Difference between revisions of "Talk:Books"

From Stardew Valley Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(create page with talk header; tried earlier to avoid this, but the page is needed, and not for nonsense)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Talkheader}}
 
{{Talkheader}}
 +
 +
== Questioning an "error correction" edit, as to correctness ==
 +
 +
In reference to https://stardewvalleywiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Books&oldid=164377 , an edit of 5 April 2024 at 00:34.
 +
 +
: Regarding the opening two paragraphs: So the edit is saying that no "additional or increased advantages" come from a second reading of any book? That contradicts text that was present since before my rewrite, which explicitly listed 100 extra points. I would argue that points constitute advantages, so maybe the argument is about semantics. What is not advantageous about points? The other changes also shift the other sentences into different paragraphs, but that makes meaning less clear, because paragraphs separate topics, and the shift puts some of the text in the wrong topic.
 +
 +
: Regarding the lead to the power books section: The edit reintroduces the mistaken idea that books give powers. It is not the books that give the powers, it is the reading that gives them. The lead sentence now misleads the reader at its start, which requires a correction at the end, and may provoke a need to reread in order to understand clearly. More likely, it will generate confusions in some.
 +
 +
: The same edit adds the sentence "Subsequent readings of the power books grant 100 XP in a particular skill." Which skill? If different for different books, which skill with which book? And what skill would that be for the Animal Catalogue or Friendship 101? So, perhaps this doesn't apply to '''every''' power book but just to some. Which ones? The sentence is hopelessly vague, unintuitive, and is also an addition to previous info. Perhaps it was an attempt to add info to the article, but it can only cause more questions. If there is something to say, perhaps it could be better address in an additional bullet item to be placed in the description column of individual books?
 +
 +
: Finally, the lead to the skills book section, and reference back to the article lead: 1) [[Skills|skills]], or [[skills]]? This change is a reversal of reversals being done more generally throughout the Wiki. Which is it to be? The latter is inferior (in my opinion), simply because it depends upon the definition of a redirection within the Wiki. That's not what redirections are for, principally, and overloading their use may not be in the Wiki's best interest. But I leave that call to Margot, later, when there is more time.
 +
 +
: The meaty part of this last section is about saying skill books '''don't''' give extra skills when re-read. Really? That's not what the article seemed to say earlier. In fact, that seemed to be the point about re-reading, and the power books section now says it's about them instead, or something like that? So I think the confusions have all been bred by the ones I've mentioned for the power books section, coupled by the Wiki's use of the non-game book grouping we've been calling "skills books". Maybe they need a new handle. I tried to wedge the Queen of Sauce into skills by mentioning "proficiency in cooking", which I hoped would imply both cooking skill and a separation from the game-defined skills-by-points. The state of the article at present seems to show approval for that idea, but I think it's still trouble using the "skills books" label. Referring to "points" is problematic now that there are skill points and mastery points, and points in the game at which it's one or the other, but not depending on the books. If I think of a label I like better, I'll change it in the article, and others may try that also. But change is inevitable.
 +
 +
: I intend to proceed from the current state of the article, rather than going back to the specific edit discussed here, but I may reverse some language which was introduced in this edit. I invite discussion on any points I made here, or in future edits. Different ways of looking at the language are the essence of making language say what's needed to the most people. Thanks. [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 03:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:03, 8 April 2024

This talk page is for discussing Books.
  • Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • Put new text below old text.
  • Be polite.
  • Assume good faith.
  • Don't delete discussions.

Questioning an "error correction" edit, as to correctness

In reference to https://stardewvalleywiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Books&oldid=164377 , an edit of 5 April 2024 at 00:34.

Regarding the opening two paragraphs: So the edit is saying that no "additional or increased advantages" come from a second reading of any book? That contradicts text that was present since before my rewrite, which explicitly listed 100 extra points. I would argue that points constitute advantages, so maybe the argument is about semantics. What is not advantageous about points? The other changes also shift the other sentences into different paragraphs, but that makes meaning less clear, because paragraphs separate topics, and the shift puts some of the text in the wrong topic.
Regarding the lead to the power books section: The edit reintroduces the mistaken idea that books give powers. It is not the books that give the powers, it is the reading that gives them. The lead sentence now misleads the reader at its start, which requires a correction at the end, and may provoke a need to reread in order to understand clearly. More likely, it will generate confusions in some.
The same edit adds the sentence "Subsequent readings of the power books grant 100 XP in a particular skill." Which skill? If different for different books, which skill with which book? And what skill would that be for the Animal Catalogue or Friendship 101? So, perhaps this doesn't apply to every power book but just to some. Which ones? The sentence is hopelessly vague, unintuitive, and is also an addition to previous info. Perhaps it was an attempt to add info to the article, but it can only cause more questions. If there is something to say, perhaps it could be better address in an additional bullet item to be placed in the description column of individual books?
Finally, the lead to the skills book section, and reference back to the article lead: 1) skills, or skills? This change is a reversal of reversals being done more generally throughout the Wiki. Which is it to be? The latter is inferior (in my opinion), simply because it depends upon the definition of a redirection within the Wiki. That's not what redirections are for, principally, and overloading their use may not be in the Wiki's best interest. But I leave that call to Margot, later, when there is more time.
The meaty part of this last section is about saying skill books don't give extra skills when re-read. Really? That's not what the article seemed to say earlier. In fact, that seemed to be the point about re-reading, and the power books section now says it's about them instead, or something like that? So I think the confusions have all been bred by the ones I've mentioned for the power books section, coupled by the Wiki's use of the non-game book grouping we've been calling "skills books". Maybe they need a new handle. I tried to wedge the Queen of Sauce into skills by mentioning "proficiency in cooking", which I hoped would imply both cooking skill and a separation from the game-defined skills-by-points. The state of the article at present seems to show approval for that idea, but I think it's still trouble using the "skills books" label. Referring to "points" is problematic now that there are skill points and mastery points, and points in the game at which it's one or the other, but not depending on the books. If I think of a label I like better, I'll change it in the article, and others may try that also. But change is inevitable.
I intend to proceed from the current state of the article, rather than going back to the specific edit discussed here, but I may reverse some language which was introduced in this edit. I invite discussion on any points I made here, or in future edits. Different ways of looking at the language are the essence of making language say what's needed to the most people. Thanks. Giles (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)