lead is poisonous which will stop using him from making lead furniture/barrels/buckets/whatnot and even to melt/atomsmash is if he already made some. But since lead does not have toxic properties he woudl be wasting resources.
Or player can read on wiki that rocksalt will dissolve in water (not true in game) and player would not make use of this layer stone, making him mine unnecesarily to get to more "durable" stone.
EDIT: What's with so many articles being tagged "elven"?Anyone, as long as it fulfills certain criteria (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality).
EDIT2: Ah, I see. Who's responsible for choosing what the quality of an article is?
I myself have found the injokes amusing and don't see the problem with them as long as they have been rated D for Dwarf.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... isn't it obvious?
Bronze < Silver < Gold. I mean, there's only been organizations awarding medals in those gradations for well over 100 years.
"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 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.
EDIT: Alternatively, articles could be graded using the game's quality scale.
I just don't see why the wiki needs to even mention injokes from versions that were obsolete two years ago, aside from maybe a single sentence. There's enough bad information going around, and too many people who still think these things are true. We don't need to feed the rumor mill.Because some of this information is essential when reading the stories written about previous versions. I didn't start playing the game because I was such an fan of simulation games, nor because I was so impressed with the graphics. I came here after TVtropes pointed me toward 'the epic of Boatmurdered' and have been fan since.
EDIT: Alternatively, articles could be graded using the game's quality scale.I 'in favour' this so hard it will be send flying, so I can run after it and 'in favour' it again before it hits the ground. Truly an elegant, yet very Dwarfish system of quality.
When was the last time you didn't enjoy reading about how you eviscerated that goblin or how your head "... is smashed into the body, an unrecognizable mass!". How did you react the first time your 7 dwarfs were smeared across the wagon by an 'Zombie Unicorn'?
Yeah, that stuff is fine, because those are just stories that emerge from how the game generally work. "Elves are only good for burning and drowning ha ha ha" and "MAGMA IS THE SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS", on the other hand, are the kind of extremely arbitrary fan-spawned jokes that inspire an extremely limited understanding of how the game is meant to be played. That last point might seem a bit alarmist on my part, but I see it often enough to know that this actually happens and is rather annoying.Seems to me the problem here is more 'ELF=BAD,MAGMA=GOOD' the meme, rather then the play-style that goes with it. When you think about it, Elves start of friendly in the game and can of some use to any player not desperate to start a war. Conversely drilling for magma is hard, especially in the new version. A player will eventually find the pro's and con's of both or have lot's FUNtm. The Meme however is sort of hard to route, and is probably here to stay until something even more annoying or dangerous appears. Until then: MAGMA, APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE ELF's HEAD!!1!
- It should be 3 levels. Any more is overkill, and just makes the rating system more difficult to keep updated.
- It should be easy to understand.
- Ideally, it should be light-hearted, and not POOR, OK, GOOD or something similar.
- Popular support was for elven, human, and dwarven quality levels. We can change it, sure, but we will need consensus.
And where did this consensus come from? I never heard anything about it until I found that articles had been tagged with it.
Sorry, I was out mowing the lawn. The consensus occurred in irc, and in discussions on various talk pages.
I'm thinking, for the "factual" template, of doing something like a DID YOU KNOW? box. Thoughts? I'll have a prototype together shortly.
{{factual}} seems appropriate. Drop a border around it and put a nice "DID YOU KNOW?" header on it. I wouldn't change the background any, the 1 px border should offset it from the rest of the information sufficiently.
Yeah, I just think that the text identifying it as real-world information should go in the header itself, just to make it more visually clear and to prevent situations like someone accidentally leaving it out of the first sentence.
"<subject> in real life" or "<subject> in the real world" could work. Or just leave off the subject name and do something like "In the real world:". I think some trial and error could work, here.
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.
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.
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 (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.
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
What about this? http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Template:Factual
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.
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.
Someone doesn't know how to click the clearly marked buttons to view old versions of the articles
Archives? Huh? Did you miss the big green box on top of the article with the version numbers in it?
Archives? Huh? Did you miss the big green box on top of the article with the version numbers in it?
G-Flex: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm talking about the DF Wiki main page.
*Right after Boatmurdered.No, before Boatmurdered, in lieu of boatmurdered, and a few "what is boatmurdered"s in there too. Boatmurdered is a 2d fortress, and any 200 year segment of a generated world has more interesting tales to tell than boatmurdered. The rosy color you see is history. What we have now is better.
*Right after Boatmurdered.No, before Boatmurdered, in lieu of boatmurdered, and a few "what is boatmurdered"s in there too. Boatmurdered is a 2d fortress, and any 200 year segment of a generated world has more interesting tales to tell than boatmurdered. The rosy color you see is history. What we have now is better.
Here (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Olivine#axzz0li2SfvFp) is an example of the template in use. Personally, I think it worked better when it was on the bottom, centered, and less wide than the body text, especially since it makes the body text too cramped like this (and messes up formatting when you "show" it), but the concept is good.Yeah, It should be all the way at the bottom (even bellow the stone template), and be centered. since the average DF player just wants to play the game. Not even remotely caring about the stone in real life.
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.
Now. It would be even better if it instead has a link to a Wikipedia article, since the Wikipedia articles are gigantic.
Maybe some kind of color code thingy could be used to show/compare relevancy?G-Flex showed a link to an example of this a single page back:
Also, heavier use ofcould reduce the apparent size of the wiki articles, without actually chopping every little thing.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It helps you play the game, too, if you learn what things are what and how they're correlated, in realistic terms, since the game tends to reflect them.
Here (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Olivine#axzz0li2SfvFp) is an example of the template in use. Personally, I think it worked better when it was on the bottom, centered, and less wide than the body text, especially since it makes the body text too cramped like this (and messes up formatting when you "show" it), but the concept is good.
Maybe some kind of color code thingy could be used to show/compare relevancy?G-Flex showed a link to an example of this a single page back:
Also, heavier use ofcould reduce the apparent size of the wiki articles, without actually chopping every little thing.Spoiler (click to show/hide)It helps you play the game, too, if you learn what things are what and how they're correlated, in realistic terms, since the game tends to reflect them.
Here (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Olivine#axzz0li2SfvFp) is an example of the template in use. Personally, I think it worked better when it was on the bottom, centered, and less wide than the body text, especially since it makes the body text too cramped like this (and messes up formatting when you "show" it), but the concept is good.
Archives? Huh? Did you miss the big green box on top of the article with the version numbers in it?
G-Flex: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm talking about the DF Wiki main page.
Archives? Huh? Did you miss the big green box on top of the article with the version numbers in it?
G-Flex: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm talking about the DF Wiki main page.
...Really? You can't find this box?
(http://i43.tinypic.com/nbf5zl.png)
...Oh wait.(http://i41.tinypic.com/6icp4l.png)
Where is it?
It's not there.
stuff
stuff
Actually, I've found that it is possible to explain the contents of such articles, once they are understood, in layman's terms. It is possible to tell someone in brief, and without extrapolating Latin or Greek roots, what "crush syndrome" entails. Sure, you won't be able to diagnose it from such an explanation, but that's not exactly what we're asking for here. My idea of a summary for "crush syndrome," for example, would be something along the lines of "A kidney-failure-inducing syndrome caused when bloodflow returns to pressure-damaged muscles, releasing muscle-destroying chemicals." That's what I got out of the article once I'd followed enough links.
*coughreadthethreadcough*We have a template for that, we're just missing some items.
As a related point, I think all subjects on the wiki that are defined in the raws should have their raw information in their wiki article.
You might want to put a poll up,on here or on the wiki,so that people can decide one way or the other about this topic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making Consensus is not a poll.
Personal opinion: real world info should be included.Helps immerse yourself in the game and provides some learning while your at it.
Not once did i ever say anything about a consensus.Regardless of what you do,It doesn't affect me,as i rarely go on the wiki.
So, I would suggest just linking some wiki pictures into the df wiki, as I believe visualization is a very large part of the game.
I'm not sure too many DFers are interested in rock formations, so much as actual looks.
Stick to things that can help with understanding of the game, not real life. I really do not care at all about the chemical makeup of different types of rocks, etc.
It seems that rather than in wiki, we could use such flavor tetxs in game itself to be displayed in item details 'v' menu:
"Marble stone.
Marble is anonmetamorphic rock resulting from the metamorphism of limestone, chalk, or dolomite by undergoing partial melting and recrystallization. The characteristic swirls and veins of many colored marble varieties are usually due to various mineral impurities.
Marble functions as a Flux which is used to create Pig Iron and Steel.
Marble is moderatelly valuable stone usable for making stone crafts in Craftswdars workshop, Strone Constructions by masons and stone furniture in Masons workshop."
(last two lines generated based on reactions and tags)
Marble is anonmetamorphic rock resulting from the metamorphism
(I made some adjustments for accuracy, hope you don't mind.)
Marble is anonmetamorphic rock resulting from the metamorphism
(I made some adjustments for accuracy, hope you don't mind.)
I was going to say. You can't have a nonmetamorphic rock that forms due to metamorphism.
My only defence is that i blindly believe wikipedia :)
My only defence is that i blindly believe wikipedia :)
What Wikipedia actually said was,
"Marble is a non foliated metamorphic rock"
My only defence is that i suck at using delete key :(
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=DF2010:Magnetite What do we think of this sidebar?The object data needs to fill up that large empty space in the center instead of being on the side like that, or be anywhere other than where it is now. But otherwise it looks nice.
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=DF2010:Magnetite What do we think of this sidebar?The object data needs to fill up that large empty space in the center instead of being on the side like that, or be anywhere other than where it is now. But otherwise it looks nice.
As for why we need a box, the one reasonable complaint about real life information about things not (yet) included in the game was that new users could get confused by the information and believe incorrectly that it is part of the game. If you just use a header, that may be missed- with the current stubs for stones etc. not so likely, but if you have something longer, like an article on steel production, or descriptions of different irrigation approaches in the game, you may have other subheaders and the user may in the mass overlook that header. A box gives a strong indication they are looking at something special and makes it easy to find the related heading and thus explanation of what they are looking at.
There is the 40d pages you know, if someone wants to search for 40d they can just add '40d:' to the start of their search. And there's that version box at the top of the page. It's not that hard to search for 40d.
- Information should be easy to find, even for those who know little or nothing about the game. As someone who understands the game, I'm capable of scanning a page for the string of obscure numbers at the very bottom that links to the complete wiki for older version. A newbie is not. For this reason, there should be a prominent link in the center of the main page that directs people to the wiki for the most stable version of the game, which is still 40d. The number of people who've had problems with this is staggering. After a while, we need to reconsider our design decisions.
There is the 40d pages you know, if someone wants to search for 40d they can just add '40d:' to the start of their search. And there's that version box at the top of the page. It's not that hard to search for 40d.
- Information should be easy to find, even for those who know little or nothing about the game. As someone who understands the game, I'm capable of scanning a page for the string of obscure numbers at the very bottom that links to the complete wiki for older version. A newbie is not. For this reason, there should be a prominent link in the center of the main page that directs people to the wiki for the most stable version of the game, which is still 40d. The number of people who've had problems with this is staggering. After a while, we need to reconsider our design decisions.
So, you think the wiki should forget the 0.31 players and set everything to link to 40d?
They likely would have heard '40d, 40d, 40d' over and over again on the forum. And they should be able to see and click v0.28.181.40d.
Hi!
Personally, I have found the new version to be stable enough and the improvements to the interface make it actually the version I would recommend to new players.
As for the old jokes, much more than having heard the elf hate and magma dumping a zillion times, the thing about suggesting that this is all there is to the game is what really bothers me. There are many different approaches to the game and you can play it much more freely in directions of evil and good (however you define those) than any other game, and yet, the those jokes give the impression that this game is only good for psychopathic people out to engage in slaughter and physical abuse. As such, I feel that it discourages full exploration of the potential of the game.
Deathworks
The 'old jokes' are much broader than that - like references to old skool rampaging elephants, dwarves fishing with their beards, and so on. None of it is necessarily canon, but it is pretty funny, and the wiki would be a poorer place without it.
There are many different approaches to the game and you can play it much more freely in directions of evil and good (however you define those) than any other game, and yet, the those jokes give the impression that this game is only good for psychopathic people out to engage in slaughter and physical abuse. As such, I feel that it discourages full exploration of the potential of the game.
My educated guess is that new players represent a disproportionate percentage of people going to the wiki. When going directly to individual pages they likely go there to (1) figure out what the hell a specific game concept/item/action is, (2) figure out how to accomplish an objective they've already formed, or (3) expand their general understanding of broad game ideas and themes.Correct. Approximately 50% of page views are from new (ie, never visited the wiki before) users. 83% do not have a user account. Of this final 17% with a user account, only 5% (so, a total of less than 0.85 of 1% of all wiki users) have been active in the last week.
For this reason, there should be a prominent link in the center of the main page that directs people to the wiki for the most stable version of the game, which is still 40d.Feel free to add one. I haven't gotten to it because of time restraints, and because I'm working on possible redesigns for the front page as well.
As for the old jokes, much more than having heard the elf hate and magma dumping a zillion times, the thing about suggesting that this is all there is to the game is what really bothers me. There are many different approaches to the game and you can play it much more freely in directions of evil and good (however you define those) than any other game, and yet, the those jokes give the impression that this game is only good for psychopathic people out to engage in slaughter and physical abuse. As such, I feel that it discourages full exploration of the potential of the game.
It be painfully obvious to everyone, by this point, that the way information is presented in the DF Wiki could be more ergonomic for some.
The DF Wiki should be as easy to use as possible, for everyone. Ease of use is even more important than the amount or accuracy of the information contained within, because it's harder to organize and edit the basic structure than it is the data.
This isn't the game, afterall. The Wiki doesn't need a high learning-curve, or an "iron man" sensibility.
The Wiki should endeavor to point us towards whatever information is currently the most useful to players, with a special emphasis on brand new players, since they need the most help, anyway.
Does that make sense?
Considering that whatever the Wiki is meant to be, it's certainly meant to be a helpful reference and a useful tool. Tools and references are only as valuable as they are useful, and a great deal of that usefulness will be determined by how quickly and easily information can be located.
Another facet to consider is that the DF Wiki could still go a great deal towards easing the transition between the 40d version and the current version (and future versions), if steps are taken promptly to ensure that this is the case.
This really should be the moment when the DF Wiki shines the brightest for old players and new players alike, as a central reference for everyone to use.
I hope atleast the opportunity will be taken to learn from these events.
This is an evolving game. There will be more versions in the future. It's important that the best methods be put into place so that past, present, and future versions of DF, along with all the other information in the Wiki, be represented in the most useful form possible, at any given time.
I'll definitely try to come up with some (more) concrete suggestions, but-to me, anyway-the conversation seemed to be drifting into argument area, over whether or not things even needed to be improved. I absolutely feel they can be, but until a majority get on the same page about that, there's a high risk of the improvement process getting stalled.
I've seen it happen many, many times.
Mason11987: I thought it had been wiped out. It was very unclear that it hadn't been, and not just to me. That was the point of my original post.
And there's a hard to find link on the main page. It was even harder to find before. It's since been improved, but that's because people have asked for it to be improved. Again, not just me.
Someone should have just pointed it out, yes. Clearly.
Out of context, what does "Ctrl-F Archive" mean? In other words, if noone tells you what it does--that that's how to find that information--then you aren't going to know. Again, that's the point.
Not that it's hard to do, provided you already know exactly what you need to, to make it work. It's really easy to speak Japanese, if you happen to be fluent in it. The point is that not everyone knows everything.
And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post.
As far as being critical: only towards the choice to delete things on a large scale, before there was anything to take the place of that information, and then the absense of clear directions to finding the old information. The Wiki doesn't work by osmosis, or divine grace. If there aren't clear instructions, then it shouldn't be assumed that visitors will automatically decypher what they're supposed to be doing.
I'm entirely supportive of the efforts to both help, and to maintain the Wiki in the first place.
For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.
For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.
Bottom of each page.
For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.
Bottom of each page.
For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.
Bottom of each page.
You're right. I must have missed that. In that case (in the interest of it being more useful), could it please be moved to a more prominent location?
It's pretty easy to miss, since I was looking specifically for it, especially on the empty pages that have a lot of blank space between the "Category" line and the physical bottom of the page.
And as far as that goes, it would be nice if the blue "Category" line were the bottom of the page. That would remove this exact type of confusion.
They care if it means a player is using outdated information that will cause them to lose their Fortress. Or if it costs an editor several hours of free time, searching for information in the wrong place.
The game gets updated, if not daily, then atleast weekly, with a new download often occurring semi-monthly.
Knowing when an article was last touched is beneficial not only to players, but Wiki editors.
It's still a case of the information not being very clear to newcomers, though, which is one of the main points I'm trying to get across, here.
And I'll grant that I might be using a different style, but it seems strange to me that it would display one way on the DF Wiki, and another way on the "other Wiki".
*Note: author of this post doesn't really give a crap what anyone thinks about this post, just that you take it into consideration.
Mason11987 wanted you to actually add good,solid suggestions. "You said you'd offer more concrete suggestions. You haven't offered one." And I still haven't seen one good one yet. Solid maybe, but good, no.
So far all you've suggested is unneeded fluff, everything you've suggested is already in the wiki, or completely unneeded. And you're trying to blame it on Mason11987 for your poor suggestions*.
It's like you are replacing magnetite with hematite*. It's unneeded, adds more work, and basically gives no gain.
So please, come up with a good, needed suggestion that isn't already in the wiki if you want to suggest something. Maybe then I'll agree with you. So come back with your adamantine suggestions and then we'll see what I think*.
I'm done checking this post to make it nice. Really, get over it's meanness.
Xgamer4: You have a point, but it's not the date being on the bottom that's the confusing part. The "familiarity with the internet" you mention is atleast somewhat nullified by the Categories line not being at the bottom, where it is in most other Wikis that I'm familiar with, including Wikipedia.
I can certainly offer suggestions for a Progress page, but then, I'm the one who suggested it in the first place, so shouldn't that could as "offering a suggestion"?
The other issue, and I quote, is "currently being worked on and there isn't really an automatic cure-all for it." I don't know what I'm supposed to add to that, other than whatever suggestions come to me.
I'm trying to help. If you want to complain about the suggestions I'm offering, then complain to the guy that didn't think I was suggesting enough.
This is just getting pulled more and more into "unwinnable argument" territory.
I'm sorry, is any of that supposed to make any kind of sense?Ok, mind me for being blunt here but WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?! Are you trying to enrage me?
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=DF2010:Magnetite What do we think of this sidebar?The object data needs to fill up that large empty space in the center instead of being on the side like that, or be anywhere other than where it is now. But otherwise it looks nice.
I agree with Tarran. Stop putting stuff in the sidebar. It's pointless. No one looks there, and it's not like the center of that page is absolutely teeming with information. Put the In the real world box in the center of the page and open by default.
Honestly, do we even need the box? It looks nice, but what's wrong with just putting the information under a "In the real world:" heading?
I think the obvious solution is just to move the object-information and real-world boxes at the bottom and in the middle, but slightly less wide than the main box text. You know, exactly like the object-information boxes were before. Anything else I've seen looks either ugly or extremely frustrating to read/work with.
What do you guys think of the color-coding option, as opposed to the boxes?
I think the obvious solution is just to move the object-information and real-world boxes at the bottom and in the middle, but slightly less wide than the main box text. You know, exactly like the object-information boxes were before. Anything else I've seen looks either ugly or extremely frustrating to read/work with.
This, this is how it should be. The center is completely empty, the sidebar is stuffed like a stuffed turkey. I mean, just look at the raws. Jeez.
Come on guys. This is pointless.Then be on topic! Be pointful! :P
Come on guys. This is pointless.Then be on topic! Be pointful! :P
As far as suggestions go, I've made several already in this thread, but how about giving some kind of timeframe as to when the empty articles are going to be filled? Is there any kind of ETA on that? It makes sense to me that, if you've already gone ahead and made this level of change to the Wiki, that you ought to have some kind of idea of when those changes will be more fully realized.
So how about some kind of progress report? That should make it more obvious that the Wiki is going through a period of major change to any casual visitor, and it would also help potential Wiki editors find what the current focus is on, and what needs more attention.
For that matter, how about listing the date any given article was last modified? That way, it would be easier to see how up to date an article was, just by looking at it.
Later: You're right. I must have missed that. In that case (in the interest of it being more useful), could it please be moved to a more prominent location?
Also, how about putting the "green box" on the main Wiki page? As an example, if nothing else, since it's referenced. That would go a long way towards reducing confusion, I would think.Done, the first link on the main page now goes there. Putting the same box doesn't look very good, but it's about as easy as it could be now.
Ahh, makes sense. Though there's always the (very extremely tiny) risk that you get in trouble for what others say. ;)
Ahh, makes sense. Though there's always the (very extremely tiny) risk that you get in trouble for what others say. ;)
Toady and ThreeToe are smarter than that.
That colored text is also distracting. believe it or not. And considering that will be placed on a white background with black normal text, it will be even more distracting.
Also,colored text,well,it's not as bad as colored boxes,but neither sound like attractive solutions.
I don't really know what here is worth reporting. People are having a discussion, and I for one think it's valuable to have improvements to the wiki discussed and visible frequently.
I don't really know what here is worth reporting. People are having a discussion, and I for one think it's valuable to have improvements to the wiki discussed and visible frequently.
I'll let them decide. Things were getting a bit heated for my reading pleasure.
Also,colored text,well,it's not as bad as colored boxes,but neither sound like attractive solutions.
In a perfect world, we'd all intuitively know what an author had in mind, and be able to instantly tell what's pertinent to the game, and what's a joke, or a real-life statement, etc. Unfortunately, we're not psychic, and therefore other means must be found.
I don't think colored text is perfect. I do think that it's easy for everyone to use, while being both more flexible, and not nearly as intrusive, as the boxes.
If we're going to have a vote, let's make it Forum-wide, and in another thread, since the Wiki's there for everyone to use.
It's not a "hundred different ways", Mason11987, it's one way, which we're taking pains to decide the best option for, rather than lumping a bunch of different things together.
And I agree with Deathworks: If you're going to commit yourself to creating a useful public Wiki, then shouldn't "user-friendliness" (as in, all users, including new ones that may just be skimming) be a priority?
DF, after all, has a GIGANTIC amount of information to take in. It's not real hard to miss something, even if you're looking for it.
"elven < human < dwarven" is about as bad as it gets.I agree. The first thing I look up since the DF2010 release is Immigration, and I see this "Human" label at the top. My first thought is that I want to know about dwarven immigration, not human immigration!
Honestly, part of the reason you get inundated with questions might be because "D for Dwarf" doesn't really strike me as something that automatically makes it obvious that the following information applies in-game. It just sounds like a catchy title that doesn't really say anything. So that might be something you wanna fix, too.
But ok, fair enough. A box works. Just, don't stick it in the sidebar and don't have it closed by default. That's pointless.
"elven < human < dwarven" is about as bad as it gets.I agree. The first thing I look up since the DF2010 release is Immigration, and I see this "Human" label at the top. My first thought is that I want to know about dwarven immigration, not human immigration!
This has been fixed on the wiki. Thanks to whoever made the change, it looks a lot better.
This has been fixed on the wiki. Thanks to whoever made the change, it looks a lot better.
Yeah, although the tags themselves are the same {{elven}} and such. And when you click on one of those links at the top it talks about Elven, Dwarven, and Human quality. Sooo...
Honestly, part of the reason you get inundated with questions might be because "D for Dwarf" doesn't really strike me as something that automatically makes it obvious that the following information applies in-game. It just sounds like a catchy title that doesn't really say anything. So that might be something you wanna fix, too.
But ok, fair enough. A box works. Just, don't stick it in the sidebar and don't have it closed by default. That's pointless.
Oh, I agree. the D for Dwarf template is rather terrible at accomplishing its goal, but (at risk of sounding like a broken record) I have not had time to mess with it yet.
A lot of these suggestions that have been posted are great, but you have to remember, if YOU YOURSELF don't attempt to put them into place, it's very unlikely someone else will. There's just not enough hours to do so.
Honestly, part of the reason you get inundated with questions might be because "D for Dwarf" doesn't really strike me as something that automatically makes it obvious that the following information applies in-game. It just sounds like a catchy title that doesn't really say anything. So that might be something you wanna fix, too.
But ok, fair enough. A box works. Just, don't stick it in the sidebar and don't have it closed by default. That's pointless.
Oh, I agree. the D for Dwarf template is rather terrible at accomplishing its goal, but (at risk of sounding like a broken record) I have not had time to mess with it yet.
A lot of these suggestions that have been posted are great, but you have to remember, if YOU YOURSELF don't attempt to put them into place, it's very unlikely someone else will. There's just not enough hours to do so.
Aw! I like the D for Dwarf stuff! Here, I made some alternatives to getting rid of it:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Feel free to fix it then. I'm trying to get to all of it, but it's a lot of work. If you want to complain without contributing, please remember that the people instituting these changes and fixes are volunteering their time and labor. I've spent almost 9 hours today fixing up minor things on the wiki, and I know other editors have put in comparable (if not greater) time.
Honestly, part of the reason you get inundated with questions might be because "D for Dwarf" doesn't really strike me as something that automatically makes it obvious that the following information applies in-game. It just sounds like a catchy title that doesn't really say anything. So that might be something you wanna fix, too.
But ok, fair enough. A box works. Just, don't stick it in the sidebar and don't have it closed by default. That's pointless.
Oh, I agree. the D for Dwarf template is rather terrible at accomplishing its goal, but (at risk of sounding like a broken record) I have not had time to mess with it yet.
A lot of these suggestions that have been posted are great, but you have to remember, if YOU YOURSELF don't attempt to put them into place, it's very unlikely someone else will. There's just not enough hours to do so.
Aw! I like the D for Dwarf stuff! Here, I made some alternatives to getting rid of it:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
What abour R for Real stuff?
Honestly, part of the reason you get inundated with questions might be because "D for Dwarf" doesn't really strike me as something that automatically makes it obvious that the following information applies in-game. It just sounds like a catchy title that doesn't really say anything. So that might be something you wanna fix, too.
But ok, fair enough. A box works. Just, don't stick it in the sidebar and don't have it closed by default. That's pointless.
Oh, I agree. the D for Dwarf template is rather terrible at accomplishing its goal, but (at risk of sounding like a broken record) I have not had time to mess with it yet.
A lot of these suggestions that have been posted are great, but you have to remember, if YOU YOURSELF don't attempt to put them into place, it's very unlikely someone else will. There's just not enough hours to do so.
Aw! I like the D for Dwarf stuff! Here, I made some alternatives to getting rid of it:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
What abour R for Real stuff?
Instead of D for Dwarf, how about U for Humor?
RE: Colored Text and Sections:
No. Just no. I am inundated with emails and IRC questions that ask me if something is true or not when it's in a D for Dwarf section. If we're going to put factual information in the wiki, it NEEDS to be in it's own box that makes it patently obvious that this does not apply to the game. An article section doesn't fulfill this requirement either, as it's not made obvious (as obvious as it might seem, it's really not) that the information is not applicable to the game.
Well, with different colored text you know the joke is somewhere in there. That's the problem.
Well, with different colored text you know the joke is somewhere in there. That's the problem. You can't laugh if you know the joke is coming up, You're ready for it. Just like you can't be scared as much if you know something scary is coming up soon.
Well, with different colored text you know the joke is somewhere in there. That's the problem. You can't laugh if you know the joke is coming up, You're ready for it. Just like you can't be scared as much if you know something scary is coming up soon.
Or you could go the other route: play scary music
Or you could go the other route: play scary music
Embedded MIDI! I knew I was missing at least one of the Geocities cliches.
Or you could go the other route: play scary music
Embedded MIDI! I knew I was missing at least one of the Geocities cliches.
To be fair, its still around. Hit up a MyFace page sometime. Then hunt around for the got tamned mute button.
Colored/shaded boxes are widely used in cutting-edge websites. Non-hyperlink colored text isn't. That's all you need to know.
Colored/shaded boxes are widely used in cutting-edge websites. Non-hyperlink colored text isn't. That's all you need to know.
Actually, it would be useful if you could give real, concrete reasons for why something is good or bad, instead of just randomly shouting out irrelevant examples of where something was used.
"This is bad because it's bad" isn't all "you need to know". It's just an excuse for not thinking outside of the (literal) box.
I'm not saying there aren't good reasons, but please give those reasons, instead of just examples of where something was used, without explaining why they're good examples.
I'm fine with boxes being used over colored text, provided you bother to come up with the answer to the question of why boxes are better. Following along blindly after what others might do doesn't seem like a good enough answer to me, and doesn't add a whole lot to the debate.
Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.
Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.
If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.
As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.
text texttexttexttexttext, texttexttext text, texttext, text texttexttext. texttexttexttexttext text.
texttexttexttext, text.
texttext texttext. texttexttexttext, text texttext.The distinction is actually with regards to inline text. If it's in a box, but still in line with the rest of the text, the visual distinction is ignored subconsciously. If it's no longer inline, then the visual distinction works (this is why block quotes are so effective at grabbing your attention).Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.
Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.
If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.
As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.
See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.
Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?
Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.
Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.
If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.
As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.
See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.
Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?
Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.
Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.
If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.
As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.
See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.
Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?
Box is another level of distinction, and "soft" (non-black) border makes it less cluttering.
Basically:
Soft text -> Ordinary text -> Cursive paragraph -> paragraph with margin -> Cursive parapraph with margin -> Softly-Boxed paragraph -> Hard-Boxed paragraph
(there are more, before boxed paragraph there is paragraph with left vertical line, etc ... there is whole textbook dedicated to how paragraphs of dirrefent types look. Sadly, most people who design web pages never even heard of it.)
Colored text is "Soft Text" and as such it is nearly worst choice on making distinctive paragraphs because it is even less distinctive than normal paragraph. Unless, of course, you user red text which is equivalent of using ALLCAPS.
Distinctive enough paragrah can be skipped with minimal effort on reader.
(Also, fyi, underlined text is veeeeeery evil and should reserved to hyperlinks and hyperlinks only.)
The overarching goal of the Wiki is to explain the game, afterall, not to make people laugh. Sacrificing some of the humor doesn't sacrifice the Wiki.[/quote]
The overarching goal of the Wiki is to explain the game, afterall, not to make people laugh. Sacrificing some of the humor doesn't sacrifice the Wiki.You are wrong.
What book are you referring to? I'm basing my knowledge off Graphics of Communication 3rd ed.
Fankly, i have no idea. I flipped throught it about ~8 years ago at friends place what i recall was that on left side was example of text with "enhanced paragraph" and on right side was short explanation of how it should work, how to technically provide i and suggested cases for which this formating applies. It also has huge section for headings, footers, graphs and whatnot. Something about "Art of Writing Textbooks", but i can't be certain.
Fankly, i have no idea. I flipped throught it about ~8 years ago at friends place what i recall was that on left side was example of text with "enhanced paragraph" and on right side was short explanation of how it should work, how to technically provide i and suggested cases for which this formating applies. It also has huge section for headings, footers, graphs and whatnot. Something about "Art of Writing Textbooks", but i can't be certain.
Blarg, lost a post. Apparently accidentally making FireFox 3.6 navigate "back" doesn't remember what you typed.
Check out this example (http://www.catalystgamelabs.com/download/previews/RC_03Characters_preview.pdf)* of some distinctive style side bars. Some of which take up a whole page (http://1.tinypic.com/sg4cpy.jpg).
*April Fools prerelease sample of ShadowRun 4e's Runner's Companion.
Your image link is bad. :(
Sorry. To elaborate: wikis in general, and the DF wiki in particular (to the best of my knowledge) is more than just a tool for information about the subject. It also provides an extra level of immersion into the game, which the jokes are an integral part of. I generally don't like the idea that a wiki should be a sterile source of information without any immersion, because it stinks of Stop Having Fun Guys.The overarching goal of the Wiki is to explain the game, afterall, not to make people laugh. Sacrificing some of the humor doesn't sacrifice the Wiki.You are wrong.
Your comment provides nothing helpful, useful, or otherwise constructive. Please refrain from posting things that are purposely inflammatory.
Your image link is bad. :(
Sorry. To elaborate: wikis in general, and the DF wiki in particular (to the best of my knowledge) is more than just a tool for information about the subject. It also provides an extra level of immersion into the game, which the jokes are an integral part of. I generally don't like the idea that a wiki should be a sterile source of information without any immersion, because it stinks of Stop Having Fun Guys.The overarching goal of the Wiki is to explain the game, afterall, not to make people laugh. Sacrificing some of the humor doesn't sacrifice the Wiki.You are wrong.
Your comment provides nothing helpful, useful, or otherwise constructive. Please refrain from posting things that are purposely inflammatory.
Er, what about articles that aren't good, but aren't small enough to be stubs? There's no place for them on the scale.I half a agree. A long confusing article is not a stub, but a concise informative one isn't either. In other words, "stub" implies both short length and a need for improvement.
"Stub" has nothing to do with the quality of an article anyway, just its size. A good article can still be a stub.
hmmmm.... okay. I get it. We'll have "stub" be a separate tag we apply to articles. And I'll change them to fine exceptional and masterwork.
Haven't you ever played Dwarf Fortress? Fine are the beds you give to your peasants.Fine means one thing in DF. It means something completely different in English (the language the wiki is written in). Game references and in-jokes are good only up until they conflict with common sense and usability. It's ridiculous to label the lowest quality articles fine. They are not fine.
hmmmm.... okay. I get it. We'll have "stub" be a separate tag we apply to articles. And I'll change them to fine exceptional and masterwork.
So poor-quality articles are "fine" now?
I think there's something about this that you aren't understanding.
It's not about "our requirements"; it simply doesn't make sense even at first glance for the lowest possible quality to be something positive.
If you're going to rate something, you need to be able to say more than good things about it.
Why fuck with something that already works?
Incomplete/Stub/Problematic Artcle
(regular) Article
Good Article
Featured Article
Done. Problem solved. That wasn't hard.
Human beings read the Wiki. Human beings who don't necessarily know a lot about Dwarf Fortress. That is not the place to hurp about how DF-nerdy you are. User-friendliness was already borked the fuck out by the namespace migration, but you don't need to make it even more impenetrable for people who just want to find out how wells work.
As far as I can tell, this rating isn't for "people who just want to find out how wells work." It's for contributors who are looking for articles that need improvement, and to them the labels are immaterial. This fact is reflected by how unobtrusive the ratings are -- the people you're talking about aren't likely to notice them at all.
They should allow the user to take a glance at how good the article is considered to be.
As far as I can tell, this rating isn't for "people who just want to find out how wells work." It's for contributors who are looking for articles that need improvement, and to them the labels are immaterial. This fact is reflected by how unobtrusive the ratings are -- the people you're talking about aren't likely to notice them at all.
"Aren't likely"? They are a conventional tool in Mediawiki systems and are the barometer for whether somebody who actually knows how a wiki works should bother with the article. Unless you have demonstrable metrics to say they "aren't likely" to be looked at by end users, I think you can't make that statement.
And the current ratings are plenty visible. They're right next to the article header, in colored text. I'm not saying they should be extremely specific and descriptive, but at the very least, they shouldn't be misleading, and casual users are the ones most likely to be confused by calling a substandard article "fine-quality", because they haven't argued about it on here, read the descriptions and committed them to memory, or get whatever jokes we'd be trying to convey.
For my part, if I'm right that the ratings are just to help contributors find articles that need work, then any label that implies a value judgment should be avoided, because it'll give people the wrong idea about what the rating system is for (c.f. this thread).
They are contributing their free time and energy for the community. And telling them that their effort was awful and rotten is not the way.
Does not the fact that it did not get a better rating already imply the problematic nature?
If an article is really containing incorrect information, should you not remove that information instead of putting a nice tag above it? And if the information is correct, then why can you not say, it is okay; not great, but okay?
Deathworks
I completely disagree with your opinion that ratings and other such comments aren't useful to readers.
They are, as long as they're informative. If there's something wrong with an article I'm reading, I want to know that.
And the reader doesn't really have a choice in this matter, what is on the page is what is on the page. It's not a Game FAQs walkthrough where you have 10 or 12 to search from and get to pick the one that has the best rating.
Hi!
G-Flex: There are two things I want to point out.
First of all, my argument about deleting completely incorrect text goes along with the problem Draco18s mentions:And the reader doesn't really have a choice in this matter, what is on the page is what is on the page. It's not a Game FAQs walkthrough where you have 10 or 12 to search from and get to pick the one that has the best rating.
It is counterintuitive to tell readers: "Well, this is the only information we will give you on wells, but even though it is a lengthy article it is actually incorrect and utterly useless for you. Have a nice day." (P.S.: I just picked wells as one item in the game, I have not read the wells' article in years (^_^;; )
Secondly, I still don't see the necessity to attack the contributors when commenting on articles on the wiki. As you say yourself, the wiki needs the readers to contribute. And you certainly encourage contributors by showing them that if their article is not perfect by your standards, you will publicly denounce it as "lousy", "rotten", or whatever.
- 1 | 2 | 3
Note that while the bottom ranked terms for 2, 3, and 6 don't have a negative connotation, at least they don't have a positive one.
2. Article | Good article | Featured article
The current labels are defective.
The quality labels are not defective because they convey the required information to the intended audience: editors.
It seems like the main questions now are 1) should the reliability warnings be separate from the grading, and if so, 2) should they use an implicitly numeric rating or non-numeric labels a la Wikipedia's "This article needs citations for verification"?
People are not agreeing on the intended audience.
Like I said, though, there isn't as strong a dichotomy between users and editors as you seem to think, and you seem to want to encourage there to be one.
Like I said, though, there isn't as strong a dichotomy between users and editors as you seem to think, and you seem to want to encourage there to be one.
I neither presume nor advocate a clear distinction between users and editors. I'm not sure why you think I would.
I do, however, recognize the fact that editors will likely have some baseline understanding of game concepts, including the concept of quality. If someone doesn't understand what quality means in DF I doubt they'd try to edit articles.
I largely agree with your statement regarding the desirability of turning users into editors, but I think it's more accurate to say that the purpose of the wiki is (1) to educate and inform new players of game mechanics and concepts, and (2) to consolidate game information from the forums and other sources for the use of all DF players. Obviously, I think the primary purpose of the wiki is to serve new players.
The question, then, is how do we do that? Questions regarding what form the quality labels should take should always start by asking what role they serve in furthering the greater purposes of the wiki. I believe that quality labels have little direct relevance for new players and primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) serve the second purpose.
You say we need to warn new players about unreliable/incomplete information on the wiki. I think the other mechanisms we have in place (D for Dwarf, disclaimer on the front page, discussion pages) sufficiently address this concern. I also think the quality of the articles is self evident, even for new players. I refer you to the examples in my prior post.
The only way I see quality labels being directly relevant to a new player, so new that they aren't familiar with DF's quality hierarchy, is if they see it, say "I wonder what that is", and click on it. Of course, if they do that, they will not only clear up any confusion regarding the article's quality but also have a chance to learn about the game concept "quality". :D
Except for the fact that over 70(!!) % of visitors to the wiki have NEVER played the game before. That's approximately 35k visitors per day who have never played the game before. (from traffic analysis, 91% of visitors have never visited the wiki before, 83% view one of the getting started tutorial pages for ~45 minutes or longer, and no other pages).
Like I said, though, there isn't as strong a dichotomy between users and editors as you seem to think, and you seem to want to encourage there to be one.
I neither presume nor advocate a clear distinction between users and editors. I'm not sure why you think I would.
I do, however, recognize the fact that editors will likely have some baseline understanding of game concepts, including the concept of quality. If someone doesn't understand what quality means in DF I doubt they'd try to edit articles.
I largely agree with your statement regarding the desirability of turning users into editors, but I think it's more accurate to say that the purpose of the wiki is (1) to educate and inform new players of game mechanics and concepts, and (2) to consolidate game information from the forums and other sources for the use of all DF players. Obviously, I think the primary purpose of the wiki is to serve new players.
The question, then, is how do we do that? Questions regarding what form the quality labels should take should always start by asking what role they serve in furthering the greater purposes of the wiki. I believe that quality labels have little direct relevance for new players and primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) serve the second purpose.
You say we need to warn new players about unreliable/incomplete information on the wiki. I think the other mechanisms we have in place (D for Dwarf, disclaimer on the front page, discussion pages) sufficiently address this concern. I also think the quality of the articles is self evident, even for new players. I refer you to the examples in my prior post.
The only way I see quality labels being directly relevant to a new player, so new that they aren't familiar with DF's quality hierarchy, is if they see it, say "I wonder what that is", and click on it. Of course, if they do that, they will not only clear up any confusion regarding the article's quality but also have a chance to learn about the game concept "quality". :D
I don't feel it's terribly productive or useful to try turning random Wiki traffic into editors... Those efforts would be better trained on Forumers--particularly, those who have been around for a longer term.
The Forums attract a more desireable audience. Not because they're inherently better informed, but simply because, if they aren't, it has a shot in hell of becoming apparent, when they start posting nonsense.
User-friendliness was already borked the fuck out by the namespace migration, but you don't need to make it even more impenetrable for people who just want to find out how wells work.
"Agree to disagree"?
Moving in circles happens when people don't focus on the issue. The current labels are defective. The reasons are visible.
People have for some reason compared them to the previous labels; this is completely irrelevant.
People have argued against having any labels at all. Also irrelevant.
Nobody has even tried to claim that this system doesn't have these defects. The only real argument has been about how much of an impact the defects have. Why would you object over something like this? Even if you don't think it's defective enough for you to take action, don't complain when someone else wants to. Some of us care about these defects and plan to fix them.
So here are some suggested alternatives. Even those of you who don't care about the flaws in the current labels are encouraged to criticize these and suggest more.
- Tattered | Fine | Masterwork
- Article | Good article | Featured article
- Bronze | Silver | Gold
- Lead | Iron | Platinum
- Stub | Article | Featured article
- 1 | 2 | 3
Note that while the bottom ranked terms for 2, 3, and 6 don't have a negative connotation, at least they don't have a positive one.
Do we have a reliable way to track all the people who visit the Wiki? Is there an easy way to see how long they've been interested in DF?
The Forum automatically solves both of those problems, as well as making it extremely easy to contact each individual editor, in private. Which, to my mind, is considerably nicer than publicly announcing that their hard work sucks.
It's putting to use the tools that we have, when we can take advantage of them, where we happen to have them already in place.
7.8 out of 100 overall wiki quality rating (approximate)
Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Main_Page#ixzz0negbDSdH
I have no idea why you're trying to make such a hard case for the Wiki being unconnected to the Forum. Both entities serve the purpose of informing players. Sure, there might be people who use the Wiki, and don't use the Forum, but why should they be such a special case?
Ok, it may be possible to keep everything divided up, and exclusive, but I hardly see why that would be anything other than a gross duplication of effort.
It's not at all necessary for the Wiki and the Forum to be two hostile camps.
All I'm saying is that the best place to discuss the wiki is on the wiki.
I agree with G-Flex. It is easiest if the talk pages are used, especially because an individual can click on the talk page and see all of the discussion about a topic stored in one place, which would not be an option if we divided into a forum.
Good and bad articles could, for instance, be presented on the Forum, and then analyzed and deconstructed, in much the same manner as ThreeToe's stories.
And people on the Forum who know a lot about a subject could be encouraged to write articles. For that matter, there's a great deal of information that's already here, that never shows up in the Wiki.
I think it's pretty clear from this thread, that part of the reason the quality levels of the Wiki are down so low is because whoever's running the Wiki is/are just a little bit out of touch with the rest of the community.
It would only help everybody involved, to increase the ties between Wiki and Forum.
QuoteI think it's pretty clear from this thread, that part of the reason the quality levels of the Wiki are down so low is because whoever's running the Wiki is/are just a little bit out of touch with the rest of the community.
You mean Locriani, who's posted here personally several times?
The 2010 namespace sucks right now because it's only been around for like, a month. Seriously. Consider how long it took for the previous version to get where it was, and that still had a lot of leftover crap from the 2D days that nobody ended up currently.
The 2010 namespace sucks right now because it's only been around for like, a month. Seriously. Consider how long it took for the previous version to get where it was, and that still had a lot of leftover crap from the 2D days that nobody ended up currently.
What reactionary views from the admins, though? I'm curious.
Aescula (Administrator, Check user) (Created on December 27, 2009 at 22:52)
Albedo (Administrator, Check user) (Created on March 22, 2009 at 19:04)
Briess (Administrator, Bureaucrat, Check user) (Created on September 15, 2009 at 10:52)
Emi (Administrator, Check user, Bureaucrat) (Created on March 11, 2010 at 14:32)
Mason11987 (Administrator, Check user) (Created on January 24, 2010 at 15:53)
Savok (Administrator) (Created on October 29, 2007 at 14:57)
Senso (Administrator, Bureaucrat)
Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop#ixzz0nf69caNK
Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop#ixzz0nf69caNK
Well, to set things off on the right foot: Is there anywhere at all on the Wiki that actually states who is, and who isn't, a DF Admin? Other than Briess, who's the only one listed on the "About Dwarf Fortress Wiki" page.
When the Admins won't even tell you who they are--that in itself should be something of an indication that there's a disconnectedness with any larger community.
Locriani's been quite nice and level-headed. There's no indication on atleast the main page of the DF Wiki that he/she is anything to anyone, however.
Which should be clear to anyone who actually bothers to read the thread.
Frankly, it's extremely frustrating and exhausting to constantly have to refer to things which have already been written, 6 pages back in a thread. It's a waste of time which only helps people who consistently can't be bothered to read what anyone other than themselves has written.
If you're so "curious", then start with my first post, put yourself in my perspective, and go from there.
The 2010 namespace sucks right now because it's only been around for like, a month. Seriously. Consider how long it took for the previous version to get where it was, and that still had a lot of leftover crap from the 2D days that nobody ended up currently.
Considering I updated the Quality page to include a GIANT chunk of information I knew was correct, or at least mostly correct,* it was reverted because "all of this is already on the 40d page."
*I put in all of 4 verify tags on stuff I wasn't sure about but was confident it was at least partially true, commented out or deleted stuff I really wasn't sure about.
Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop#ixzz0nf69caNK
Funny, I have no idea how you managed to find that link. Because it's sure not available anywhere on the main page, nor easily accessible via search.
Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop#ixzz0nf69caNK
Funny, I have no idea how you managed to find that link. Because it's sure not available anywhere on the main page, nor easily accessible via search.
Special Pages -> User list -> change settings to Sysops.
I do have to complain about it. It's a waste of my time, and for what? To prove that what's already there, was actually written, to people who weren't paying attention in the first place?
Footkerchief: You for one, of anybody on these Forums, should have some conception of how it feels to have to repeat information.
And the statement about them "tooting their own horns" is patently ridiculous. They're admins. As in, a governing and administrating body that is supposed to be held atleast somewhat accountable.
That's like saying your doctor or your professor or your state senator won't tell you their name because they don't want to toot their own horn. Can you even concieve of the reaction to something like that?
I do have to complain about it. It's a waste of my time, and for what? To prove that what's already there, was actually written, to people who weren't paying attention in the first place?
Footkerchief: You for one, of anybody on these Forums, should have some conception of how it feels to have to repeat information.
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.
Yup. It feels like my duty as a participant in a discussion.
Mason11987: I thought it had been wiped out. It was very unclear that it hadn't been, and not just to me. That was the point of my original post.
And there's a hard to find link on the main page. It was even harder to find before. It's since been improved, but that's because people have asked for it to be improved. Again, not just me.
Someone should have just pointed it out, yes. Clearly.
Out of context, what does "Ctrl-F Archive" mean? In other words, if noone tells you what it does--that that's how to find that information--then you aren't going to know. Again, that's the point.
Not that it's hard to do, provided you already know exactly what you need to, to make it work. It's really easy to speak Japanese, if you happen to be fluent in it. The point is that not everyone knows everything.
And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post.
As far as being critical: only towards the choice to delete things on a large scale, before there was anything to take the place of that information, and then the absense of clear directions to finding the old information. The Wiki doesn't work by osmosis, or divine grace. If there aren't clear instructions, then it shouldn't be assumed that visitors will automatically decypher what they're supposed to be doing.
I'm entirely supportive of the efforts to both help, and to maintain the Wiki in the first place.
In your browser, Ctrl-F does a "find" on the page, so you can find the archive link if you can't look around the page. It was a half-joke.
"And clearly, from your response, there's atleast some opposition here to making things easier to find than they currently are.
Which just goes to prove the accuracy and necessity of my post. "
There isn't any opposition to making things easier. There is opposition to saying "you got rid of things" or "there isn't any way to find it" which are the kind of things you're saying.
The way I think we'd wish people would go is say "where is this?" not "you got rid of everything". We obviously think it's easy to find or we would have done something different. If you point out it isn't easy to find, or that you can't find it without so much criticism then we can work to fix it. The fact that you think we're against improving it is why you're getting this response from me.
We ARENT against it, and we try very hard to improve it, but when we are attacked by people who don't even attempt the minimal effort (you didn't even look on the main page when you were TOLD it was there) and then those people tell US we don't care? It's a little frustrating.
The old information wasn't particularly easy to find for maybe a week? It's pretty easy to find now with minimal effort. Or if you disagree then tell us how to fix it. It's hard to meet your requirements for "ease of use" when you don't say what would meet that requirement.
The wiki isn't going to be exactly the same with regard to 40d as it was previously because a new release came out. It's never going to again be EXACTLY the same. If that's what you're looking for then I guess we won't meet your requiremetns. But if you want something less then everything for nothing then please offer specific suggestions.
You missed the entire point of my last post. You said you'd offer more concrete suggestions. You haven't offered one.
This isn't an attack. It's a criticism that you're treating as an attack, which goes some way towards justifying my claim of opposition.
And yes, I did look at the main page, repeatedly.
Once again from the top: I couldn't find what I was looking for. How many times do I have to repeat that? How many times do other people? It was confusing. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
As far as suggestions go, I've made several already in this thread.
Ok, this has gotten too far out of hand.
We're now proceeding to see which admins have said what and where, instead of focusing on HOW we can improve the wiki, given the limitations of the current wiki engine.
Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.
Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.
For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Real_World_Information) Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.
Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.
For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Real_World_Information) Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.
So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?
Ok, this has gotten too far out of hand.
We're now proceeding to see which admins have said what and where, instead of focusing on HOW we can improve the wiki, given the limitations of the current wiki engine.
Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.
You have to remember, without tone of voice, you have to assume best intentions or else any discussion will devolve into a mess.
Unless this discussion turns course quickly, I'll be asking to have this thread closed - the stress of trying to stay on top of this thread, along with my job, maintaining the current wiki, writing a new wiki engine, and trying to have some modicum of a life is giving me many grey hairs.
For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Real_World_Information) Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.
So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?
For anyone interested in this thread's real topic, here's the wiki page for discussing the inclusion of Real World Information. (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Real_World_Information) Hopefully moving the discussion there will establish a baseline of good faith for the participants.
So that the discussion can become even more confused and distracted?
There's a reason why people have been trying to create mock-ups of a better discussion page/thread style, and why Locriani is trying to write new wiki software and abandon mediawiki entirely.
And incredibly difficult to find new "posts"?
Oh yeah, I know. I'm all for that project. Just the wiki as it is does not have that functionality which is why I like the forum.
There's a reason why people have been trying to create mock-ups of a better discussion page/thread style, and why Locriani is trying to write new wiki software and abandon mediawiki entirely.
Oh yeah, I know. I'm all for that project. Just the wiki as it is does not have that functionality which is why I like the forum.
Um. This isn't exactly a flamewar, Locriani. If you can't handle the conversation, that's fine, but don't ruin it for everyone.What are you talking about again? Isn't this thread supposed to be for 'Real-world information in the Wiki?' and not this talk about admins? Briess had enough of it because you derailed it, Briess no longer wants to participate in this pointless argument.
Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?...
Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?
Why is this such an inflammatory, "chest-thumping" question?
Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?
Why is this such an inflammatory, "chest-thumping" question?
What the fuck? Seriously. Are you doing this on purpose?
The "real-world information" was referring to the inclusion of information about reality in the wiki, for in-game topics. How can you not know this? It was not referring to arbitrary information about the real world, like who's running the wiki, or who won the World Series in 1987, or what color my dog is.
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.
I don't have a clue what you mean about not being able to "track this page".
I never said that?
You're also assuming I didn't attempt to figure things out on my own.
Based on what? What evidence do you have? Any?
In every case (and I thought I stated it pretty clearly), I tried to come up with a solution on my own. And, when I brought up how confusing it was, I got blatant hostility in return. Not always from admins--who in most cases were pretty civil.
Things weren't as obvious to me as some others thought they should be. That might be entirely my fault, but even so, I should still be able to expect a certain amount of--non mocking--assistance.
Either way, the fact that things weren't obvious, and the fact that I didn't recieve what I would consider good help, led me to want to fix what I consider pretty large problems.
I fail to see how the wiki is confusing at all.
Guys, I think you've all made your points pretty explicitly, and everything seems to just be reiterations of the same now. This thread (and its original purpose) are ready to retire.
ed- grammars