Talk:Dwarf Fortress/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Rewrote the history section. I might take a stab at editing and expanding the gameplay section, and describing the general goals of the project, such as a planned development section, might be warrented. --65.185.222.223 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) AC2012

In addition to a development section, it might be worthwhile to add a section on the interesting parts of DF that don't involve either fortress or adventure mode, such as world generation, legends, the languages created for the game, ect. 65.185.222.223 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adventure Mode Stuff

Expanded the Adventure Mode section. We need to expand this a lot (without stuffing it full of things anyone can find on the main DF Wiki) so that it justifies having an entry. If anyone can think of anything else that should be done to the Adventure mode section, let me know. --Elaragirl 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Please don't hit me, but....

{{subst:Userbox | border-c = #996 | border-s = 1 | id-c = black | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 10 | info-fc = black | id = [[Image:Dorfs.JPG|Dwarf Fortress]] | info = '''[[Dwarf_Fortress|In Ur Base, Killing Ur Dorfs]]''' | float = left }}

Dwarf Fortress In Ur Base, Killing Ur Dorfs

E	This user is in ur fortress, killin ur dorfs.

Surely you mean

{{subst:Userbox|id-c=black|id-fc=gray|id-s=24|id=<tt>E</tt>|info=This user is in ur [[Dwarf Fortress|fortress]],<br>killin ur [[dwarf|dorfs]].|float=right}}

--Quuxplusone is so sorry 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made a nice clean version of the above, {{User:Chaos5023/Userboxes/Dwarf Fortress}}. It also reflects the fact that Dwarf Fortress 0.31.18 changed the elf glyph from E to e. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Include links to various forum threads?

Since the game owes much of its popularity to various forum threads such as the ones at Penny Arcade or Something Aweful, wouldn't it be a good idea to mention that in the article, and to dig up the links to the most prominent ones and include them at the end? James Lednik 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Sources such as those are likely to be evaluated as both questionable and unverifiable, not to mention prone to undue bias, and do not represent profitable means by which to improve this article. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples and Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for discussion of same. D. Brodale 06:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing it as a means to acquire sources or even new information, but as a resource to the reader. James Lednik (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the existing link to the official Bay 12 Games site is sufficient, as it isn't terribly difficult to find one's way to the forums from there. It's probably overkill to link to specific threads on those or other forums, as it seems reasonable people landing here will know how to use a search engine if so inclined and selection of "the most prominent [threads]" strikes me as problematic. Is it really notable to mention that the game is the subject of forum postings? Is that notable for any game in the Internet era? Would it convey anything meaningful beyond "people talk about game ________?" D. Brodale (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Dwarf Fortress Wiki links to those threads on their main page. The threads change quite frequently, and that Wiki will do a better job of keeping the URLs up-to-date.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this rationale, as well. D. Brodale (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So says D. Brodale, resident thesaurus. Nomor37 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

3D

Perhaps it is mentionable that the game recently changed from 2 to 3 dimensions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.224.11 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been pondering that. The change itself isn't all that significant except to those who are playing the game, but the fact that it's (now) a roguelike with completely three-dimensional maps is fairly unusual. I might do a bit of a rewrite to reflect that.--Father Goose (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not primarily roguelike in nature, but that's neither here nor there. At this point, it would seem that the most that could be said is that the game models three dimensions. D. Brodale (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The pictures should be updated to refelect the new 3d graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.112.89 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There are no 3d Graphics. The game takes place on several levels at the same time. X and Y define the level you are on while the levels move along the z axis. It still uses text symbols. 217.210.20.20 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DwarfFortressBuilding.png

Image:DwarfFortressBuilding.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

False alarm. We appreciate the effort, though. Don't know what we'd do without you.--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it you don't realize how many good images are deleted because of this petty rule "thanks" to B-Bot?  Grue  12:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-read my comment with the sarcasm filter turned on.--Father Goose (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another source

There's a GeekNights interview with Tarn here which is rich with possible development history references. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also see Gamasutra's interview with Tarn [1] - 123.176.41.38 (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention The Escapist, which features the game and the creator's views prominently. Someoneanother 10:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PC Gamer UK review

Was it really a review and not just an article? I'm living in the wrong house to check the mag right now but it's the sort of thing I'd think I'd remember. Mallocks (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could use a new picture?

The current image is at least 6 months old, probably over a whole year, and a lot has changed in this time. I don't know what wikipedia image guidelines are, but I believe that this article needs a new one, since the "3D" update back in january changed gameplay or at least design styles and the current image does not accurately represent this game anymore.

Unlike the image suggests, the world is no longer a large 2D grid with a near-vertical cliff face, it now(and has for quite a while) uses a 3D generated landscape split into multiple Z slices that can be viewed any time and show a tiny bit of what is below.

68.151.125.97 (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stories in Dwarf Fortress

Becuase dwarf fortress leans so strongly towards creating stories, and becuase th DF community is so prolific in doing this, should there be a section mentioning it? Possibly with quick descriptions of more famous forts? Boatmurdered is already mentioned, but Nist Akath deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.180.57 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nist Akath has a mention, in the external links area. Though possible to write a section based on this, it might not be worth having all that long a description. That sort of thing tends to freak out a lot of the wikipedia nutsos that feel the need to apply the rules fairly heavily.

--12.21.161.34 (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Losing is Fun

Someone should include the game's motto: 'Losing is fun'. As far as I'm concerned, this is completely true. Winning Dwarf Fortress is called 'getting bored of your fort doing well and abandoning it for a more challenging area'. I just don't know where to put it in. GrathXVI (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

There are a number of glaring inaccuracies stemming from this article being written primarily of older versions. For instance, it's now possible to be goblins in Adventure mode, without mods, if the world has zero or one other civilization. Also, you can read detailed engraving info in dwarf mode now. Thirdly, the bit about dwarven personality traits is a bit overstated, as I don't think anything matters right now except for likes, dislikes, and 'does not care about anything anymore'.

I'd fix these errors, but I'm at work and I don't really know how to do it in proper wiki style.--12.21.161.34 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think any of those are particularly worth mention in the article. The first two are minor details that you'll run into in only a couple of situations (you need an init option to read specific engraving details in fortress mode, for example), and the last one is correct, although I can't find a citation for it right now. Not all of the personality traits have an effect, but some of them do, I am sure. There have been reports of things like a dwarf avoiding the usual meeting areas and having "avoids large crowds" in their bio. 98.244.108.96 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Slaves to Armok

Should we provide a link to the first StA? I can't seem to find it... 68.54.90.179 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there isn't one. It was never released. Read the History section. Korodzik (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong. It was released a long time before Dwarf Fortress (I know, I played it back then.) You can find it here. It never really reached the point of being a fully stable, playable game (you could wander around and kill things, basically, just like a primitive but crude-3D-graphical version of the Adventurer mode in Dwarf Fortress currently), but it went through several releases and collected user feedback that later influenced Dwarf Fortress to an extent. --Aquillion (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Various Issues

2 things,

1. Shouldnt the two pictures with the Defualt Graphics (Ascii), and the Graphics be of the same screen shot, so to better show off the difference,
2. Shouldnt the "Graphical Graphics" use the built in Graphic Pack, as opposed to a user designed one? Corhen (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Upload two replacements, if you got 'em.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "self-reference"?

"Tarn Adams (the developer) stated that one of the over-arching development goals is to create a complex world in which stories naturally are created for and by the player in the process of playing"

This line was removed, because:

"Promotional line contains a self-referential problem a la Turing. Avoid self-reference."

Could someone explain the self-reference issue to me? Cheers, --Dreiche2 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea what an a la Turing is, but I agree with its removal. Even though the text has been attributed to Adams it contains meaningless flowery terms like "naturally", "complex" and "created for and by the player" - a dispassionate description would serve the reader a lot better, have no secondary sources approached it from a more neutral standpoint? Someoneanother 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the exact thing that happens already. By playing, you change the world and when you return to the same world switching to another adventurer or fortress you will not only rediscover the changes you made yourself, but also consequences of these changes that can be quite far-reaching. The game also pretty well creates stories without any player interaction both during world creation and during play. Think of, well, basically any game, where a new game does not take you to a blank slate or fixed point in time but continues the last save-game. --92.202.18.240 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogames assessment

Hello editors, this assessment is being carried out due to a request left at WP:VG/A. I have assessed the article as being C-class low-importance, the article is certainly coming along. Thanks to everyone for helping get the article this far. Here's some suggestions for future editing:

• C-class is the highest of the project's low-end ratings, and allows for incomplete articles and articles with problems which are going in the right direction, advancing to B-class is going to require a lot more work.
• The article's name is inconsistent with the name given in the lead, it's one or the other.
• An article's lead section is often short until the rest of the article is complete, since it should represent a summarized version of the entire article. Before Dwarf Fortress can be promoted to B-class it should have a more complete lead, but that's only going to be possible once the rest of the article is brought up to scratch. See video game Good Articles for examples of good lead sections.
• Ideally the article would be laid out like this: article lead > gameplay > development > reception.
• History and development are the same thing and should be merged.
• Development, reception and gameplay all need filling out and referencing using full citations (like reference #10), reception in particular is nearly non-existent.
• Under what is currently the history section there's a paragraph starting: "Dwarf Fortress has garnered a review in the December 2006 issue of PC Gamer UK..." This seems to be more about asserting notability so the article doesn't get deleted, rather than providing information to the reader. That it was featured on X/Y/Z isn't important, what those publications actually said about the game is. This section needs moving to reception, and filling out with what these reviewers actually said rather than just highlighting that the game was reviewed.
• Make sure sources are reliable by Wikipedia's standards, also try to reduce or eliminate forum postings being used as sources, they're undesirable and more likely to vanish than reviews and articles.
• There's a lot of short paragraphs featuring only a couple of sentences, try to group them together into larger paragraphs - small paragraphs look messy and artificially inflate the size of the article.
• Under gameplay: "..in-game territory distribution and NPC background stories." Remember who you're talking to; someone who may know nothing about gaming or fantasy settings. Try to avoid acronyms like NPC altogether, but at the very least make sure the first instance is spelled-out with the acronym in brackets afterwards; non-player characters (NPCs). Also remember to wikilink anything which the reader may be unfamiliar with, explaining it briefly if possible to prevent the reader having to go to another article just to see what they're reading about.
• When wikilinking to other articles within the text body make sure you do so when the word first appears. For instance, the term "dwarven" is used in the article lead, yet it isn't wikilinked until the second paragraph of gameplay, which is currently the second section after the lead.
• As a general rule communicate things in as few words of possible while avoiding slang, make sure what you're writing about is relevant within the section and in the greater scheme, a writer can improve his or her own writing just by skimming over existing text after giving it a break for a few days.
• The external links section is slightly larger than is appropriate, in my humble opinion. I don't think the gameplay examples are particularly relevant to the core subject, and the link to the official forum is unnecessary - it's on the main site which is already linked. Please consider reducing it to the main site and the wiki if possible.

That's it, if any further information is needed then everyone's welcome on my talk page, to discuss it here or to enquire at the videogame project. Happy editing. Someoneanother 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdated development section

I added an outdated template to the dev section, as it is no longer accurate. Someone needs to clean it up. Toady doesn't do everything himself now, he's got another guy, Baughn, working with graphics, I suppose?.. And the graphical part of the game (only) went open source.

Also, the "Arcs" section should be updated and indicate at which date it was current, the "now" reference is bad, "as of ..." would be much better. Kav2k (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloodlines vs Succession Games

Minor quibble: Article equates succession games with Bloodline games ("succession games, also called bloodline games") despite the fact that Bloodline games are actually a specific type of succession game where each player has only one turn (rather than rotating through a small number of players). This definitely isn't notable enough for the article, but maybe remove the "also called bloodline" part? From the DF wiki: "A particular type of succession game is the Bloodline game, in which players do not alternate turns, but instead rule for one year each and pass it on to the next willing ruler."

Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Succession#ixzz0mkvBmAZc 24.68.132.208 (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

PC Gamer

PC Gamer interview here is a good new source. Also includes some screenshots of 3rd party software "Stonesense" and tileset "Mayday Green", so a section on community participation may be viable. Marasmusine (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Slaves to Armok II: Dwarf Fortress → Dwarf Fortress — The current title is wrong, and no one ever uses the ridiculously long full title. 155.33.172.164 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Dwarf Fortress is the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There are two different long forms of the game title, but nobody uses either one; it's always "Dwarf Fortress" in common usage. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Removal of Redirect

Okay, so why does "Liberal Crime Squad" redirect to the Dwarf Fortress page? I mean, the only part that says anything about Liberal Crime Squad is "Previous to Dwarf Fortress, Bay 12 Games created Liberal Crime Squad, another strategy game utilizing roguelike ASCII graphics. Liberal Crime Squad is a political satire focused on a fictional extremist organization, Liberal Crime Squad, based on the historical Symbionese Liberation Army."
That's it! I don't really see how this page is relevant to Liberal Crime Squad, except for being developed by Toady One aka Tarn Adams.
So, vote, I guess? 84.143.35.190 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC) The redirect makes no sense, and the mention of LCS in this article feels wedged in as an attempt to justify the redirect. 74.136.255.7 (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect shouldn't exist, but I don't know how to express that. Sdmitch16 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to material

The link to materials in the Dwarf Fortress section has nothing to do with the actual value. Perhaps the page Item value is more apt? 207.63.174.142 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another outdated portion

Magma is now findable everywhere if the player digs deep enough down, the magma pool mention in the Fortress Mode Gameplay section should be changed.96.238.183.8 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft See Also

As I stated in the edit summary, both Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft are low graphic (at best) indie games that are in beta, but have a cult following. They are two very similar games in that regard, and there are parallels between the two. Therefore, a reader visiting the Dwarf Fortress article would perhaps be interested in reading about this similar game. WP:SEEALSO says that Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. - SudoGhost™ 21:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And in response to your edit summary "I could argue that battlefield and call of duty games should link, but they don't." Battlefield 3 does indeed link to Call of Duty. It does not do so in a See Also section, because the wikilink naturally fits into the body of the text, making the placement in a See Also section redundant and unnecessary. - SudoGhost™ 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I concede based on the 'peripherally related to the one in question' clause. I argue against you warning me twice after I requested we move it to this dicussion page however before continuing the arguement yourself. - ™ —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Based on WP:SEEALSO, do you then object on the Minecraft entry in See Also being restored? - SudoGhost™ 21:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I purely objected on how gameplay was dissimilar and how there is very little overlap. I do not think this subject is really worthy of a large discussion and so restoring the link will be easier. However I would have thought a discussion on adding it in the first place would have been better instead of there being an argument for it's removal. I also think that the arguments for adding it are purely based on a lot of people's misdirected opinions that minecraft is a '3d dwarf fortress' when it isn't in terms of gameplay at all and so a link might be misleading in terms of how deep minecraft is or how it plays. Jokiros (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying DF is not "deep"? First off that is irrelevent. Second, What???? Colincbn (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that the NYT article, below, makes a comparison with Minecraft as well. And Tarn's reaction in there makes it clear that he sees it, too. --Aquillion (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NYTimes Article

[2] --MASEM (t) 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Project Apple?

Apart from the fact that this can be played on Mac computers, what reason is there for this to be covered by this project? I noticed that this was added by a bot, so could it be that the bot made an error? Akjar13 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It should probably be removed.Aattss (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fortresscraft?

I don't see the reasoning in linking both Minecraft and Fortresscraft in the See also section given that one is just a knockoff of the other. Therefore I replaced it with Dungeon keeper, a much more relavant example 205.250.186.36 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Minecraft article states "The gameplay is heavily inspired by Infiniminer by Zachtronics Industries,and Dwarf Fortress by Bay 12 Games." thus we keep the minecraft link. The FortressCraft article (a console only game) states "The game's credits cite Minecraft, Infiminer, Dwarf Fortress and others as an influence/inspiration." and so it stays as well. Dungeon Keeper doesn't seem similar to DF in any way apart from the fact that there are things to fight. In DF you designate things to be done and then dwarfs may or may not do them. Dungeon Keeper has it where you do things yourself. There is no relevance. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 09:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly some similarities between Dungeon Keeper and Dwarf Fortress, notably the independently acting units and the building/digging system, so I'd say a link would be warranted. --Conti|✉ 09:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as Fortresscraft I don't think that just because it's creator mentioned Dwarf Fortress as an inspiration makes it worthy of being mentioned. As shown in the references in the fortresscraft article the only reason it is given any attention is because it is a "clone" of minecraft. As such i don't think anyone reading about dwarf fortress has any need to know about it. For Dungeon keeper, I think it should be mentioned given that both are examples of a base building games, of which there are few other examples. Voron10 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Redundant reference to "praise"?

In the Development and Reception sections, there are identical references to the same interview, etc. I am suggesting the removal of the less important of the two references: "Development"?... >:3 Thaavatar (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the one in development is because it leads into the fact that Toady is the sole programmer, something that is uncommon in many games (though common in indie granted). In Reception, multiple sources are mentioned, but as this is where they belong, there is no problem.

I see no reason to remove either reference as if we merely removed a tag, someone would stick a 'citation needed' tag on it. If we are going to rmove one, then I would remove the pointer to reference '3' in the Reception section, since it needs to be mentioned in development. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 08:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

PC Gamer feature

Don't think this is referenced in the article: Steve Hogarty, Dwarf Fortress diary: How seven drunks opened a portal to Hell, PC Gamer August 9 2011. This was in print edition 228 and is presumably the feature referred to in the Bay Games links section. Quite a bit on the mechanics and stuff. bridies (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a great feature that can help quite a bit with third party sourcing. Someone should add it. I'd do so, but I'm the GAN reviewer and I know nothing about the game aside from what's in the article. --Teancum (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hell

I removed the part about hell. It is widely considered a spoiler in the dwarf fortress community. I think it is not good to have spoilers in a Wikipedia article, which might very well be someones first acquaintance with the game. Even on the dwarf fortress wiki there is a spoiler space on the respective page. http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Hell

Eventually the player may dig all the way to the bottom of the map and encounter magma, as well as adamantine, an incredibly strong, light, and sharp-edged material that can be used to create the best weapons and armor in the game. Digging too deep, however, will cause the player to breach hell, unleashing a likely game-ending swarm of demons into the fortress. As the game has no predefined ending or final challenge, breaking into hell and defeating the demon swarm is seen as the greatest challenge of all.

--Saeritoo (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edit in question because Wikipedia does not respect "spoiler" status of information. I'll also note that the "widely considered a spoiler" status of this information in the DF community is heavily winked and nodded at; the number of players who have ever encountered Hell first in the game rather than on the DF wiki is statistically equivalent to zero. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

MoMA "bought" Dwarf Fortress?

I very much doubt the accuracy of this edit, because what's in the article doesn't appear to be supported by the reference at all, in any way. It's extremely unclear what "MoMA of New York bought Dwarf Fortress" is even supposed to mean, because I doubt they now own the game rights, and the source itself says absolutely nothing about a purchase of any kind. The only thing that appears (again, not clear) to be shown in that source is that a worldgen map image was given to MoMA (The source says "Gift of the designers", nothing about a purchase), so I don't know why the {{not in source given}} tag was removed and replaced with yet more information not in the source given. - SudoGhost 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This user reserves the right to completely screw up their own edits.

My apologies SudoGhost. This article history shows that I removed the tag in this edit, but the diff matches neither my edit summary nor my memory of what I was trying to do, so I seem to have botched the edit somehow. Are you ok with this rewrite? (I presume the problem in the diff you linked stemmed from a misreading of the paragraph here about acquiring the source code of these games to ensure their preservation.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly better, I just wish we had more context in the source, and could clarify without question what exactly was donated, because the source doesn't seem to be very clear on this. I tried to find some sources that might elaborate but haven't found anything as of yet. The map itself is my guess, and it makes sense (to me), but I think the article needs something better than a logical conclusion. - SudoGhost 05:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mountainhome

What exactly is a mountainhome, as referenced in the lede? is that a neologism for this game? what do dwarves usually live in, mines, like in LOTR?99.31.166.229 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Learning curve—steep vs long anything else

A learning curve plots time on the x-axis and success on the y-axis. Thus the more frequent the successes, the steeper the curve. In common usage this is often misused (steep implies difficult). The phrase in the lede "steep learning curve" is at best ambiguous; I propose substituting "long learning curve" to match usage later in the article.--72.145.219.206 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Dwarf Fortress does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff, flowing with no fewer than 999 lavafalls." -- http://www.cracked.com/funny-6021-dwarf-fortress/

I am glad that you brought this up. I agree that we should use the same term in both places, but that alone does not tell us which to change.

I believe that our Learning curve article is in error, but of course I won't try to fix it while we are discussing this here -- that would be cheating.

In popular usage in the context of gaming, a steep learning curve plots how much you have to learn about a game on the vertical (Y) axis and how far you can get playing the game on the horizontal (X) axis.

In other words, if you can start playing a game with minimal training, the curve starts out shallow, but if you have to go through extensive training before you can do anything useful, that is a steep learning curve. For example, in a few minutes you can learn how to play a legal game of Backgammon or Checkers. You have to learn more before you can even start to play Chess or Poker, and you have to learn a lot just to start playing the Civilization board game.

A long learning curve is a different concept altogether. Tic-tac-toe has a short learning curve -- in no time at all you are a perfect player with nothing left to learn, while Go has a long (but shallow) learning curve -- easy to learn, hard to master.

Doing a web search, I find lots of examples of both uses. An excelent place to start searching is at [ http://www.google.com/images?q=learning+curve ] We should discuss this and see if we can reach an agreement, but after that it might be worth discussing at WT:MOS. --Guy Macon (talk)

How about difficult learning curve. If we want to say DF's difficult then let's say diffficult rather than misuse a technical term.--74.176.46.189 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

First you have to establish that we are indeed misusing a technical term. I don't think we are. Then you have to establish that this has even the slightest effect on the readers of this page. Wikipedia has a strong bias towards calling things what most people call them. You have to provide a good reason for not using the term that is in common use. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the first several images on that Google search, the only one not conforming to the formal definition is a cartoon that doesn't define either axis. The x-axis is conventionally the independent variable (e.g., time, effort, or attempts). Searching for "learning curve definition" or "learning curve axis" leads to the occasional debate, but none of the results I checked failed to mention the connection between a steep curve and fast learning.

If we are, in fact, discussing relative ease or difficulty of learning, then I'd say educational psychologists would be considered expert opinion and long, extended, protracted, or difficult curve would be less likely to be misinterpreted than steep. If the term learning curve cannot be used without confusion, maybe a different term should be found.

However, I'm no longer sure that a learning curve is what was intended. What you seem to be describing with tic-tac-toe and go sounds like barrier to entry or at best conflated with it. Let's use something like that or great initial effort. Otherwise, the slope of the plot you describe is effort per improvement which sounds more like rate of return than learning curve. Perhaps explicitly state efforts per improvement.--74.176.46.189 (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How about we just frame the sentence in double quotes: (reviewers have pointed out its "extremely steep learning curve" which makes picking up the game especially challenging, and mastering it even more so?) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the reference cited in the article [3] doesn't actually use the word steep.--74.176.46.189 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides noting the obvious silliness of our discussing cracked.com as if it was a reliable source, it says "Dwarf Fortress does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff..." now when you picture a cliff in your mind, does it bring to mind the concept of "steep", or does it bring to mind the concept of "duration"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The addition of 999 lavaflows to the cliff does nothing to increase the cliff's steepness. It would, however increase the difficulty or serve as a more formidable barrier to entry.

1) The phrase learning curve exists as a technical term.

• "a curve plotting performance against practice" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learning%20curve
• "Graphical representation of the common sense principle that more one does something the better one gets at it. Learning curve shows the rate of improvement in performing a task as a function of time, or the rate of change in average cost (in hours or dollars) as a function of cumulative output." http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/learning-curve.html
• "a graphic representation of progress in learning measured against the time required to achieve mastery." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learning+curve

2) The word steep has a specific, accepted meaning in this context.

• "As you can see, the chart is steepest at the beginning, when a person first starts learning how to play Tetris. The beginner gains knowledge quickly, learning the game in just a few minutes." http://cockeyed.com/lessons/learning_curve/learning_curve.php
• "And the steeper the curve, the easier the learning." http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/61762/The_Learning_Curve
• "But we are not talking about hills, we are talking about curves, and in this case steep means “changing quickly”. And since the curve being discussed is a “learning curve”, that means “can be learned quickly”." http://malaher.org/2007/03/pet-peeve-learning-curve-misuse/

3) Uninformed users may get this specific meaning confused.

• "People often speak of a steep learning curve when they mean the opposite. A steep learning curve is one in which skill improves quickly, meaning something is easy to learn." http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch07_cognition/learning_curve.html
• "As Atherton further elaborates, it is incorrect to use the cliché “steep learning curve” to imply that something is difficult to learn. In fact, just the opposite is true." http://books.google.com/books?id=Tz4phAPYbPEC&pg=PA411
• "The phrase “steep learning curve” to describe a difficult-to-master skill is mathematical nonsense." http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/steep.html

4) As used in this article, steep learning curve is imprecise language and should be replaced with something else.--74.176.46.189 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is prescriptive. It is not. Wikipedia is descriptive. We prefer a term that is in common use over a more correct one. A Google search on +"dwarf fortress" +"long learning curve" -"wikipedia" returns 57 results. A Google search on +"dwarf fortress" +"steep learning curve" -"wikipedia" returns over 1,000 results.

Because some people don't understand how to best use Google, here is the best methodology:

Search on +"dwarf fortress" +"long learning curve" -"wikipedia" I got "About 269 results".

Click on the very last page of results. I got "Page 3 of 27 results"

Click on the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link. and once again go to the very last result. I got "Page 6 of 57 results". So 57 is the actual number of pages Google indexed.

Now repeat the experiment with +"dwarf fortress" +"steep learning curve" -"wikipedia" and use the same methodology. I got: "About 9,120 results" then "Page 46 of 456 results", then I ran into Google's 100 result page limit, which limits the maximum number you can get with this method to 1,000 or less. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice explanation, so the term stays. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

9000 results is not a big enough amount to show usage of a term. Wikipedia does not use Google hits to see what is in common use, it uses reliable sources. What matters is which sources are using the term, and are those sources authoritative? There's also the need to properly explain the topic. If a term is ambiguous, we can use it but must point out its ambiguity. Diego (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Read it again. The correct numbers are 57 and 1,000+ That 57 is significant.

The term isn't even slightly ambiguous. You, I, and even 74.176.46.189 all know exactly what "steep learning curve" means. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this isn’t about prescriptivism versus descriptivism. This is about ambiguity. For example, the word inflammable may be taken to mean either highly flammable or non-flammable. You reverted the original edit saying “'steep learning curve' does NOT mean easily acquired.” The references above show that it can have that meaning. An effective editorial style will bypass the ambiguous term and use the clearer, more direct one.

As to the google popularity contest, +"dwarf fortress" +"difficult" -"wikipedia" (Page 91 of about 253,000 results) has even more hits than +"dwarf fortress" +"steep learning curve" -"wikipedia" does. --74.176.46.189 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, People think DF is difficult, and single words get more Google hits than 3-word phrases. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

"Dwarf Fortress has a steep learning curve" http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Losing

"Dwarf Fortress is quite notorious for its steep learning curve, which is really more like a sheer cliff face" http://dfstories.com/learn-to-play/

"In addition to its incredibly steep learning curve, Dwarf Fortress is an insanely difficult game" http://www.geekosystem.com/dwarf-fortress-turing-machine-computer/

"Dwarf Fortress, renowned for its steep learning curve and almost bizarre level of depth." http://games-tec.com/dwarf-fortress-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-strike-the-earth/

"Steep learning curve, ASCII graphics, astonishing depth." http://www.lemonpunch.net/threads/dwarf-fortress.4171/

"One of the things that attracted me to Dwarf Fortress was that it had a super-steep learning curve." http://www.gaslampgames.com/2010/07/16/game-design-dialectic-dwarf-fortress-and-goblin-camp/

"Dwarf Fortress is the deepest, craziest game you'll ever play. If you overcome the steep learning curve, that is" http://www.desura.com/games/dwarf-fortress/reviews/370771

"this games graphics are the terrible, and its learning curve is like running into a wall" http://www.indiedb.com/games/dwarf-fortress/reviews

"My initial aim is, after all, to do battle with and hopefully overcome the game's steep learning curve through sheer wherewithal and stick-to-it-iveness." http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/25/dwarf-fortress/page/2

"As the above-right picture shows, Dwarf Fortress has a very steep learning curve." http://stuartgames.blogspot.com/2012/05/roguelike-review-dwarf-fortress.html

"Despite its steep learning curve, complicated interface and nonexistent graphics, Dwarf Fortress is one of the finest city building simulations ever made." http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/7618/article/top-7-best-city-building-games-boss-builders/

I can post another 500 or so if the above isn't sufficient. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's Ok to use the term if it's used by reliable sources. It's not OK to have it in the article unsourced, and it's against NPOV to use it unexplained with one meaning when there are reliable sources pointing out that it can be used with the opposite meaning. Diego (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW of all those links, only Wired can be considered a reliable source for popular computer culture (and it's not a reliable source for linguistics). We can say that several game review sites are using the term "steep learning curve" if we have it properly defined, otherwise it's better to use the proper term and call it "difficult" so that truly anyone can understand it-and not only Dwarf fortress followers. Diego (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead of learning curve states "The familiar derogatory expression "but it has a steep learning curve" is intended to mean that the activity is difficult to learn. In fact, it means the exact opposite: if the curve is steep then one makes rapid progress." It seems clear to me that the expression should be abandoned altogether in favour of something else. (Another problem I see is whether "learning" is the amount of knowledge or the rate at which knowledge is accumulated - the gradient of an experience vs time graph.) What about "The game's complexity/difficulty to learn..."? Adabow (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: "The lead of learning curve states..." I believe that our learning curve article is in error and, depending on how theis discussion goes -- I intend to fix it.

In popular usage in the context of gaming, a steep learning curve plots how much you have to learn about a game on the vertical (Y) axis and how far you can get playing the game on the horizontal (X) axis. Our learning curve article correctly gives the definition used in cognitive science, then mistakenly tells the reader that the most common usage is incorrect. Wikipedia should report what the popular and scientific usage is without saying that one or the other is wrong. I have every intention of fixing that, but of course I won't try to fix it while we are discussing this here -- not only would that be cheating, but the comments here will no doubt be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not cheating if you use reliable sources to support the assertions you make. You'll find that I've already corrected the learning curve article, although more reliable sources on usage of the term with both meanings are welcome. Diego (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Abandoning the expression is up to the journalists writing the reviews. If reliable sources use it with the "difficult to learn" meaning, it's OK for us to reference that meaning -as long as we make it clear which one of the opposite meanings our references are using. (The "Learning curve" article wasn't exactly well sourced, either. I've given it a rework trying to find a NPOV and resolving the ambiguity, which certainly exists and is documented). Diego (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• We all agree that steep learning curve is a commonly used term in reference to this game, and while it may be technically incorrect, it's not up to Wikipedia to judge. However, I would tend to give non-negligible weight to 74.176's point that it can be ambiguous; it is widely used but potentially incorrect. It is ambiguous because someone reading the article who really knows the definition of a steep learning curve might assume it means the opposite of the idea of difficulty it is actually meant to convey. I'm not saying it must be changed but I am in favor of exploring alternatives. For example, saying the "game's mechanics are very difficult to learn" (or something analoguous), cited to the many sources mentioning a "steep learning curve", could continue conveying the exact same idea of difficulty while removing all ambiguity and potential incorrectnes. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Certain terms (a standard example is "decimate" when the intended meaning is "devastate") are so commonly used in a way that is technically incorrect that virtually everyone who knows the technically correct usage also knows the popular usage and thus cannot possibly be confused if you use the term the way that 99% of the public actually uses it. Thus we do not have to correct every usage of "decimate" or "learning curve", because there is no confusion and everyone knows exactly what is meant.

The opposite of this would be "inflammable". In this case fewer than half of the people use the term incorrectly and there are a significant number of people who use the term correctly without being aware of the incorrect usage. The National Fire Protection Association encourages the use of "flammable" instead of "inflammable". Of course language purists (who appear to think that anyone stupid enough to think that "inflammable" means "not flammable" deserve to die a fiery death) object to this. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As I was reading the thread, I thought of "decimate", too. I'd say there are enough people who are aware of this contradiction to make it ambiguous, and for that reason, avoid using the word. I believe there are fewer who understand that "steep learning curve" means the opposite of what most people use it to mean, but still enough to make it ambiguous, and therefore avoid it. It's a rich language – there are plenty of synonyms, metaphors, and similes to go around. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 for "difficult learning curve". —chaos5023 (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind "difficult learning curve". It isn't as commonly used as "steep learning curve" is, but I don't think that matters because it is self-explanatory; anyone who knows what a steep learning curve is will instantly understand what a difficult learning curve is, even if they have never seen those three words together before. Does anyone object to changing both "steep learning curve" and "long learning curve" to "difficult learning curve"?

+2 for "difficult learning curve", that seems like that best way to go. Explains it in a correct way and doesn't use any wrong term. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes to using difficult learning curve. --74.176.46.189 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Learning curve II

It appears that we have a clear consensus, so I made the change. Please double check my wording and improve as needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The only problem is that the article is now inaccurate; the article says "Several reviewers have noted that the game has a difficult learning curve" but none of the sources support that, and after I tried to look up exactly what a difficult learning curve means, it turns out that it doesn't appear to be a term used by anyone regarding any subject let alone this one, especially not in any way that is defined. "Difficult learning curve" sounds ridiculous and is not a term used by reliable sources to describe the subject. If the concern is ambiguity the answer is not to invent a new term and hope its meaning is clear, because that is even more ambiguous; difficult to learn would be a better solution if we need to ignore what reliable sources say. If we're going to be overly technical beyond common English usage, then a learning curve is not "difficult". It's not a matter of replacing the word "steep", because it's a common phrase: "steep learning curve". Replace that one word and its no longer a commonly used phrase and you start getting into what a learning curve actually is, and when you do that it's not a matter of replacing a single word because the entire meaning is changed. When the meaning is changed that drastically it gets into WP:OR territory since reliable sources are using the common phrase, not any technical meaning. - SudoGhost 00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I, of course, support SudoGhost's revert 100% (I am a big believer in WP:BRD). The problem is that "steep learning curve" is used overwhelmingly in the sources. I was willing to compromise on "difficult learning curve", but on reading SudoGhost's argument above, I am persuaded that I was wrong and he is right. (Don't they take away your Internet license for saying "I was wrong"?) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree with "difficult to learn" or some paraphrasing of it, which accurately portrays the idea expressed by the sources and removes any possible ambiguity or incorrectness. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "difficult to learn" does not accurately portrays the idea expressed by the sizable number of sources that use the phrase "steep learning curve" (apparently believing that their reader would understand it, I might add). "Difficult to learn" says nothing about "when" the difficulty occurs. "Steep learning curve" is a specific claim that you have to learn a lot just to get started -- the phrase "climb a cliff" is often used. Chess is more difficult to learn than Dwarf Fortress, but it is far easier to get started even though you can study Chess for a lifetime and still have much to learn. Dwarf Fortress has a much steeper learning curve than Chess; I can teach you how to play a legal game of chess in half an hour, and basic tactics such as pins and forks in another half hour. Good luck trying that in Dwarf Fortress.

If we want to replace the phrase that the majority of the sources use (see SudoGhost's comments above for a compelling argument that we should not) at a bare minimum the replacement must convey the main point of the phrase it is replacing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"In popular usage in the context of gaming, a steep learning curve plots how much you have to learn about a game on the vertical (Y) axis and how far you can get playing the game on the horizontal (X) axis."

Maybe we can use this in the article. Can we find a reliable source for this definition? I'm having trouble. Will anyone help --72.145.226.105 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds wrong. I'd expect the X to be time spent playing and Y to be a measure of proficiency (like levels achieved in a specified time, score, etc.). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

References

New Tarn Adams page

I have linked the new Tarn Adams page and also changed the redirect for Liberal Crime Squad to it instead of here, since it is briefly mentioned on the page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Page overhaul, will copy from my sandbox

I've been working on a draft on this which is currently in my sandbox for sometime. As of now, it's still a rough version and I may take around a month to finalise it and copy it here. The main changes are major expansion (with numerous sources of course) especially of the "Gameplay" section and answering the previous GA review issues. Will update here when I make progress and post all the changes in more details. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my sandbox draft and will copy-paste it here soon. The gameplay section has been expanded and it's quite large--I hope I'm well within WP:VGSCOPE. I've expanded the Development, Reception, Community and added a Legacy section too. Among other things, I've included Minecraft being its inspiration and it being compared to Dungeon Keeper and Simcity. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Also changed its genre from "City-building" to "Construction and Management" per sources. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 2

The title "Slaves to Armok: God of Blood Chapter II" implies there is a Chapter I... anyone know what that's called? Elf Fortress? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The original Armok; Dwarf Fortress initially was a side project that then evolved to a full game.

[Adams] dubbed the game as Slaves to Armok, God of Blood II: Dwarf Fortress; Adams explained that it was a sequel because it continued to work on much of Armok's code but said its cumbersome name was mostly "for kicks."

— First release (2006)

--Maths314 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dwarf Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151007010831/http://www.ugo.com/games/geek-game-simulators-dwarf-fortress to http://www.ugo.com/games/geek-game-simulators-dwarf-fortress

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section

This talks about the legacy of the game on history and stuff but I came looking for an explanation of something else.

The Download Page looks as follows at present:

DOWNLOAD DWARF FORTRESS 0.42.06 (February 10, 2016)

SDL: Windows | Windows (No Music) | Linux | Mac (Intel)

Legacy: Windows | Windows (No Music)

Older Versions

Does anyone know what the meaning is of the 'Legacy' row here? When I hover each link it they are all 42_06 but the 'legacy' ones also have that in the name. What is the difference between SDL and Legacy? This should be explained to new players who want to get the game and don't know which version to select. Ranze (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacy means version of Dwarf Fortress that does not use SDL library, as the way it was when it first came out. SDL/OpenGL version is a port done by other people, rather than Tarn Adams. However, that kind of info might run afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE - Hope I'm not way too late. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 04:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I would have reverted this but I realised that I myself am unsure about the number of ELs put here. There's the official website forums (where the main is already linked in article), there are those about various game event/sagas (places mainly because various RSes covered them) and then there's our Cracked.com article. Here are some points to consider:

1. The Cracked.com article passes WP:ELNO easily and falls within WP:ELMAYBE.
2. I don't think the official forums can pass any criteria, official site already linked.
3. Those about sagas, especially "Boatmurdered" were mentioned multiple times by RSes. I don't know what counts when you place an RS link which further links you to the actual fansite. Doesn't being referenced count? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just kept #1, two sagas are linked via RPS and IG.com . Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Will a link to the DF wiki be acceptable? WP:ELNO part 12 disqualifies wikis except those with stability and many contributors. I'm not really sure how to measure that criteria. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. But I prefer thinking of ELNO #1, #2 and #11 when it comes to wikis, so probably not to be included. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

ELNO doesn't disqualify citations, correct? It seems that the only reliable source for Adventurer Mode would be the DF wiki. Mount2010 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Then that would fall under WP:RS where Wikis are a strict no-no, see WP:UGC. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Adventure mode section outdated

While Dwarf Fortress mode may be the main game mode for the game, the Adventure mode section for this article is out of date with releases (specifically the 0.43 releases) and needs updating. Things I spot:

• 1. "(usually to slay an outlaw or megabeast),"
This isn't applicable in the latest releases, as more quests have been added. Also, the words "megabeast" and "outlaw" are more related to the game and may not be clear to the average reader.
• 2. "unlike Fortress mode, it is turn based." Fortress mode is also turn based, as you can see by pausing the game and pressing "." to move forward a "step" (turns).
• 3. Lacks infomation about building and crafting in the latest releases (can be omitted as per WP:NOTGUIDE though)
• 4. "starts off in a random town" Much more starting conditions are available. I suggest mentioning them briefly.

Mount2010 (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 1. Outlaw is a common word and I recall that megabeast is explained in the Fortress mode section. 2. True, but that isn't the definition of turn-based; this works irrespective of whether the player acts or not. Sources needed too. The remaining points can be addressed with respect to any new references found covering it.

Even years back, when it was during the GA review, the length of this section was a concern. I couldn't find any WP:VG/RS-compliant source covering it at the time. Maybe now after all these updates, there might be a few. I've been busy these days but it would be great if anyone could give it a shot. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The rumor system addition is good but the dfwiki ref had to go. I've found a decent I think ref; by expanding from it really lavishly, now the section is two paras. So the sourcing problem is still a slight issue, the text isn't 100% referenced per se. We need to strengthen it further. There are these two custom search links in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List which might turn up new refs if one keeps digging. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources I found via Google:

[[4]] This article includes a interview with Tarn and should be reliable.

[[5]] Another interview.

Should cover most of the unreferenced text right now, given that these interviews cover a wide range of topics about Dwarf Fortress. Mount2010 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if we should re-summarise Adventurer mode before talking about the features of Adventurer mode. When I read the section, it seemed that the lack of a summary made the text organised and hard to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mount2010 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources are good (one is already used), but I can't find them mentioning adventure mode much.

How should we go about improving it? Currently there's "Overview and game modes" which summarises it, so just reading the Adventure mode alone will make it sound incomplete. So, from here, "it's the secondary mode"--isn't that repeated? The player controlling a single character is also implied, since we just said and linked it's a roguelike/RPG. We shouldn't expand it further without sources like the rumor system, literature and building since we can go on and on about so many other features left out too. The gameplay's size was always an issue, even with sources it was necessary to trim it down, so imagine how it would be without that limitation. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The current section misses some sources, but I think it's okay to repeat the summary, else the other statements get taken out of context. I recall seeing a article on the rumor system (and literature), in Dwarf Fortress, but Google doesn't show anything. Mount2010 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)