v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
  • v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
  • Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion/Template for DFHack

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Given how central DFHack has become to the user experience of many users, and the frequency at which hacks/exploits/bugfixes involving it pop up in the wiki, I think there should be a special template for content involving DFHack, in adddition to the one used for mods. This way, new players can make the distinction between "I have to edit a few files to do this" and "I have to download a third party program and run scripts to do this". One is much less daunting than the others, and the players are better informed. Severedicks (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

With the prevalence of the LNP, I imagine most new players find simple DFHack tweaks *easier* than editing the raws--removing aquifers is a prime example (though the LNP makes it easier still with a simple checkbox in the launcher). The {{mod}} template exists primarily to differentiate non-standard content; since most references to DFHack are short and directly linked to the DFHack article, I'm not convinced that an additional template would be helpful. Can you cite a few pages that you feel would benefit from such a template?--Loci (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Any page that features a bug or feature omission where DFHack can prove critical:
Also, I don't think linking to the DFHack wiki page is very helpful. The DFHack article is a bit lackluster, probably because all the work went into the readthedocs website. Ideally there would be some kind of linking template whereby referencing, say, dwarfvet automatically links to the rtd page and paragraph (or even better: a way to build the documentation on the wiki), but that's probably too much to ask. A simple banner for DFHack stuff will be enough, I believe. Severedicks (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Your first example is exactly the type of situation that I was afraid of--you've got a template box and a section heading dedicated to a single sentence which already states that DFHack is required and links to the DFHack article just in case someone doesn't understand what DFHack is. What additional information could your DFHack template provide that would justify bloating a single sentence to 5x the size? I will grant that a DFHack notice template wouldn't seem unreasonable on a few of your examples where there is already a large section of DFHack-specific information (e.g. extinction and meat industry), but I really don't want to see every sentence on the wiki that mentions DFHack separated into its own section heading and accented by a template notice box.--Loci (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)